By now, the changing of the language has been a topic for countless pundits, political or otherwise. But what does it really mean, this penchant for removing the solid foundations of the way we communicate with one another? It means the death of our society.
Just as an earlier post on this blog recognized that the SCOTUS had destroyed the rule of law (and with it, in the philosophical realm, the nation), the destruction of the language is the destruction of the civilized society that remains.
We need a consistent understanding of language to communicate. Without communication, we cannot build nor maintain a society. The Bible makes this quite clear in the account of the tower of Babel.
"1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."~ Gen 11:1-9
This twisting of the language means that justice is unobtainable - both because the law is become as malleable as the language and because the people are become unable to communicate. If one believes strongly that justice will consist of one thing, but society has decided that justice is whatever the individual with the most powerful voice declares it to be, then where is true justice to be found?
If a government cannot provide that most basic function of government - consistent legal standards through which judgement and justice may be obtained by the population, then such a government forces the people to take justice into their own hands. And, when enough people decide to do so, there will be violence because there is no other recourse.
The government of the USA was set up to leave the authority of the government in the hands of the people. However, such a safeguard REQUIRES a shared set of ethics, morals and values among the people. And a shared set of morals, values and ethics requires a shared language.
Islam demonstrates the insidious power of language as a weapon very well. A muslim will say "Islam means peace"and be quite truthful about it. A non muslim will hear that as; "islam means non-aggression/absence of conflict". A scholar of islam will recognize that, when spoken by a muslim "peace" means "submission to islam, which is a very different thing.
How does a society reclaim it's language in such times as these? When we have come so far down the road towards destruction that one cannot be sure what is meant by such basic words as "man" or "woman" unless one knows the political views of the speaker and possibly not even then? How may we fight when we have no words that may be relied upon to define the enemy?
"Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding." ~ Prov 23
Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
Sunday, September 13, 2015
A Matter of Convenience
Because I seem to end up having this conversation very often of late, I am posting here the last reply I have made on it because It will be easier for me to simply come here and copy it and paste it into those conversations where it has become necessary to make the points therein or to grab the url and paste that. My apologies to those looking for something more substantive.
As far as the government is concerned,(at least, when you strip away all the nonsense, it should be thus) the word "marriage" is a term that defines a specific legal contract. That contract, at it's most basic level, says:"The two parties to the contract agree that, if the resources of their bodies are to be used to produce children, they will be used in that manner only with the other party to the contract."
It has the three required elements necessary to make a contract; an offer, an acceptance and a consideration.(The consideration being that they give up the right to produce children with the resources of their bodies with any person aside from the other party to the contract.)
This contract neither requires the production of children, nor does it prohibit adoption. A same sex couple must go outside of that contract to produce offspring, therefore they may not make that contract - and, indeed, I should think that any court would void such a contract between same sex couples because it would deny them their self-evident and unalienable right to procreate. (This is not a problem for couples who are infertile or damaged in some way that would ordinarily preclude the production of offspring because, between a man and a woman it is always theoretically possible for them to produce a child.)
I am shocked that the members of the highest court in America decided to exercise WILL rather than JUDGEMENT(in the sense outlined in Federalist paper #78) in a matter so basic to the health and well being of society. They did the same thing a few days before this ruling, when they exercised WILL rather than JUDGEMENT to rule by the corruption of the dictionary, in the health care subsidies case.
You (the individual to whom this was a reply said this)say that no individual has a "right" to the definition of a word - but societies, and particularly societies governed by the rule of law, do. A word in the law, MUST mean what it meant when it was first written, else the law becomes of none effect. A mere thing of clay in the hands of the judiciary. And, if you want to live in a society where the definition of words in the law is constantly changing to suit the whims of those in power, I suggest you move someplace where the rule of law is not respected. A communist nation perhaps.
