- Hallo friendsCAPITAL STORIES FOR CHILDREN, In the article you read this time with the title , We have prepared this article for you to read and retrieve information therein. Hopefully the contents of postings Article ADVENTURE, Article ANIMATION, Article LATEST DONGENG, Article WORLD OF ANIMALS, We write this you can understand. Alright, good read.

Title :
link :

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHE DAY.BLOGSPOT.COM

Tuesday, July 4, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****

Why We Celebrate Independence Day

President Calvin Coolidge CRUSHES Progressivism in July 4, 1926, Independence Day Address: ‘If All Men are Created Equal, That is Final; If…’

Our Founders’ Christian Faith Helped to Ensure Our Independence: ‘Our Constitution was made Only for a Moral and Religious People; It is Wholly Inadequate to the Government of any Other’ ~ John Adams

THE LIBERTY DAILY

Happy Birthday USA

OIL $75

GAS PRICES HIT HOUSEHOLDS

************

40 Straight Gallup Polls: Majority Says Abortion Should Be Illegal in All or Most Cases [NOTE: Roe v. Wade is Not the ‘Law of the Land’; There was No ‘Law’ Passed by the Elected Representatives of the People!]

DNC Chair Tom Perez: Venezuela-Style Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the ‘Future of the Democrat Party’ [VIDEO]

Gaystapo! School District Refuses to Let Parents See Pro-Homosexual Brainwashing Videos They Forced Kids to Watch

THE LIBERTY DAILY

Impeach Maxine---Pahleese

Memo confirms DNC server disappearance

by Emma Ayers

A server housing emails for House members has disappeared.

Over 40 offices in the House of Representatives may have fallen victim to an “IT security violation,” according to a secret memo from top congressional law enforcement to the Committee on House Administration.

The memo, written in part by Paul Irving, the House’s sergeant at arms, detailed the disappearance of a server for the House Democratic Caucus following its marking as evidence in a cybersecurity probe. Imran Awan, email server administrator to former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and members of his family had logged into the server more than 7,000 times between 2015 and 2016 without proper authorization.

Since then, the memo alleges, the caucus server holding emails from lawmakers has been replaced by a lookalike, but the original is gone.

Left-wing media meltdown over Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement is absolutely delicious

An official with ties to the Committee on House Administration told the Daily Caller News Foundation — which reviewed and transcribed the February 2017 memo — that the replacement of the caucus server was clear evidence of a breach.

“[The Awans] deliberately turned over a fake server to falsify evidence,” they said, noting that the data itself was “completely out of [members’] possession.”

Irving said in the memo that the Pakistani Awan group was “an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems and thereby members’ capacity to serve constituents.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, who has had a hand in the case for some time, called for action from intelligence officials on the matter.

“We need someone assigned to the Awan case that will protect Congress from further breaches and from the Awan crime family,” Gohmert said. “For heaven’s sake, we need someone in the FBI to step up and do their job.”

CREATED EQUAL: Trump Takes A Bite Out of Obama’s Race-First Education Policy

By Andrew West

The idea of “reverse racism” is certainly a bit of sticky subject to traverse when in a room full of Americans – who are a naturally diverse and complex fabric of ethnicities, racial backgrounds, and cultural norms.

That is precisely why the concept of affirmative action can be difficult to continue to defend in 2018. At one point in our history, there was undoubtedly a need for such racism-reversing guidelines, but those times only existed because of our own straying from the path of the Constitution and the American dream.

Remember, All men are created equal. That doesn’t mean just men either – this was more of a “mankind” sort of use of the term, not a gender specific choice, so all of you leftists out there chomping at the bit to change the wording of our Founding Fathers can go ahead and let your blood pressure normalize and sit back down.

When we strayed from that Constitutional path of equality, it took one of the greatest republican Presidents of all time to bring us back from the brink…and he paid for that work with his life.

Thanks, buddy. We owe ya one.

Now, some fourteen decades later, the scourge of racism still exists, but only for the sake of the democrats who prey on the political divide of our nation in order to maintain power. They need minorities to be in need, so that the left can assert itself as the one true teat from which these Americans can suckle.

