Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2onj0IO
Sat. July 22, 2017
McConnell's failure to navigate any action on Obamacare through the Senate despite having a two vote Republican majority highlights his limitations as the Republican leader. To set them in perspective, it is useful to compare the performance of former Majority Leader Trent Lott in passing welfare reform, the minimum wage increase, and the balanced federal budget through the Senate despite having only a 53-47 margin of control, just one more Republican than McConnell has to work with.
Why was Lott so successful and McConnell such a failure?
Beyond any differences in their personal style, the reason lies in how they came to power. To get loyalty from the rebels within your own party, you have to have been one of them. Lott and Gingrich were integral parts of the revolutions that brought their party to power. McConnell was a bystander who welcomed them at the door when they entered the Senate. He was never one of them.
So when times got tough and margins thin, McConnell could not draw on a loyalty born of time in the trenches together in a way that Lott or Gingrich (or lately Paul Ryan) could.
Even before he came to the Senate, Lott had worked closely with Newt Gingrich in reshaping the House of Representatives and freeing it from the dead hand of Senator Bob Michel (R-IL) who had led the party to fifteen years of defeat as leader. McConnell, on the other hand, had served as minority leader for eight years before his party won a Senate Majority and watched the revolution from afar.
Lott ratified his outsider status by winning first the post of Majority Senate Whip and then Leader in battles with long serving institutional members -- Alan Simpson (R-WY) and Thad Cochran (R-MS). McConnell rose through seniority, while waiting his turn as Chairman of the Rules Committee, Minority Leader, and then Majority Leader. His assent up the seniority ladder left him little in common with the newly victorious rebels who constitute the new Senate majority.
Lott always identified with an insurgent wing of his party, activists who were fed up with the go-along, get-along leadership of the past. Seizing the position of Minority Whip after only one Senate term, he defeated the incumbent Whip Alan Simpson of Wyoming, a long time leader of the party. He took control as Majority leader after Bob Dole resigned to run for president, defeating his fellow Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran who called himself an "institutionalist."
As one of the rebels in the Republican Senate who wanted a more aggressive style of leadership, Lott was close to the newer and more independent Senators. McConnell, on the other hand, is a stranger to them and couldn't count on their support when the chips were down. Instead, he was buoyed by the backing of the institutional members of his majority who had served long in office.
Once in power, Lott cultivated deep personal relationships with potential rebels -- notably including Susan Collins of Maine who was the only member to oppose both McConnell's replacement bill and repeal of Obamacare itself. Lott could appeal to Collins on a personal level and, as often as not, win her support.
With institutional party loyalty on the ebb, leadership is best given to those who shared the battlefield as allies with the newly elected arrivals and can speak their language and understand their electorates.
McConnell can't do that.
Why was Lott so successful and McConnell such a failure?
Beyond any differences in their personal style, the reason lies in how they came to power. To get loyalty from the rebels within your own party, you have to have been one of them. Lott and Gingrich were integral parts of the revolutions that brought their party to power. McConnell was a bystander who welcomed them at the door when they entered the Senate. He was never one of them.
So when times got tough and margins thin, McConnell could not draw on a loyalty born of time in the trenches together in a way that Lott or Gingrich (or lately Paul Ryan) could.
Even before he came to the Senate, Lott had worked closely with Newt Gingrich in reshaping the House of Representatives and freeing it from the dead hand of Senator Bob Michel (R-IL) who had led the party to fifteen years of defeat as leader. McConnell, on the other hand, had served as minority leader for eight years before his party won a Senate Majority and watched the revolution from afar.
Lott ratified his outsider status by winning first the post of Majority Senate Whip and then Leader in battles with long serving institutional members -- Alan Simpson (R-WY) and Thad Cochran (R-MS). McConnell rose through seniority, while waiting his turn as Chairman of the Rules Committee, Minority Leader, and then Majority Leader. His assent up the seniority ladder left him little in common with the newly victorious rebels who constitute the new Senate majority.