May the definition of a word be changed from time to time? Yes, but only with the gravest consideration and proper notice that from this time forward this word now means something other than what it has meant heretofore and even then, if one has a proper respect for history, there must be a new term created to describe what that term meant before it was changed, and all the laws containing the original term must be changed to the new term. Indeed, the whole process would be so cumbersome that I cannot imagine - especially with a term that has had such usage since the very foundation of this nation, a term such as "marriage" - that anyone would see it as the viable alternative to doing what should have been done in this case.
To wit: find a term that describes the contract same sex couples could make and let them go through the same legislative process that married people went through to get the same benefits. To do otherwise is to essentially destroy the rule of law by creating a precedent that says an individual or group may gain a legislative shortcut to their desired goals by having the courts legislate through redefinition as has happened here. And, since the courts are prohibited from creating law by the Constitution, whether through outright declaration or through jiggery-pokery, the SCOTUS ruling is not law and should result in every member of that court who voted for it to be removed from the bench for bad behavior.
As far as the government is concerned,(at least, when you strip away all the nonsense, it should be thus) the word "marriage" is a term that defines a specific legal contract. That contract, at it's most basic level, says:"The two parties to the contract agree that, if the resources of their bodies are to be used to produce children, they will be used in that manner only with the other party to the contract."
It has the three required elements necessary to make a contract; an offer, an acceptance and a consideration.(The consideration being that they give up the right to produce children with the resources of their bodies with any person aside from the other party to the contract.)
This contract neither requires the production of children, nor does it prohibit adoption. A same sex couple must go outside of that contract to produce offspring, therefore they may not make that contract - and, indeed, I should think that any court would void such a contract between same sex couples because it would deny them their self-evident and unalienable right to procreate. (This is not a problem for couples who are infertile or damaged in some way that would ordinarily preclude the production of offspring because, between a man and a woman it is always theoretically possible for them to produce a child.)
I am shocked that the members of the highest court in America decided to exercise WILL rather than JUDGEMENT(in the sense outlined in Federalist paper #78) in a matter so basic to the health and well being of society. They did the same thing a few days before this ruling, when they exercised WILL rather than JUDGEMENT to rule by the corruption of the dictionary, in the health care subsidies case.
You (the individual to whom this was a reply said this)say that no individual has a "right" to the definition of a word - but societies, and particularly societies governed by the rule of law, do. A word in the law, MUST mean what it meant when it was first written, else the law becomes of none effect. A mere thing of clay in the hands of the judiciary. And, if you want to live in a society where the definition of words in the law is constantly changing to suit the whims of those in power, I suggest you move someplace where the rule of law is not respected. A communist nation perhaps.
May the definition of a word be changed from time to time? Yes, but only with the gravest consideration and proper notice that from this time forward this word now means something other than what it has meant heretofore and even then, if one has a proper respect for history, there must be a new term created to describe what that term meant before it was changed, and all the laws containing the original term must be changed to the new term. Indeed, the whole process would be so cumbersome that I cannot imagine - especially with a term that has had such usage since the very foundation of this nation, a term such as "marriage" - that anyone would see it as the viable alternative to doing what should have been done in this case.
To wit: find a term that describes the contract same sex couples could make and let them go through the same legislative process that married people went through to get the same benefits. To do otherwise is to essentially destroy the rule of law by creating a precedent that says an individual or group may gain a legislative shortcut to their desired goals by having the courts legislate through redefinition as has happened here. And, since the courts are prohibited from creating law by the Constitution, whether through outright declaration or through jiggery-pokery, the SCOTUS ruling is not law and should result in every member of that court who voted for it to be removed from the bench for bad behavior.
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
And the Death of the Rule of Law comes by Jiggery Pokery
Why am I seeing that statement:"Words no longer have meaning" as a foreshadowing of the upcoming decision on marriage? Because that is what I have been saying about legislation by redefinition in regards to marriage for years now. Where is America?