But it’s not true. Not in the least. All men are created equal. That’s from the get-go of our nation! Once Lincoln made his moves, and we rightly used affirmative action to get the nation back together, it should have very well been time to adopt “race-blind” policies the country over. Not only would this have reiterated the importance of equality as opposed to equalization, but it would also educate our nation’s youth as to the immortality of separating and segregating people, for any reason.

Donald Trump’s administration recognizes this fallacy, and is striving to get us back in the good graces of our Founding Fathers and great men such as Abraham Lincoln.

The Trump administration will encourage the nation’s school superintendents and college presidents to adopt race-blind admissions standards, abandoning an Obama administration policy that called on universities to consider race as a factor in diversifying their campuses, Trump administration officials said.

Last November, Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked the Justice Department to re-evaluate past policies that he believed pushed the department to act beyond what the law, the Constitution and the Supreme Court had required, Devin M. O’Malley, a Justice Department spokesman said. As part of that process, the Justice Department rescinded seven policy guidances from the Education Department’s civil rights division on Tuesday.

“The executive branch cannot circumvent Congress or the courts by creating guidance that goes beyond the law and — in some instances — stays on the books for decades,” Mr. O’Malley said.

The Supreme Court has steadily narrowed the ways that schools can consider race when trying to diversify their student bodies. But it has not banned the practice.

So, the next time a liberal tries to tell you that they’re all for equality, feel free to remind them that they’re not.

'Desire' Director Defends Using Children for Sex Scene on Netflix

BY MEGAN FOX

Promotional art for Netflix's 'Desire.

Diego Kaplan, who directed the film Desire, available on Netflix, is defending his choice to depict a child masturbating in the film. In a statement published at Variety, Kaplan defended the scene, comparing it to a shark attack.

No, really.

"Despair is a film," he said. "When we see a shark eating a woman on film, no one thinks the woman really died or that the shark was real."

Really? The main problem with this is that there are no laws against filming shark attacks or pretending to be attacked by a shark. There are very serious laws, however, about NOT FILMING CHILDREN IN A SEXUAL SITUATION or depicting them as doing so. No one claimed that the children were actually sexually assaulted while making the scene (although I believe it is abusive to portray them in such an exploitive way) or that the child in question was having an actual orgasm. She was, however, depicted as having an orgasm (quite a long, drawn-out one with slow motion and sexualized panting like a porn actor). But the mere depiction of this appears to violate the law. Whether Kaplan's intent was to break the law or not, he is still subject to it. Further, Netflix is responsible for what they stream online. They should have lawyers who tell them not to engage in anything that could even look like child porn.

When I contacted the Department of Justice and asked for clarification on the law, they responded by sending a copy of the statute that, to me, makes it clear that depicting a child masturbating is a crime. As I read the statute, the child does not have to be actually masturbating. Just the idea of it transmitted on film seems to be the legal definition of child porn.

Nicole Navas Oxman, a spokesperson for the DOJ, described child porn:

"As to what constitutes child pornography, that is defined in 18 USC 2256 in relevant part as a visual depiction of an individual under the age of 18 engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct, which is defined as sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or the lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person," she said. [Emphasis added]

Actual OR simulated, Mr. Kaplan! You have admitted that you made a visual depiction of a minor child simulating masturbation. I think that is a crime in the United States, and if there is any justice at all you will be held accountable for it. At times like this we must ask ourselves if our laws mean anything. Here we have a person who has defended his choice to apparently violate our child protection laws. Will he see justice? Or will our law enforcement turn its back because he is a powerful Hollywood director? We've seen that happen for many years and countless women were abused and degraded by the likes of Harvey Weinstein. I thought we were at a #MeToo turning point, where we've had enough of this sexploitation! There was more outrage over grown women on a casting couch than there is about Kaplan using minor children to simulate masturbation for entertainment purposes. What the hell is wrong with us?

If we cannot stand up and say that this is wrong and that it cannot be allowed to go unpunished, then I don’t see how can we prosecute anyone under these child pornography laws. When does the unequal application of the law start applying? If Kaplan and Netflix get away with making and distributing this material, then what is to stop defense attorneys all over the country from defending their clients' right to use children in sexual films under the guise of "simulated" conditions?

