Visit Counter
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
What's the difference between a teacher and a professor?
Back in the day, a teacher, among other things, taught you right from wrong.
In the current environment, a professor teaches:
Right is wrong. Left is right.
And parents will pay upwards of $30,000 a year for the privilege of having their kid brainwashed.
The dripping slime of Hollywood
Georgina Chapman could be awarded $12MILLION in divorce settlement
Harvey's Weinstein's estranged wife may have had her heart broken, but she isn't broke.
Stop here before I puke. Take a good look at this photo. She married this revolting slob for one reason $$$. If he was the manager of the local Wal-Mart...? The sexual allegations against him undoubtedly she's known about for years and is perfectly ok with. Why? She prefers having him bonk the liberal sleaze of Hollywood thus sparing herself the indignity of sleeping with the filthy troll.
In the end, "heart broken" trying to save her blissful marriage she now faces the grim prospect of walking away with $12 mil.
Hollywood...ain't it grand?
The luxury label fashion designer and ex-Hollywood studio head's humiliated wife, Georgina Chapman, could pocket nearly $12million if the couple divorce within the next 12 months.
The once-happy family 'celebrated' 10 years of marriage Friday - marking a new milestone in the couple's multi-million dollar prenup, in favor of Chapman.
In court documents detailing their marital assets, Chapman is listed to receive $400,000 annually in the case of divorce, beginning a decade after the pair wed in December 2007, according to TMZ.
Georgina Chapman could pocket nearly $12million if she files for divorce from Harvey Weinstein. The estranged wife is pictured with the disgraced movie mogul at a friend's engagement party in September.
Of course, there's the possibility after all the lawsuits she'll be looking for that Wall-Mart manager.
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Can't say I'm surprised
Bill Clinton caught by the SS sneaking out of the White House to visit his mistress
Since we have been swept away by a current of sexual allegations which took place 20-30-40 years ago shouldn't we revisit the Clinton escapades?
Clinton makes Weinstein look like Barney Fife.
-----------------------------------
Bill Clinton was once caught trying to sneak out of the White House - apparently to visit a mistress - by hiding under a raincoat in the back of his personal lawyer's car.
The former president was stopped by a Secret Service officer at the gate who inspected lawyer Bruce Lindsey's vehicle and was shocked to see Clinton inside.
Lindsey pleaded to be allowed to pass but the uniformed officer held firm and radioed for backup. The officer said: 'You better get me some help here.
'I just caught Bruce Lindsey trying to drive out with the President with a raincoat over his head'.
The incident was recounted by former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne - who guarded the Clintons - in his new book, Secrets of the Secret Service: The History and Uncertain Future of the US Secret Service, which is out next month.
President Bill Clinton was once caught by a Secret Service officer trying to sneak out of the White House to presumably visit a mistress by hiding under a raincoat in the back of his personal lawyer Bruce Lindsey's car. Pictured: Clinton in Washington DC in 1999
Lindsey had pleaded to be allowed to pass but the officer radioed for backup. The officer said: 'You better get me some help here. I just caught Bruce Lindsey trying to drive out with the President with a raincoat over his head'. Pictured: Clinton and Lindsey in 1998
Byrne does not reveal the nature of Clinton's excursion but says that he would routinely sneak out to visit his 'well known and less well-known mistresses' in Washington DC.
Such trips were known as 'Off The Record' or OTR, a privilege normally reserved for somber occasions such as visits to the families of dead servicemen.
But Clinton supposedly began to use them for his secret assignations which left the Secret Service outraged.
The undated episode with the raincoat left the senior agents 'past fury', he writes.
The book says: 'They were dejected, disappointed, bewildered and shocked. They tried to remain diplomatic but they had to be adamant with Bruce Lindsey that this would never happen again'.
Clinton's attempts to 'sneak off' became something to look out for after the raincoat incident, which led Clinton to using OTR trips to his own ends.
Byrne writes that Clinton 'abused' this freedom and on one occasion it nearly cost a Secret Service agent his life.
Clinton's mistresses are said to have included a blonde woman who has been to his house so many times that his Secret Service detail have given her the nickname 'Energizer'. The buxom woman is supposedly driven to his upstate New York home in an SUV after his wife Hillary leaves in an elaborate maneuver to ensure they never meet. Pictured: The Clintons in 1997
Former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne did not reveal the nature of Clinton's excursion on the day of the raincoat incident but says that he would routinely sneak out to visit his 'well known and less well-known mistresses'. Pictured: Clinton with Monica Lewinsky in 1998
On a normal trip, the President was part of a motorcade which blazed through red lights with sirens going to ensure he could not be attacked.