I thought the end would come with the ruling on marriage, but the SCOTUS has decided to test the waters first. This ruling is nothing less than the oligarchy of the judicial branch feared by many of the founders asserting itself. It is also the end of the rule of law, for if the words of the law cannot be said to mean the same thing from one day to the next, then the rule of law is void.
Like the recent rush to approve fast track authority - in a bill held in secrecy from, not only the American people, but from the very legislators charged with voting on it; an egregious affront to the very philosophical foundation of a nation that was said to be of the people, by the people and for the people - the attitude that something, anything must be done and done now will be blamed for this insidious takeover of America. The logical individual would say, no. If the choices are doing the wrong thing and doing nothing, do nothing. But that doesn't serve the current political agenda of fundamentally transforming America.
It has been the opinion of this writer, that to be forced to use force to retake America would be a blot on our history, and so it will be. The fact that we are supposed to have peaceful mechanisms in place to remove any harmful people from office, to repeal harmful laws, rules and regulations was supposed to be the saving grace of the American form of government.
Those mechanisms only work with a population of people who are self reliant, personally responsible and informed by Christian values as to the difference between right and wrong. In the absence of such a people, style overrules substance and disaster follows on the heels of the choices that are made.
If such mechanisms were working, there would be a lot more politicians in jail and every single member of the SCOTUS who ruled in favor of legislating through redefinition - even though it is a mild form - that of choosing one meaning over another, when the proper course would have been to send it back to Congress and tell them to make clear which meaning they intended - should be removed from their positions for "bad behavior". Because ending the rule of law in this nation, and usurping the right of Congress to legislate is very bad behavior indeed.
But then maybe "bad" = "good" now. How can we tell?
If such mechanisms were working, there would be a lot more politicians in jail and every single member of the SCOTUS who ruled in favor of legislating through redefinition - even though it is a mild form - that of choosing one meaning over another, when the proper course would have been to send it back to Congress and tell them to make clear which meaning they intended - should be removed from their positions for "bad behavior". Because ending the rule of law in this nation, and usurping the right of Congress to legislate is very bad behavior indeed.
But then maybe "bad" = "good" now. How can we tell?
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour....
ARTICLE III, SECTION 1
jiggery-pokery
1.
trickery, hocus-pocus; fraud; humbug.
2.
sly, underhanded action.
3.
manipulation:
After a little jiggery-pokery, the engine started.
"30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.
31 The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide.
32 The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him."
~ Psalm 37:30-32
Thursday, January 30, 2014
A Sign of Hope
The authority of all three branches of our government comes to them from the people, through the US Constitution. Sometimes the best answer to executive, legislative or judicial overreach on either the state or federal level is to do nothing. Apparently the responsible citizens of Connecticut have chosen to do just that. I encourage this response to deathcare as well.
Just for reference, the definition of "unalienable" by the 1828 dictionary is: "UNA'LIENABLE, adjective Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights."
"After Connecticut enacted one of the most draconian gun-control regimes in America, official estimates suggest that the overwhelming majority of the citizens targeted by the latest assault on gun rights failed to comply. Indeed, analysts say it appears that most people largely ignored the new statute, which purports to ban numerous non-registered “assault” weapons and standard-capacity magazines. Now, despite resistance by the governor, state lawmakers are reportedly “scrambling” to come up with a possible amnesty plan allowing gun owners to register past the deadline."
See the rest of this article here.
Just for reference, the definition of "unalienable" by the 1828 dictionary is: "UNA'LIENABLE, adjective Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights."
"After Connecticut enacted one of the most draconian gun-control regimes in America, official estimates suggest that the overwhelming majority of the citizens targeted by the latest assault on gun rights failed to comply. Indeed, analysts say it appears that most people largely ignored the new statute, which purports to ban numerous non-registered “assault” weapons and standard-capacity magazines. Now, despite resistance by the governor, state lawmakers are reportedly “scrambling” to come up with a possible amnesty plan allowing gun owners to register past the deadline."