Kaplan's defense gets worse.

"Of course this scene was filmed using a trick, which was that the girls were copying a cowboy scene from a film by John Ford," he said. "The girls never understood what they were doing, they were just copying what they were seeing on the screen. No adult interacted with the girls, other than the child acting coach. Everything was done under the careful surveillance of the girls’ mothers. Because I knew this scene might cause some controversy at some point, there is 'Making Of' footage of the filming of the entire scene."

My problem here, of course, is that I don’t believe there is a trick on earth that can make depicting a child engaging in masturbation legal according to U.S. law. There is no codicil that says, "any depiction of a minor child engaging in sexual activity is a crime and punishable by law unless you are a Hollywood director and the parents say it's okay."

Not only that, but these children have no idea how they were used! How will they feel when they come of age and they understand it and realize that the film is out there forever? What will high school be like for them? Does anyone care that these girls could not consent? Where are the cries of outrage over the way they were used without consent? Are we to accept that parents can consent on behalf of minor children to be used sexually now? What is this fresh hell?

The question of whether the children were harmed physically is not the issue. It's how the director chose to represent them on film, which he admits was sexual in nature. Kaplan doesn't even deny it. Instead of apologizing for the complete inappropriateness of this scene and offering to recut the movie, Kaplan dared to call his critics depraved. "Everything works inside the spectators’ heads, and how you think this scene was filmed will depend on your level of depravity."

Are. You. Kidding. Me? How the scene was filmed is not the issue, but that it exists at all! And if you are offended by the legal definition of child porn, dear reader, you are the one who is depraved according to the guy who made little girls bounce on pillows in slow motion, panting to porn music. Hollywood has been getting away with this kind of degenerate excrement for years. Brooke Shields was exploited back in the '70s and they got away with it, not because it wasn't child exploitation, but because no one was able to stand up to the big money and power of Hollywood perverts.

Have we had enough yet? Let's not allow Hollywood to get away with it again.

Why There Was No Mass Libertarian Movement—Lessons for Conservatives

This is excerpt No. 11 (of 45) from America’s Right Turn: How Conservatives Used New and Alternative Media to Take Power, by Richard A. Viguerie and David Franke.

Just as we can and must learn from our own mistakes, we can also learn from others’ mistakes and failures. In 1955, for example, there were just as many objective reasons why a mass libertarian movement might succeed as there were for conservative success. Yet the conservatives did succeed in creating a mass movement, while the libertarians remained on the margins.

Why did this happen? In this excerpt we look at marketing appeal, motivating issues, adaptability to street politics, leadership, and funding. In each instance, the conservatives succeeded while the libertarians fell short. This is not just ancient history—there are critical lessons here for conservatives today.

Why was there no mass libertarian movement?

We must always guard against the temptation to view past history as preordained. Most of us don’t really believe that – we believe in free will – but the assumption that what happened did so because it had to happen always creeps into our view of the past simply because we know the outcome of what did happen.

Before continuing with our story of how the conservative movement came to power, therefore, it may be fruitful to return to 1955 and ask why a libertarian, instead of conservative, movement didn’t seize the moment. In the process we may uncover some movement-building lessons that transcend this particular example.

In Chapter 3, “The Recipe for Creating a New Mass Movement,” we noted that “there is ever-increasing competition for your attention among potential mass movements.” Returning to the year 1955, we can find as many seeds for a libertarian or “Old Right” movement as for a conservative movement. Why then, did the conservative seeds result in a robust garden while the libertarian seeds brought forth just a few bushes? Let us offer a few suggestions for your consideration.

Something “new” is almost always more appealing than something “old.”

Granted there’s nothing truly new in the world. We’re talking here about marketing, or packaging. Something packaged as “old” invariably has a track record, which invariably includes a record of failures. Something packaged as “new” is unhampered by history and can promise to set everything right. There was a reason FDR promised “a New Deal” rather than “an Old Deal,” and why John F. Kennedy called for “a New Frontier.”