Lott always identified with an insurgent wing of his party, activists who were fed up with the go-along, get-along leadership of the past. Seizing the position of Minority Whip after only one Senate term, he defeated the incumbent Whip Alan Simpson of Wyoming, a long time leader of the party. He took control as Majority leader after Bob Dole resigned to run for president, defeating his fellow Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran who called himself an "institutionalist."
As one of the rebels in the Republican Senate who wanted a more aggressive style of leadership, Lott was close to the newer and more independent Senators. McConnell, on the other hand, is a stranger to them and couldn't count on their support when the chips were down. Instead, he was buoyed by the backing of the institutional members of his majority who had served long in office.
Once in power, Lott cultivated deep personal relationships with potential rebels -- notably including Susan Collins of Maine who was the only member to oppose both McConnell's replacement bill and repeal of Obamacare itself. Lott could appeal to Collins on a personal level and, as often as not, win her support.
With institutional party loyalty on the ebb, leadership is best given to those who shared the battlefield as allies with the newly elected arrivals and can speak their language and understand their electorates.
McConnell can't do that.
BREAKING NEWS: SHIVA POLICE DOCS REVEALED
By Howie Carr
By Howie Carr
Republican US Senate candidate Shiva Ayyadurai was arrested by the Belmont police in June 2005 and charged with assault and domestic battery on his live-in then-40-year-old girlfriend.
(See complete arrest report, booking sheet and mugshot below. Warning: graphic language.)
An emergency 209 A restraining order against Ayyadurai was issued after the arrest “that prohibited him from contacting (redacted) and that the emergency ‘no contact’ 209 A order prohibited him from calling the telephone at 69 Snake Hill Road.” (That was his residence.)
When the police arrived, they reported that the female victim “appeared to be extremely upset, her face was red and she was breathing rapidly. While I spoke with (redacted) she began to cry several times and had difficulty speaking with me.”
Ayyadurai told the investigating officers that his girlfriend had grabbed him by the right testicle. After he was arrested and handcuffed, he was transported to Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge before he was returned to the Belmont police station for booking.
According to the incident report, the domestic dispute began when Ayyadurai returned home, and, in the victim’s words, “shouted at her as soon as he entered the house; ‘What the bleep… you left the bleeping air conditioning on… what the bleep is your problem?….” (Redacted stated to me that she asked AYYADURAI to calm down and that he began to push and shove her with both hands.”
The officer then asked the girlfriend if she had indeed grabbed the future candidate by the testicles.
“She stated to me ‘I did grab his balls, but only did it to get away from him… he tries to force me to have sex with him all the time and he gets mad when I say no, but that is why he wants me.’”
The girlfriend also told the cops that “AYYADURAI becomes enraged often and that he ‘is very scary when he gets that way… he belongs in McLean’s (a hospital facility in Belmont for the mentally ill). (Redacted) stated to me ‘now that you are here better take him with you because I don’t know what he will do when he realizes that I called the police.’”
After determining that Ayyadurai was “the primary aggressor,” the police arrested him.
“I informed AYYADURAI that he was under arrest for violation of M.G.L. Ch. 265 S. 13A Assault and Battery Domestic Abuse. I asked AYYADURAI to turn around and place his hands behind his back and he refused to cooperate. I observed a pen in AYYADURAI’s right hand and I ordered him to drop it and he refused to cooperate.”
The report continues:
“I grasped AYYADURAI’s right hand and placed him into the escort position. AYYADURAI attempted to pull away from me and I began to apply pressure to AYYADURAI’s right wrist when he stopped resisting. I handcuffed AYYADURAI in the rear and placed him into the rear of the B-386 unit.”
Rush Limbaugh Just Exposed The Secret Truth About Who Is Conspiring Against Trump
Trump supporters know there is a conspiracy against Trump to ruin his Presidency.Rush Limbaugh offered up his theory.
And you won’t believe who is involved.
Up until now, it has been accepted that the Deep State – which includes Obama loyalists and establishment Republicans – has tag teamed with the media in a conspiracy to bring down Donald Trump.
But now that the GOP Congress has failed to deliver on their promise to repeal Obamacare, another layer has been added to this plot.
Rush Limbaugh believes establishment members of Congress –and this includes Republicans – are invested in Trump failing and are personally sabotaging his legislative agenda.