See the rest of this article here.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Wisconsin Guns Across America event
Today I dragged myself out of bed to drive down to Madison for the Guns Across America event being held at the capital. I took some photos and some video. The video will have to wait for tomorrow as I need to change the format in order to get it uploaded in a reasonable amount of time, but the photos I can share now.
The ambiance, while friendly and polite, was not the same as the cheerful boisterous gatherings put on by the TEA party, no. These were the people who have the vision to see what's coming if we do not preserve the 2nd amendment. they were grim and steadfast.
There was a bit of remorse over what we have allowed the enemies of this nation to do to our children because we have allowed them to infiltrate our schools and capture the minds and hearts of our children nearly without opposition. But that can be remedied.
This is not a conservative, liberal, GOP or democrat issue. This is a Rule of Law issue and every American citizen needs to understand that if the 2nd amendment can be usurped by the oathbreakers in DC, then we are living under nothing more than a soft tyranny, soon to be replaced with a hard tyranny. (Don't believe me? For those who were foolish enough to trust Ms. pelosi - wait until you see what's in obamacare. You won't be waiting long. Think you're safe because you can afford a "Cadillac plan"? I hope you can afford the 40% penalty on it too. But that's going to be the least of your worries.)
If we do not remove these oathbreakers, then we and our children and our grandchildren along with the rest of the world will revile us, and rightly so, as the generation that failed to preserve the last best hope of freedom in the world. I hope, that with God's will - and I hope that we, as a nation can regain God's good will towards us - we can avert the looming destruction of this nation.
"He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city." ~ Proverbs 16:32
 |
| Her sign reads, and correctly so might I add:"Rights are not gifts from the government" |
 Senator Glenn Grothman |
      |
The ambiance, while friendly and polite, was not the same as the cheerful boisterous gatherings put on by the TEA party, no. These were the people who have the vision to see what's coming if we do not preserve the 2nd amendment. they were grim and steadfast.  |
| Don Pridemore - running for State DPI superintendent |
This is not a conservative, liberal, GOP or democrat issue. This is a Rule of Law issue and every American citizen needs to understand that if the 2nd amendment can be usurped by the oathbreakers in DC, then we are living under nothing more than a soft tyranny, soon to be replaced with a hard tyranny. (Don't believe me? For those who were foolish enough to trust Ms. pelosi - wait until you see what's in obamacare. You won't be waiting long. Think you're safe because you can afford a "Cadillac plan"? I hope you can afford the 40% penalty on it too. But that's going to be the least of your worries.)
If we do not remove these oathbreakers, then we and our children and our grandchildren along with the rest of the world will revile us, and rightly so, as the generation that failed to preserve the last best hope of freedom in the world. I hope, that with God's will - and I hope that we, as a nation can regain God's good will towards us - we can avert the looming destruction of this nation.
 |
| As I approached, I couldn't help but notice that the great majority of the people were avoiding the lawn. (Good thing too because it was unseasonably warm-a blessing perhaps on the event. ) Once again, responsible people act responsibly. |
 |
| I have no idea what this guy's sign said, he was moving too fast for me, but thought the Guy Fawkes mask was worth showing. |
 |
| In the end, it's not about party or philosophy. It's about Liberty. |
"He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city." ~ Proverbs 16:32
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
If You Don't Get Caught
"There is NO reason for a student to have a knife on campus"
said the head of campus security in response to my question about their policy on pocket knives.
Yes, I was in attendance at a parent orientation event for my son's college. "I beg to differ" was my reply. "Well, why do you think anyone should be able to carry a knife?" she asked as though I were the slow student in a class. In addition to what should have been obvious, that I am a responsible adult who hadn't attacked anyone with my knife at breakfast or even at dinner the previous evening simply because it was handy,( as is almost always the implication when discussing these types of policies) I said that I had been in the habit, when I was younger, of carrying a pocket knife everywhere I went and it had been extremely useful in a number of situations. That, in addition to the blade, my pocketknife had had a variety of screwdriver tips and other useful tools.