Of course, what we now call the “Old Right” was then called, simply, the “Right” or the “right wing.” Still, the right-wing elements existing in 1955 were hampered by the fact that they had been around since before World War II – and had failed all that time to come to power. Before that, the America First movement – which had sought to keep the United States out of World War II – had overwhelming support among the American people, but was undone by the connivance of FDR to get us into war. None of this is to imply that there was anything wrong with the Old Right’s positions – merely that in 1955 it needed to reinvent itself to get rid of this baggage. But, thinking in terms of packaging or marketing was anathema to the Old Right.

It is ironic that conservatives pulled off this packaging feat, since, after all, “conservatism” by definition is the preservation of what is good from the past. Conservatives succeeded in part because the word “conservative” had long been out of political circulation, and thus could be packaged as something new; and in part because – being something “new” – they could offer solutions without historical baggage of failure.

Conservatives brought together, as the core of their appeal, two of the strongest motivators in America – religion and patriotism.

These two motivators were joined against the threat of communism. In this regard, one of the great political accomplishments of the new conservative movement was its use of the communist threat to bring masses of Catholic voters into the Republican fold, and away from their ancestral immigrant home with the Democrats. The election of our first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, slowed but could not stop this process.

As we’ve noted, there is no inherent conflict between libertarianism and religion, and in 1955 there were two fine publications combining those elements. Nevertheless, Ayn Rand and her Objectivists were the loudest and shrillest libertarian voices in the 1955-1964 period, and they were vehemently anti-religious. After the American Revolution, most Americans scorned Tom Paine for his skeptical views on religion in The Age of Reason, even though he was probably the man most responsible for the American Revolution. George Washington stayed loyal to the patriot who had done so much for his country, but literally asked him to enter his house by the back door. Clearly, religious skepticism is not a path to power in America.

In addition, America, in 1955, was wracked by doubts and fears on the communist issue. Too many domestic spy rings had been uncovered; too many bloody communist advances had changed the face of the world. The libertarians and Old Rightists never put together a comprehensive policy program for action on this, the gut issue of the day; the conservatives at National Review did. More generally, libertarians always have a problem with “waving the flag” politically, knowing full well the record of our own government in suppressing freedoms under the guise of patriotism; many conservatives had, and have, no such hesitation.

Libertarians were more at home in academic pursuits; conservatives were more at home in politics.

And as we’ve noted before, both groups were enormously successful – in their own areas of expertise. The conservatives quickly learned how to develop programs that were practical and easily understood by the masses. Libertarians were far more theoretical in their approach to political problems, which meant they had less mass appeal. It took several decades before a libertarian policy group, the CATO Institute, was formed to bridge the gap between politics and libertarian academics.

Conservatives mastered the art of compromise; libertarians have a real problem with any compromise, which is one reason they fare better as academics than as politicians.

Conservatives also mastered the art of discipline – of being able to purge elements from the movement that might hinder it, yet continuing to forge ahead. Those libertarians who were politically motivated could teach the conservatives a thing or two about brutal purges and factional fights, but they never figured out how to bring Humpty Dumpty back together again and continue advancing.

Libertarians had no charismatic leader comparable to the conservatives’ William F. Buckley Jr.

Ayn Rand had broad charismatic power – in print. In person, she had more of a cult appeal – thankfully not the stuff of which mass movements are made, at least in America. Murray Rothbard had an engaging personality – especially in person – as well as a brilliant mind and nimble wit. Having said that, he lacked the organizational ability to lead a movement; he was (like other libertarians) better at purging than at coalition-building; and he lacked the visual and rhetorical appeal of Bill Buckley in what was fast becoming the age of television.

Among politicians, Robert A. Taft had been the gold standard in terms of appealing both to conservatives and to libertarians. Barry Goldwater called himself a conservative and won the hearts of virtually every conservative in America. With his individualism and frankness, he also appealed to a good many libertarians, especially the less doctrinaire ones. The libertarians could point to a few libertarian-leaning congressmen in this period, but they had no one with the broad appeal of a Goldwater.

While money initially was scarce in both camps, the conservatives quickly outperformed the libertarians in learning how to raise the cash necessary for creating a movement.