Any trip required cooperation from the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department, which blocked off roads to prevent a terrorist attack and to keep people away.
But Clinton asked for everything to be changed 'at the last minute' when he wanted to make his trips out of the White House with less security and less attention.
The Secret Service 'capitulated' but Clinton wanted trips that were, even more, secret than that, meaning the agency did not have enough time to plan for proper security.
According to Byrne, the new arrangements 'eliminated layers of protection all together' meaning that the remaining security layers were disjointed.
All of this put the service personnel and the public at 'extreme risk', Byrne claims.
The Clintons allegedly forced their agents to collude in the 1996 'Chinagate' scandal in which the Chinese government was accused of using shell companies to donate to Democrats to buy access for Chinese goods to be imported to the US
Previous extracts from the upcoming book, Secrets of The Secret Service, have revealed that the Clintons forced the agency to undermine itself by 'systematically destroying' the rules that were put in place for their protection.
Agents were forced to collude with the Clintons in the 'Chinagate' campaign finance scandal in 1996 by ignoring the contents of brown paper bags brought into the White House by Chinese officials.
Byrne says that the problem was compounded by Secret Service leadership mistakenly thinking that the Clintons were 'invincible'.
He writes: 'The view from the front lines, however, was that something, somehow, was bound to ensnare them. It was simply a matter of the right scandal'.
Clinton's mistresses are said to have included a blonde woman who has been to his house so many times that his Secret Service detail have given her the nickname 'Energizer'.
Byrne's book paints a picture of an agency in crisis which could be a danger to President Trump
The buxom woman is supposedly driven to his upstate New York home in an SUV after his wife Hillary leaves in an elaborate maneuver to ensure they never meet.
Clinton is also said to have given orders to his Secret Service detail to not ask his mistress any questions and just 'let her go in', according to another author, Ronald Kessler.
Whilst in office Clinton survived impeachment proceedings when he admitted having an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Clinton also paid out $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment cause brought by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee.
Lindsey, from Little Rock, Arkansas, was a permanent fixture of Clinton's inner circle, especially in times of turmoil.
The advisor to the president found himself in the spotlight during the Monica Lewinsky scandal when he was subpoenaed to testify in front of a grand jury over allegations that he attempted to silence women who claimed to have sexual encounters with Clinton.
The Georgetown alum is still close with Clinton, serving as counselor to the chair on the Clinton Foundation Board of Directors, and from 2005 to 2017 he served as the chairman of the board.
Lindsey handles potential Clinton scandals, as a leaked email from last October shows he was made aware that foundation staffers in 'protected' classes would slap the organization with lawsuits if they learned they were making less than their colleagues in comparable positions.
These 'protected' classes referred to women and minority groups.
Last October it was also revealed that Lindsey received an email from the foundation's director of foreign policy in 2012 that informed the board that Qatar, an Islamist state in the Persian Gulf, would be handing Bill Clinton $1 million check for his birthday.
Both of the correspondences were released by Wikileaks and came from the hacking of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails during the height of the 2016 presidential election.
LeBron James sends message with black and white shoes, speaks about Trump
Fact:
93% of blacks are murdered by other blacks.
It would take cops 40 years to kill as many black men as have died at the hands of other black men in 2012 alone!
LeBron James made a statement during an NBA game with his shoes — one black, one white, with the word "equality" in capital gold letters on the back of each.
Then, after the game, James made a statement about President Donald Trump, saying: "This is a beautiful country and we're never going to let one person dictate how beautiful and how powerful we are."
Earlier this year, James called Trump “a bum” on Twitter and also said at Cleveland’s preseason media day: “He doesn’t understand how many kids, no matter the race, look up to the president of the United State for guidance, for leadership, for words of encouragement. He doesn’t understand that, and that’s what makes me more sick than anything.”
No asshole...your the one who doesn't understand.
Bottom line. 100 blacks could die per day killed by other blacks and it's not a problem.
A cop kills one a month and it's a fucking catastrophe!
Bottom line. 100 blacks could die per day killed by other blacks and it's not a problem.
A cop kills one a month and it's a fucking catastrophe!
Monday, December 18, 2017
"Project Cassandra"
This is the real story of Barry looking out for us during the Iran nuke deal. In his desperate attempt to close the deal at any cost he allowed Hezbollah to finance its terror operations by smuggling cocaine into the USA. So not only was he going to let Iran self-inspect themselves, we come to find out Project Cassandra was one of those 'side deals' we heard about. This is a jailable offense. I have lost all trust, if there was any left, in our government. This article is not from The Daily Caller, Breitbart, or FOX.