Her response was not to acknowledge that a pocketknife was actually a very useful tool, (since scissors are generally awkward to carry) but rather to tell the rest of the parents to send a set of screwdrivers with their child, almost jokingly forcing the assumption that only the other tools I had referenced on my pocketknife had been useful, rather than asserting that the blade itself was a useful tool.
Then she shook her head dolefully while loudly repeating "THERE IS NO REASON FOR A STUDENT TO HAVE A KNIFE ON CAMPUS" as though by saying it slowly, it would become a less ridiculous thing to say. The other parents looked at me in some revulsion, as though I had grown a second head, or maybe that's just my perception since I was so obviously being scolded by the wise head of campus security whose job it is to keep our precious children safe.(From pocketknife wielding maniacs such as myself no doubt.)
While I was being assured that the bread knives they could use for dining purposes were the only knives allowed on campus, (A pointless gesture since sharp edges are available almost anywhere if someone is so motivated.)my son was being assured by the older students who were administering his orientation that "pretty much anything is okay as long as you don't get caught."
My point here is not that the students are bad people, or that the policies are excessively nannyish(or at least not my whole point), but rather that when regulations get to a certain point of intrusiveness, people ignore them and do what they like. There is a balance that must be maintained between personal responsibility and safety. Just as the excessive protectiveness at this institution of higher learning(and nearly all others of which I am aware) has generated an attitude of "just be careful not to get caught while you are breaking the rules" in the students, so does it occur in the general population. The problem is that when a people are forced to abandon the study of and adherence to our laws because they have become overly intrusive or protective and multiplied beyond comprehension, then we are likely to gradually come to a point where we disregard all laws.
If we are not a nation of laws, then we cannot have the highest level of individual freedom that is possible in a stable society. We must either restrain the government from becoming so intrusive, through laws, regulations and ordinances, that common sense will no longer serve to keep an individual safe from the breaking of those laws or prepare for a society where the law is regarded as a tyrant from whom we must hide our activities if we wish to live a reasonably normal life.
Laws serve a purpose. What we need to decide in November, is whether the purpose of laws is to assure a stable society with the greatest amount of individual liberty possible in such a society or to subjugate the people to a tyrannical government that can enforce archaic or little known laws at any time to enforce their will on the people as a whole.
The IRS has become the master tool of behavioral modification for the nation already. Now they will be in charge of regulating our access to health care as well as our ability to keep our money and our property.
Vote on character, not party in November. It may be the last chance we have at freedom. If we are willing to claim it, it will only be the beginning of the struggle to restore our freedom.
" But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. " ~ Gal 3:23-24
said the head of campus security in response to my question about their policy on pocket knives.
Yes, I was in attendance at a parent orientation event for my son's college. "I beg to differ" was my reply. "Well, why do you think anyone should be able to carry a knife?" she asked as though I were the slow student in a class. In addition to what should have been obvious, that I am a responsible adult who hadn't attacked anyone with my knife at breakfast or even at dinner the previous evening simply because it was handy,( as is almost always the implication when discussing these types of policies) I said that I had been in the habit, when I was younger, of carrying a pocket knife everywhere I went and it had been extremely useful in a number of situations. That, in addition to the blade, my pocketknife had had a variety of screwdriver tips and other useful tools.
Her response was not to acknowledge that a pocketknife was actually a very useful tool, (since scissors are generally awkward to carry) but rather to tell the rest of the parents to send a set of screwdrivers with their child, almost jokingly forcing the assumption that only the other tools I had referenced on my pocketknife had been useful, rather than asserting that the blade itself was a useful tool.