In these early years, all operations – conservative and libertarian – started out as bootstrap operations, but National Review always managed to find enough money to survive and grow. Some of the funds came from Bill Buckley himself and other Buckley family members, though the family contributions were undoubtedly far less than the public imagined. While most often compared to the Kennedys, the Buckley family was not nearly as well off as the Kennedys. A good amount of National Review’s funding certainly came from WFB Jr.’s annual fund appeals to subscribers, which began in 1958. This was a smart marketing move, as one major lesson in fundraising is to return repeatedly to the people who have already contributed to your cause.

Interestingly enough, though, Buckley said on the PBS program Talking with David Frost (June 28, 1996), that National Review “lost 19 million dollars” in its early years, adding: “In constant dollars it comes to about 45 or 46 million.” If all that red ink was covered by Buckley’s annual fund appeals, he missed his calling, for he could have been one of the nation’s most successful fundraisers. Whatever the sources of National Review’s early funding, it was far more than that enjoyed by any libertarian enterprise.

In considering why conservatism succeeded as a mass movement, while libertarianism didn’t, it is important to remember that all of these elements worked in synergy with each other. Early funding can give one side a head start against the other, but without leadership and broad public appeal the funding will be wasted. And by 1960, the contest was over – it was obvious the new movement would be conservative rather than libertarian.

Eye-opening poll tells how many Democrats are ‘extremely proud’ to be Americans compared to Republicans
Julia Cohen, DCNF

Less than one-third of Democrats are “extremely proud” to be Americans, according to a Gallup poll released on Monday.

Only 32 percent of Democrats rated themselves as “extremely proud” to be Americans, while 74 percent of Republicans rated themselves as such, according to the poll.

This is the lowest number for Democrats and the highest number for Republicans since 2013, according to the poll. The percentage of Democrats extremely proud to be Americans dropped 24 percentage points from 2013, when former President Barack Obama was in office.

Overall, 47 percent of those surveyed were extremely proud to be Americans.

White Americans are also more likely to be extremely proud to be Americans than non-white Americans at 54 percent compared to 33 percent, according to the poll. The percentage extremely proud to be Americans also increases with age, with 33 percent of those 18 to 29 years old extremely proud and 58 percent of those 65 and older extremely proud.

The low numbers may be related to how Americans think they are viewed by other countries. A February 2018 Gallup poll revealed that at that time, only 29 percent of Americans believed that world leaders respected President Donald Trump.

The poll was conducted over the phone from June 1 to 13, with 1,520 adults of voting age sampled. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Dick Morris: Watch Out as Hard Left Takes Over in Mexico
By Dick Morris

Now that AMLO — Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — has been elected president of Mexico (to take office on December 1) the game has totally changed. He is a dedicated Castro and Chavez wannabe who will lead the emerging anti-American coalition in Latin America (members in good standing: Venezuela, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Bolivia).

Today, we have a big problem in the spontaneous decisions of hundreds of thousands of Mexicans to emigrate to the United States illegally each year. But, under AMLO, look for the Mexican government to stimulate the migration as a deliberate effort to infiltrate the United States and turn us further to the left.

We worry about terrorists finding their way across our southern border, but soon, we will face the prospect of the co-operation of the Mexican government in getting them into our country. Similarly, look for AMLO to encourage drug kingpins to migrate to the US. Anything to weaken our country.

These prophesies are not propaganda, but are the results of my up close observation of AMLO. I was not involved in this year’s campaign, but I worked in the successful campaigns to defeat him in 2006 and 2012.

Domestically, within Mexico, look for widespread expropriations and nationalizations of private property, particularly those of American investors and expats. This guy means it when he calls for government action to reduce class inequality and rails against the handful of people who, he says, “own” Mexico.

NAFTA? He attacks the trade deal as vigorously as President Trump does, claiming that it is unfair to Mexico. How he reaches that conclusion is a bit vague. In 2017, Mexico sold $314 billion to the US and bought $243 billion from us for a negative trade balance in Mexico’s favor of $71 billion.

But, AMLO says, “no NAFTA is better than the current bad NAFTA.”