The Blaze reports:
“Rush Limbaugh, nationally syndicated conservative radio show host, during the Tuesday broadcast of his show, accused the “Washington establishment” of plotting a “silent coup” in order to oust President Donald Trump.
Limbaugh, discussing Trump’s presidency, claimed that ever since Trump was elected, the established Washington power players “began to circle the wagons,” and from that day forward, Trump was not going to be “allowed to triumph on anything.”
Intimating that success would be by a very narrow margin — if at all — Limbaugh added, “There was no way that this establishment was going to permit an outsider to come in and clean house and show how Washington can work and blow their cover for the last how many decades.”
Limbaugh went on to explain that the real fight in Washington is not between the Republicans and the Democrats, but between Trump and his supporters and the Washington establishment.
The Blaze also reports:
“Limbaugh noted that it doesn’t necessarily mean that a draining of the swamp can’t be done, but that the Washington elite “weren’t going to help this along.”
“They were not going to contribute,” he added. “They were not going to make this easy for Trump.”
The radio host even went as far as to say that the election of Trump “has never been about” the president “unifying the Republican party in order to beat the Democrats.”
“That’s been the mistake,” Limbaugh said. “That’s not the fight here. The fight is Donald Trump and his cadre and you, the Trump base, versus the Washington establishment. It has always been that and nothing more.”
Limbaugh described these efforts to sabotage Trump as nothing less than a “silent coup.”
And there is more to his comments than pundits wish to admit.
In addition to failing to pass an Obamacare repeal bill, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have made no effort to fund Trump’s border wall.
They included zero money for the project in the legislation for funding the government through September.
Now Congressional Republicans have inserted just $1.57 billion in the Homeland Security bill.
This will fund just 28 miles of new border wall construction along the Mexican border.
Establishment Republicans never bought into Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda.
And rather than accept the reality that Trump and his agenda is what voters want, they are trying to torpedo his agenda to make it politically toxic so no one ever attempts to smash their hold on power again.
Trump Stops 800 Obama Regulations
Free Beacon by Elizabeth Harrington
The Trump administration has stopped over 800 regulations proposed under former president Barack Obama, according to a new White House report.
Reuters reported Thursday:
The White House said Thursday it had withdrawn or removed from active consideration more than 800 proposed regulations that were never finalized during the Obama administration as it works to shrink the federal government's regulatory footprint.
In a report, the Trump administration said it had withdrawn 469 planned regulatory actions that had been part of the Obama administration's regulatory agenda published last fall. Officials also reconsidered 391 active regulatory proceedings actions by reclassifying them as long-term or inactive "allowing for further careful review," the White House said.
Source: Free Beacon
Shock Polls Worry Liberals: Most Americans Side with President Trump!
By Onan Coca
A trio of new polls that were just released this week have the Left in an uproar as they worry about the future of the Democrat Party and their movement in general. President Trump has faced bitter opposition since the moment he was elected back in November of 2016. Each day a new negative story hits the press and the Trump administration is forced to focus not on important issues facing our nation, but ridiculous and trite stories that are circulating in the media. You’d think that with all of the negative press that President Trump’s poll numbers would have cratered by now and that most of the nation would have turned their backs on him long ago…
But you’d be wrong.
At least according to a few of the latest polls of the American voters.
In an attempt to bury the lede, Reuters recently reported that “One in Eight People who Voted for Trump are Having Second Thoughts.” What the title of the story should have actually been was “88% of Trump voters STILL HAPPY with their vote!”
Reuters then even got their own story wrong, here’s what they said about the poll results:
In the July survey, 12 percent of respondents said they would not vote for Trump “if the 2016 presidential election were held today” – 7 percent said they “don’t know” what they would do, and the remaining 5 percent would either support one of the other 2016 presidential candidates or not vote.
Actually, only 5% of Trump voters said they would not vote for Trump if the election were held again today. 7% said they “didn’t know” what they would do. Apparently, simple math has become too difficult for the folks at Reuters. Meanwhile back in April, a similar poll had found that Hillary Clinton had already lost 15% of her support.