Then she shook her head dolefully while loudly repeating "THERE IS NO REASON FOR A STUDENT TO HAVE A KNIFE ON CAMPUS" as though by saying it slowly, it would become a less ridiculous thing to say. The other parents looked at me in some revulsion, as though I had grown a second head, or maybe that's just my perception since I was so obviously being scolded by the wise head of campus security whose job it is to keep our precious children safe.(From pocketknife wielding maniacs such as myself no doubt.)
While I was being assured that the bread knives they could use for dining purposes were the only knives allowed on campus, (A pointless gesture since sharp edges are available almost anywhere if someone is so motivated.)my son was being assured by the older students who were administering his orientation that "pretty much anything is okay as long as you don't get caught."
My point here is not that the students are bad people, or that the policies are excessively nannyish(or at least not my whole point), but rather that when regulations get to a certain point of intrusiveness, people ignore them and do what they like. There is a balance that must be maintained between personal responsibility and safety. Just as the excessive protectiveness at this institution of higher learning(and nearly all others of which I am aware) has generated an attitude of "just be careful not to get caught while you are breaking the rules" in the students, so does it occur in the general population. The problem is that when a people are forced to abandon the study of and adherence to our laws because they have become overly intrusive or protective and multiplied beyond comprehension, then we are likely to gradually come to a point where we disregard all laws.
If we are not a nation of laws, then we cannot have the highest level of individual freedom that is possible in a stable society. We must either restrain the government from becoming so intrusive, through laws, regulations and ordinances, that common sense will no longer serve to keep an individual safe from the breaking of those laws or prepare for a society where the law is regarded as a tyrant from whom we must hide our activities if we wish to live a reasonably normal life.
Laws serve a purpose. What we need to decide in November, is whether the purpose of laws is to assure a stable society with the greatest amount of individual liberty possible in such a society or to subjugate the people to a tyrannical government that can enforce archaic or little known laws at any time to enforce their will on the people as a whole.
The IRS has become the master tool of behavioral modification for the nation already. Now they will be in charge of regulating our access to health care as well as our ability to keep our money and our property.
Vote on character, not party in November. It may be the last chance we have at freedom. If we are willing to claim it, it will only be the beginning of the struggle to restore our freedom.
" But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. " ~ Gal 3:23-24
Friday, November 28, 2008
Show Me the Birth Certificate
Yes, Mr. Obama, save us all some time, tax money, (Judges and lawyers are not cheap), and troubling rumors, show me, show America, your original, undoctored birth certificate.
But perhaps even more telling, show me your passport, you know, the one you used to visit Indonesia and Pakistan as a younger adult. Because, really, that's the more telling argument isn't it? I know that our system is skewed towards making an allowance for the mistakes of parents in the case of a child's citizenship status. If your passport shows you to be a citizen of Indonesia at that point in your life, then that would mean that you had renounced your American citizenship. By the laws of our nation, that's not something you can take back. I have no interest in any current passport which you may have obtained using the same document you posted on your web-site, but I have a great deal of interest in seeing the passport you used to travel in countries that were not allowing U.S. citizens to visit at that time.
So yes, by all means, produce your real birth certificate, but I'd like to see proof that you never renounced your American citizenship as an adult too.
But perhaps even more telling, show me your passport, you know, the one you used to visit Indonesia and Pakistan as a younger adult. Because, really, that's the more telling argument isn't it? I know that our system is skewed towards making an allowance for the mistakes of parents in the case of a child's citizenship status. If your passport shows you to be a citizen of Indonesia at that point in your life, then that would mean that you had renounced your American citizenship. By the laws of our nation, that's not something you can take back. I have no interest in any current passport which you may have obtained using the same document you posted on your web-site, but I have a great deal of interest in seeing the passport you used to travel in countries that were not allowing U.S. citizens to visit at that time.
So yes, by all means, produce your real birth certificate, but I'd like to see proof that you never renounced your American citizenship as an adult too.
"Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.
But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him." ~Numbers 15:29-31
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