Obviously, AMLO and Trump are headed for a collision that will reverberate strongly in the international community. In effect, the government of our southern neighbor — who shares a 1,954 mile border with us — has fallen into the hands of our enemy.

In American politics, as the Mexican-US relationship sours, Democrats and liberals will ask “who lost Mexico?” just as Nixon asked “who lost China?” in his attacks on President Harry Truman and the Democrats in the early 1950s. They will claim that Trump’s bellicose anti-Mexico rhetoric and tough immigration policies stimulated sufficient anti-American sentiment south of the border to elect AMLO.

Trump is, in reality, not responsible for AMLO’s rise. Mexican politics is dominated by three parties: The right wing (for Mexico) PAN, the left wing Moreno (meaning “brown”, AMLO’s party), and the PRI, the institutional revolutionary party that ruled Mexico last century. The PAN took over from the PRI in 2000 with Vicente Fox and kept control in 2006 with Felipe Calderon. Then, Calderon led Mexico into a fierce war against its drug kingpins that cost 130,000 Mexicans their lives (imagine that toll in a country 1/3 the size of the US). The bloodshed impelled voters to reject the PAN in 2012 and turn, despite their better judgement, to the PRI once again. They figured anyone was better than AMLO. But, under Pena Nieto and the PRI, corruption rose to unbelievable heights driving Pena Nieto’s ratings down to 18% approval.

Into this vacuum came AMLO, sweeping to victory over his two discredited rivals.

So, now we are going to have to live with AMLO. It won’t be easy.

Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.

Pocahontas Joins the Chorus of Democrats Who Want to Abolish ICE

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Saturday at a Boston rally that she was joining the growing chorus of leftists and Democrats who are calling for an end to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The far-left senator cast her lot with the likes of Kirsten Gillibrand, Bill de Blasio, Kamala Harris, and Bernie Sanders, all of whom have suggested that ICE should either be reformed or scrapped altogether.

“The president’s deeply immoral actions have made it obvious we need to rebuild our immigration system from top to bottom starting by replacing ICE with something that reflects our morality and that works,” Warren said. “President Trump seems to think that the only way to have immigration rule is to rip parents from their family, is to treat rape victims and refugees like terrorists, and to put children in cages. This is ugly and this is wrong and this is not the way to run our country.”

Okay, we’ll just skip over the commentary we could provide about Warren’s ridiculous “picture” of things at the border; it’s really nothing we haven’t heard from the mainstream media – ad nauseum – for the last month. We would expect nothing less than this kind of apocalyptic, unhinged-from-reality rhetoric from a politician like Warren. We will instead simply ask: All of these problems at the border…aren’t we actually talking about the Border Patrol, and not ICE? Hmm. We guess “Abolish the Border Patrol” doesn’t sell as many tickets.

We’re not sure where Democrats got the idea that Americans are ready to abandon any attempt to enforce U.S. immigration law, but we’ve got a feeling that they’re in for a rude electoral awakening in November. Even with the ONSLAUGHT of images and rhetoric coming from the media over the last month, the majority of voters still think that the PARENTS of illegal immigrants are more to blame for what’s happening at the border than President Trump. If the will of the people is impervious to this kind of nonstop propaganda, we’re confident in saying that Democrats like Warren are barking up the wrong tree.

President Trump seems to feel the same way. Asked about the Democrats and their new pet issue on Fox News, he said he wasn’t concerned.

“I hope they keep thinking about it, because they’re going to get beaten so badly,” he said. “You know ICE, these are the guys that go in and take MS-13, and they take them out. Because they’re much tougher than MS-13, like by a factor of 10. And these are the ones – you get rid of ICE you’re going to have a country that you’re going to be afraid to walk out of your house. I love that issue if they’re going to actually do that.”

Well, what’s happening is that the Democrats are reaping what they’ve sown. The far left is taking over, and it is going to turn their party into an extremist, anti-American, socialist organization that can’t win elections outside a few dark-blue hotspots on the coasts. But hey, if they need Republicans to take the wheel for five or ten years while they get their stuff sorted out…no problem.

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/2018/07/www_4.html

Baca juga