The point from this first poll? Donald Trump would still, even after months of negative press coverage, be a very difficult candidate for a Democrat opponent to defeat.
Speaking of the biased media, there were a couple of other new polls that had some terrible news for them too.
A recent PBS/Marist poll found that there are more Americans who trust President Trump than there are who trust the mainstream media.
In what one PBS NewsHour guest described as a “horrible trend,” a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that more Americans trust the Trump administration than they do the establishment media. While trust in both was quite poor, 7% more respondents said they put a “good amount” or “great deal” of trust in the Trump administration (37%) than said the same of the media (30%). Asked about their trust in polls, Americans also rated them slightly below Trump at 35%…
But the most eye-opening numbers involve trust in the media: Only 56% of Democrats have a “good amount” or “great deal” trust in the media, while 42% said they don’t have very much or any at all. Republicans expressed even less trust in the Fourth Estate, only 9% saying they trusted it; a stunning 91% said they did not trust the media. Only 28% of Independents said they trust the media; more than two-thirds, 70%, said they did not trust the media. Oof.
But it doesn’t stop there folks.
The latests Zogby poll asked Americans if the media is treating President Trump fairly and the majority of respondents answered with a resounding “NO.” A full 57% of Americans believe that the media is treating President Trump unfairly with their constantly negative coverage of him.
A majority of likely voters (57%) believe the mainstream media’s coverage of Trump is too negative and 44% disagree. While the President has been known to slam media outlets for “fake news”, our poll shows voters are not crazy about the mainstream media’s coverage of the Trump presidency. Not surprisingly views of this issue are split along party lines, with nearly seven in ten Democrats disagreeing that coverage is too negative, while Republicans are almost all (87%) in agreement that the mainstream media is not fair towards Donald Trump. Independents fall in line with voters overall; a majority (54%) believe the mainstream media is not fair in its portrayal of the President.
Is the mainstream media’s coverage of Donald Trump’s presidency too negative?Even among the Democrat-leaning sub-groups, a large percentage criticized the media. Here’s the breakdown of some of the traditionally Democrat-leaning sub-groups highlighted by Zogby:
-
Women —55% yes / 45% no
-
African-Americans — 51/49
-
Lower income earners (less than $25k annually) — 50/50
-
Western voters — 49/51
-
Younger voters (18-29-year-olds) — 44/56
In other words, among these five traditionally Democrat-leaning groups — which should have a generally negative attitude toward Trump — more than 4 in 10 of them believe the media is overtly biased against Trump. That’s yet more evidence that the establishment media is in the midst of a massive credibility crisis.
The Left is not happy. Months of attacks, Millions of dollars spent campaigning against Trump, countless hours of negative press, and Trump is still unscathed. Their frustration is palpable, and fun to watch.
Study: Percentage of Adults with Carry Permits Up 190 Percent, Violent Crime Down 18 Percent
AP Photo/Topeka capital-Journal, Chris Ochsner
by AWR HAWKINS
A study from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows during the time period 2007 to 2015, the percentage of adults with carry permits rose 190% and violent crime fell by 18%.
The cut-off year is 2015 because it is “the last full year that crime data is available.” ”
According to CPRC, from 2007 to 2015 the “murder rates fell from 5.6 [per 100,000] to 4.9 per 100,000. This represents a 12.5% drop.” At the same time, “overall violent crime fell by 18 percent.” And again, these drops are coinciding with a 190% increase in “the percentage of adults with permits.”
This news comes in the same report in which the CPRC showed that the number of concealed carry permit holders “grew by a record 1.83 million” in 2016. This beats the previous record of 1.73 million, set in 2015, and means “6.53% of American adults have permits.” Moreover, “outside the restrictive states of California and New York, about 8% of the adult population has a permit.”
There are 11 states where over 10% of the adult population possesses a carry permit. Those 11 states are led by Alabama, where 20% are permitted, and Indiana, where 15.8% of all adults have a permit.
CPRC observes:
Regression estimates show a significant association between increased permit ownership and drops in murder and violent crime rates. Each one percentage point increase in rates of permit-holding is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate. This holds true even after accounting for incarceration rates, the number of police per capita, and other demographics.