From Politico no less.
Not exactly your far right media source.
The cast of characters who committed crimes during the Obama years is far more vast than Weinstein and the rest of the sexual perverts in Hollywood. The FBI, DOJ, CIA and the IRS, just to name a few, are infested with corruption while they systematically undermine the country...because they know what's best.
No difference between them.
Compared to the internal affairs of our current government Watergate was a speeding ticket.
Blacks kill more blacks than the cops and whites...COMBINED!
324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
Over the past 35 years in America, an estimated 324,000 blacks have been killed at the hands of fellow blacks, proving “racist” white cops are the least of their worries.
By Pete Papaherakles —
There is now no doubt that Michael Brown was rightfully killed in self-defense by officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. The grand jury conclusively decided this was the case, and all the evidence confirms that decision. Yet most of the media, blinded black leaders and liberals still try to make the case that the biggest problem today in America is white cops killing innocent black males. This myth has been repeated over and over again, but, according to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks have more to fear from fellow blacks than they do from police officers across the country.
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph William Louis “Rudy” Giuliani was excoriated by the mainstream media for citing statistics that prove white cops killing black males is minor compared to the thousands who are killed every year by other blacks.
During an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on November 23, Giuliani told blacks who were accusing white police of killing them that “white police officers wouldn’t be there if you weren’t killing each other.”
Giuliani pointed out that “93% of blacks are killed by other blacks.”
After the other talk-show guest, Georgetown University Professor Michael Eric Dyson, questioned that statistic, Giuliani responded by citing another figure from a 2010 Bureau of Justice Statistics report that did, indeed, conclude that 93% of black homicide victims from 1980 through 2008 were killed by black offenders.
This reporter took a look at the 2007 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report. In that study, the agency reported that blacks were victims of 7,999 homicides in 2005. It corroborated Giuliani’s claim that 93% of blacks were killed by other blacks, or about 7,440 murders in that year alone.
A six-year FBI study conducted between 2007 and 2012 found that, on average, local police forces kill 400 people every year in America. Of those, only 96, or 25%, involved blacks killed by white police officers.
It is worth noting that, according to the nonprofit New Century Foundation, of the nearly 1 million violent crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites in America, blacks commit 85% and whites commit 15%.
Faced with an overwhelming lack of evidence to support their claims, rather than concede the myth of white cops killing black males the liberal media went after the FBI, claiming the agency lacked transparency.
Eventually, a Wall Street Journal analysis uncovered that, “hundreds of homicides by law enforcement agencies in the U.S. between 2007 and 2012 are not included in FBI records.”
The Journal analyzed “the latest data from 105 of the country’s largest police agencies,” and “found more than 550 police killings during those years were missing from the national tally or, in a few dozen cases, not attributed to the agency involved. The result: It is nearly impossible to determine how many people are killed by the police each year.”
Assuming this discrepancy is correct, the adjusted yearly death tally would rise to 492 police killings per year, bringing the number of blacks killed by white police officers per year in the U.S. to 105.
Putting these figures in perspective then, for every black killed by a white police officer in the U.S. every year, there are about 71 blacks killed by other blacks.
Worse, if you take—on average—9,252 black-on-black murders every year for the past 35 years, you arrive at a staggering 323,820 blacks killed by other blacks on America’s mean streets in just three-and-a-half short decades.
The problem, of course, is that this grim statistic will never be mentioned by Al Sharpton, the liberal media or any of the other race baiters out there, who are busy pointing the finger at racist white policemen killing “innocent, unarmed black children.”
By the way, last year 105 policemen were killed in the line of duty. This year 112 have been killed to date. That’s more than the number of blacks killed by white policemen, yet Sharpton sheds no tears for any of them.
Are they finally coming to their senses?
Geert Wilders calls for Trump-style Muslim travel ban in Europe
When Muslims are allowed into your country what's the first thing they do? Start bitching about the country they just migrated to!
Don't have to tell you what the second thing is.
------------------------------
Dutch Freedom party leader tells far-right gathering in Prague Europe should also turn back migrant boats like Australia
Geert Wilders called for a ‘totally new strategy’ which might include building border walls. Photograph: David W Cerny/Reuters
European countries should adopt Donald Trump-style travel bans to counter a wave of Islamisation supposedly sweeping the continent, the Dutch anti-immigrant politician Geert Wilders has said.
Wilders, the leader of the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV), made his comments at a gathering of far-right leaders in Prague. He also urged Europe to adopt Australia’s tactics in turning back migrant boats and to build new border walls, as Trump has vowed to do along the US frontier with Mexico.