In other words, more concealed carriers, less murder.
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com
Rep. Tom Garrett Announces Intent to File Discharge Petition on Obamacare Repeal
by SEAN MORAN
Rep. Tom Garrett (R-VA), along with a dozen Freedom Caucus members, announced his intent to file a discharge petition that would put a clean repeal of Obamacare before the House.
The House Freedom Caucus repeatedly argued that the best path to repealing Obamacare revolves around a simple repeal of Obamacare and then replacing the Affordable Care Act with a free-market alternative.
Congress passed a clean repeal bill of Obamacare in 2015 only to have it vetoed by President Obama. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), a former chairman of the Freedom Caucus, reintroduced the same legislation in 2017. However, Congress has not taken up that legislation.
Rep. Tom Garrett announced his intent to file a discharge petition that would put that clean Obamacare repeal bill before the House. Garrett said, “I commend both the President and Republican leadership for working to replace the monstrosity that is Obamacare. However, we have seen discussions for replacement continue to stall and we must change our approach to reforming healthcare.”
The Virginia congressman concluded, “The House should lead with an incremental approach by supporting a clean-repeal bill and then enter into replacement negotiations. As such, I just initiated a seldom-used parliamentary procedure to advance H.R. 1436 through a discharge petition. The overwhelming majority of my Republican colleagues cast their vote in support of this legislation in 2015, and I have faith they will do nothing short of that now.”
Trump: ‘I Would Have Picked Somebody Else’ If I Knew Sessions Would Recuse Himself from Russia Probe
by IAN HANCHETT
During an interview with the New York Times released on Wednesday, President Trump stated that if he knew Attorney General Jeff Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia probe, he never would have nominated Sessions to be AG in the first place.
Trump said, “Sessions, gets the job. Right after he gets the job, he recuses himself.”
Trump was then asked if this recusal was a mistake. He answered, “Well, Sessions should have never recused himself. And if he would — if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job, and I would have picked somebody else.”
Trump added that Sessions didn’t give him a heads-up on the recusal, and that doing so after taking the job was “frankly, I think is very unfair to the president. How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks Jeff, but I can’t — I’m not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair, and that’s a mild word, to the president.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
The disturbing reason women's clothing historically never had pockets.
It’s got POCKETS’
Women globally: *shriek with excitement*
If there is one thing women can communally agree on, it’s that we love pockets. We cannot get enough of them. Literally. We can’t, and don’t, get enough of them.
It’s not news to any of us that still, in 2017, women’s clothing either completely lacks the potential for a pouch or, even worse, has COUNTERFEIT POCKETS that inspire a millisecond of hope before crushing your dreams when you realise it only has a depth of two centimetres.
But historically, women have always been deprived of pockets. And the reason why is disturbing.
In a piece on Racked, journalist Chelsea Summers puts it most simply when she writes, "the less women could carry, the less freedom they had".
Think about that for a second.
Is It Possible For A Grown Woman To Live Life Without A Handbag?
Before the seventeenth century, both men and women's clothing weren't conducive to pockets, and both genders would have to add purses or bags to their attire. But towards the eighteenth century, men's clothing all of a sudden got pockets. Women, of course, were left behind.
"Take away pockets happily hidden under garments," writes Summers, "and you limit women’s ability to navigate public spaces, to carry seditious (or merely amorous) writing, or to travel unaccompanied".
In the mid to late 1800s, as women were fighting for liberation, pockets were introduced to clothing. Pockets represented independence - as did the pants women started to wear. Post war, however, pockets went out of fashion, in an effort to make women's silhouettes 'thinner' and more feminine, whatever that means.
Throughout history, women have had a complex relationship with pockets. Even now, countless articles have been written lamenting the fact that women's clothes rarely have pockets large enough to fit an iPhone - a piece of property almost every person needs to carry.
No pockets also means women need to invest in clutches and handbags - a strategy that earns the fashion industry more and more money.