Wilders was flanked during his press conference by France’s Front National leader, Marine Le Pen, and Tomio Okamura, the leader of the Czech Freedom and Direct Democracy party (SPD), which finished joint third in the recent parliamentary election with nearly 11% of the vote.
Security was tight at the press event, held at a hotel just off Wenceslas Square, apparently in recognition of death threats against Wilders in response to his fierce denunciations of Islam.
Wilders, who was convicted last year by a Dutch court for incitement against Moroccans, cited US research he claimed showed that the Czech Republic would be bordered to the north, south, and west by countries that were more than 20% Muslim by the middle of the century if current demographic trends continued.
“It will be almost as if you are bordering a kind of Gaza Strip on almost every border,” he said.
“We must adopt a totally new strategy. We must have the courage to restrict legal immigration instead of expanding it, even if we sometimes have to build a wall.”
Trump’s travel ban, which applies to six Muslim-majority nations plus North Korea and Venezuela, has been one of his most controversial policies. It has been the subject of various challenges in court, and rulings that have overturned and suspended it. The US supreme court ruled this month that it could be implemented for now while numerous challenges were resolved.
The Prague gathering came at an encouraging moment for the organizers, the European parliament’s populist Europe of Nations and Freedom grouping,. The Austrian Freedom Party (FPO), one of the participants, became the only far-right party in government in a western European state on Friday, after joining a coalition with the conservative People’s party.
That followed a year of setbacks for Wilders and Le Pen, who failed to make the electoral breakthroughs many had forecast. The PVV remains in opposition in the Netherlands after a poorer than predicted parliamentary election result last March, and Emmanuel Macron beat Le Pen in the second round of France’s presidential poll in May.
A similar meeting last January in the German town of Koblenz was held amid euphoric expectations of major successes in 2017.
Le Pen said Europe’s rightwing groups were linked by a belief that the European Union was a “catastrophic, disastrous organization” and that the migration flows were “unbearable”. She also praised Okamura, with whom she said she had been working for many months.
Tokyo born-Okamura, the son of a part-Japanese father and Czech mother, said the parties were defending European values.
Wilders, Le Pen, and Okamura later received rousing ovations at the weekend’s main event, a conference at the Top Hotel, a nondescript Communist-era building in Chodov, a bleak suburb several miles from the center of Prague.
The venue was cordoned off, a police helicopter hovered overhead and riot police monitored two groups of leftwing protesters.
“The dangerous thing is that the extreme views we see on display here have entered the mainstream, with even the Czech Social Democrats accepting them,” said Honza, a protest organizer who declined to give his full name for safety reasons.
Similar mistrust was evident inside, where security personnel scrutinized journalists closely and escorted them to and from a sectioned-off area.
The independent British MEP, Janice Atkinson, a former UKIP member, invoked the Czech fight against communism, the failed 1968 Prague Spring and Margaret Thatcher to encourage her audience to campaign for a Czexit referendum that could enable the Czech Republic to follow Britain out of the EU.
“As Margaret Thatcher said, Europe is stronger precisely because France is France, Spain is Spain, Britain is Britain and, just as important, Czech is Czech,” she said. “Long live the Europe of nations. Long live the Czech Republic.”
Saturday, December 16, 2017
Gregg Jarrett: Did the FBI and the Justice Department, plot to clear Hillary Clinton, bring down Trump?
Comey edits reveal announcement on Clinton investigation was watered down.
There is strong circumstantial evidence that an insidious plot unprecedented in American history was hatched within the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to help elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
And when this apparent effort to improperly influence the election did not succeed, the suspected conspirators appear to have employed a fraudulent investigation of President Trump in an attempt to undo the election results and remove him as president.
Such a Machiavellian scheme would move well beyond what is known as the “deep state,” a popular reference to government employees who organize in secret to impose their own political views on government policy in defiance of democratically elected leadership.
However, this apparent plot to keep Trump from becoming president and to weaken and potentially pave the way for his impeachment with a prolonged politically motivated investigation – if proven – would constitute something far more nefarious and dangerous.
Such a plot would show that partisans within the FBI and the Justice Department, driven by personal animus and a sense of political righteousness, surreptitiously conspired to subvert electoral democracy itself in our country.
(And...the Dems/ liberal media want you to stay focused on the Russian Collusion scam while all this is going on right under our nose)
As of now, we have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such a plot. But we have very strong circumstantial evidence.
And as the philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal in 1850: “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”
Newly revealed text messages about the apparent anti-Trump plot are the equivalent of a trout in the milk. It smells fishy.
The Plans
The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on circumstantial evidence.
Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.
“Part A” was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her private email server.
Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy, and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.
But “Part A” of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a “Part B” just in case the first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.
And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into so-called Trump-Russia “collusion.” It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political campaigns.
More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with Russia to influence the election.
No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime to force him from office.
But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.
The Texts
The text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page, who were romantically involved, confirm a stunning hostility toward Trump, calling him an “idiot” and “loathsome.”
At the same time, the texts were filled with adoring compliments of Clinton, lauding her nomination and stating: “She just has to win now.”
One text between Strzok and Page dated Aug. 6, 2016 stands out and looks like the proverbial smoking gun.
Page: “And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” (This is clearly a reference to a Trump presidency).
Strzok: “Thanks. And of course, I’ll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country at many levels .…”
It is reasonable to conclude that Strzok had already taken steps to “protect” the country from what he considered would be a dangerous and harmful Trump presidency.
Just one month earlier, then-FBI Director James Comey had announced he would recommend that no criminal charges be filed by the Justice Department against Clinton. Given all the incriminating evidence against Clinton, Comey’s view that she should not be prosecuted made no sense by any objective standard.
This is where Strzok played a pivotal role. As the lead investigator in the Clinton email case, he is the person who changed the critical wording in Comey’s description of Clinton’s handling of classified material, substituting “extremely careless” for “gross negligence.”
As I explained in an earlier column, this alteration of two words had enormous consequences, because it allowed Clinton to evade prosecution. This removed the only legal impediment to her election as president.
Documents made available by the Senate Homeland Security Committee also show that Comey intended to declare that the sheer volume of classified material on Clinton’s server supported the “inference” that she was grossly negligent, which would constitute criminal conduct. Yet this also was edited out, likely by Strzok, to avoid finding evidence of crimes.
This seems to be what Page and Strzok meant when they discussed his role as protector of the republic. It appears that Strzok was instrumental in clearing Clinton by rewriting Comey’s otherwise incriminating findings.
Were Page and Strzok also referring to the investigation of Trump that was begun in July 2016, right after Clinton was absolved? After all, Strzok was the agent who reportedly signed the documents launching the bureau’s Trump-Russia probe. And he was a lead investigator in the case before jumping to Robert Mueller’s special counsel team.
If there is any doubt that Strzok and Page sought to undermine the democratic process, consider this cryptic text about their “insurance policy” against the “risk” of a Trump presidency.
Strzok: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.…”
The reference to “Andy” is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was also supervising the investigation of Clinton’s emails at the same time his wife was receiving roughly $675,000 in campaign money in her race for elective office in Virginia from groups aligned with Clinton.
What was the “insurance policy” discussed in Andy’s office? Was it the FBI’s investigation of Trump and his associates? Or was it the anti-Trump “dossier” that may have been used by the FBI and the Justice Department as the basis for a warrant to wiretap and spy on Trump associates? Perhaps it was both.
The Dossier
The “dossier” was a compendium of largely specious allegations about Trump, compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Comey called it “salacious and unverified.”
Various congressional committees suspect the dossier was illegally used to place a Trump campaign associate, Carter Page, under foreign surveillance. When asked about that on Wednesday during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to answer, which sounds like an implicit “yes.”
Using a dubious, if not phony, document in support of an affidavit to obtain a warrant from a federal judge constitutes a fraud upon the court, which is a crime.
The dossier scandal recently ensnared Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official, who was demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the document.
Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS. This created a disqualifying conflict of interest for Mr. Ohr. He was legally obligated under Justice Department regulations to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation of Russia’s role in the election, but he did not.
Congress needs to find out whether the dossier was exploited as a pretext for initiating the Russia probe against President Trump. It would also be unconscionable, if not illegal, for the FBI and Justice Department to use opposition research funded by Clinton’s campaign to spy on her opponent or his campaign.
Both agencies have been resisting congressional subpoenas and other demands for answers, which smacks of a cover-up. Since the Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate itself, a second special counsel should be appointed.
This new counsel should also reopen the Clinton email case and investigate the conduct of Strzok, Page, Comey and others who may have obstructed justice by exonerating Clinton in the face of substantial evidence that she had committed crimes.
If Strzok or anyone else allowed their political views to shape the investigations of either Clinton or Trump and dictate the outcomes, that is a felony for which they should be prosecuted.
The Mueller investigation is now so tainted with the appearance of corruption that it has lost credibility and the public’s trust.
It is very much like a trout in the spoiled milk.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)