WASHINGTON SECRETS
Americans have never felt better, 74% very happy
by Paul Bedard
Boston Red Sox left fielder Andrew Benintendi, left, right fielder Mookie Betts (50) and center fielder Jackie Bradley Jr. celebrate after defeating the Toronto Blue Jays in a baseball game at Fenway Park in Boston, Wednesday, July 19, 2017. The Red Sox won 5-1. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
Boston Red Sox left fielder Andrew Benintendi, left, right fielder Mookie Betts (50) and center fielder Jackie Bradley Jr. celebrate after defeating the Toronto Blue Jays in a baseball game at Fenway Park in Boston, Wednesday, July 19, 2017. The Red Sox won 5-1. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)Happy days are here again, and Americans have never felt better about it, according to a new survey.
A new Rasmussen Reports survey said that 74 percent of adults rate the life as good or excellent, the highest level of satisfaction ever recorded by the pollster.
That's is up from 61 percent in 2010 and 67 percent in 2014. And just 5 percent rate their life as poor.
Most of those surveyed said that the first 40 years of life were the best. But it was unmarried adults who were more positive about their lives.
Sizable majorities of adults in virtually every demographic category regard their lives as good or excellent, but whites are likely to feel that way more than blacks and other minority Americans. Men feel more strongly than women that their lives are excellent. Unmarried adults are more positive about their lives than those who are married.
Interestingly, while Americans in general tend to view age 65 and older as the worst years for most, senior citizens are the most positive about their lives. Those under 40, however, are a bit more likely to describe their lives as excellent.
Adults under 40 are more positive - and more negative - about those years than Americans in older age groups.
They say money can't buy happiness, but generally speaking, the more one earns annually, the better they rate their life.
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com
Trump’s Wall is One Step Closer to Being Built
During the election, there was a lot of talk about the border wall, who would pay for it, and why we needed it. But now, President Donald Trump’s signature proposal is a giant step closer to being realized.
There have been some major developments in the budget approval for the wall. In fact, just last week, it was announced that the House Appropriations Committee approved the full amount requested by President Trump for the wall – a total of $1.6 million. This was announced by the President in standard Trump fashion: with a tweet.
The president tweeted about it on July 12th right before he left to visit Paris for Bastille Day. In the tweet, he said that this was a big win for our country and now it is up to the House and the Senate to take action. Because of how he tweeted it, saying it was a big win, it has not gotten a lot of press coverage in mainstream media. Instead, they have been focused on the Russian collision stories.
Every year, there is a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that needs to be passed by Congress. This bill details the budget for a variety of things, and this new approval will be part of the 2018 fiscal year bill. This spending bill went through the House on Tuesday, and approved funding for the first wall plan for the border between the United States and Mexico.
The funding requested was $1.6 billion, and all of that was moved forward without much to do. The House Appropriations Committee released the plan on Tuesday, and then a subcommittee chose to move it forward on Wednesday as well.
Chairman John Carter of the subcommittee praised the bill by stating, “Keeping Americans safe by protecting our homeland is a top priority. This funding bill provides the resources to begin building a wall along our southern border, enhance our existing border security infrastructure, hire more border patrol agents, and fund detention operations.”
The bill that has been approved is not just a request for funding, however. It also details a plan for that money and what it will do to help start the process for the building of the wall. The spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commented on this fact by stating, “On the DHS side it’s clear that we’ve gotten a direction to secure the southern border, that a wall and barrier is part of that process along with people and technology and that funding from Congress is required for us to move forward on that.”
The entire bill allocates a total of $13.8 billion towards customs and border protection. This total includes the $1.6 billion that is being requested. Beyond that, there is $100 million designated for hiring 500 more border patrol agents, $106 million for sensors and aircraft, $131 million to invest and purchase new border technology, and even $109 million for inspection equipment that is non-intrusive. This shows that there is a huge push not only towards building the wall, but also towards bulking up border protection in general between the United States and Mexico.
This is just another spurt of good news from the White House. Although many on the other side do not want to talk about how much President Trump has been doing since he took office, he has had much more momentum than we have seen in a presidency in many many terms.
This is just another of his campaign promises that is coming to fruition. However, it does not take into account for the pledge he made that Mexico would pay for the wall, and is something that the other side may harp on.
~ Conservative Zone
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/07/httpift_21.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment