The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Violent Teenage Tranny Provokes Connecticut Youth Jail Crisis

Posted on | April 11, 2014 | 26 Comments

A 16-year-old boy who wants to be a girl has a history of violently attacking staff at juvenile facilities. After the latest attack, the teenage transsexual was transferred to a prison for young adult offenders, and a variety of activist types have become outraged:

Lawyers for the youth who was transferred out of the care of the Department of Children and Families and into an adult prison pressed for a court order Thursday barring the youth’s placement at the Manson Correctional Institute for males up to the age of 20.
Prison officials on Thursday were still evaluating the female transgender youth at the York Correctional Institute for women in Niantic. A federal judge dismissed the request for a court order “without prejudice,” meaning lawyers for the youth can immediately re-file the request as soon as prison officials decide where the youth will be housed. That could happen by Friday. Through its history, the Department of Correction has always placed transgendered inmates by their biological gender.
There is no criminal charge against the 16-year-old, and DCF said it took the extremely rare action of pressing for a transfer to an adult prison because of the youth’s history of assaulting staff members at juvenile facilities. But advocates for children said DCF deals with many assaultive youths, and said the transfer endangers the youth’s life and sets an intolerable precedent. A state judge on Tuesday approved the transfer of the youth out of DCF care.
Attorney Aaron Romano, one of the youth’s lawyers, said the legal team would oppose any move to place the youth at Manson, saying her life would be in danger. And Romano said any move to put the youth in an isolation or seclusion unit at York would also be opposed — as a violation of the her constitutional rights.

Read the whole crazy thing. There are multiple angles, including the accusation that this teen tranny’s case was dishonestly used by Connecticut officials in lobbying for additional funding:

It turns out that Jill, the ultra-violent girl cited in testimony by DCF Commissioner Joette Katz in February 14th hearings regarding the need for a Connecticut facility for ultra-violent female juveniles is in fact a male transgender.
The 16 year old “girl” and “female” cited in multiple reports as an alleged serial violent batterer of women and girls across several foster care placements was revealed to be a male “transgender teen” yesterday when gay activist groups revealed he has since been remanded to an adult prison facility for evaluation and placement by the state.

It can be hard to keep track of the pronouns in a story like this, but there is no doubting the teen tranny’s propensity for violence:

DCF argued before a judge that it could not care for the youth at any of its programs, including the high-security Connecticut Juvenile Training School in Middletown. The youth had assaulted a staff member at a Massachusetts facility in January. . . .
In this case, the youth was arrested at a juvenile facility in Needham, Mass., but the assault charge was not pursued by prosecutors. No criminal charges are pending against the youth, who was placed in the Needham facility by Connecticut DCF.
The police report in Massachusetts said that the assault resulted in “apparent minor injuries” to the staff member, said Connolly, who reviewed the report.
However, the incident report prepared by staff at Meadowridge Academy in Needham, describes a violent outburst by the youth, who was upset, insubordinate and attempting to walk off campus when confronted by two staff members.
The assault occurred after one of the two staff members attempted to restrain the youth by bear-hugging the youth around the chest.
The youth broke free and punched the victim multiple times, bit the staffer on the top of the head, and kicked the staffer at least six times in the head, arms and face, according to the report.

The ACLU has gotten involved:

Sandra Staub, legal director of the ACLU of Connecticut, said the effect of the transfer is to single out the youth for unjust treatment.
“DCF asked for and the court approved a plan to treat this girl as if she were an adult and a criminal, although she is neither,” Staub said.
The agency pursued this action “simply because she is a transgendered girl,” Staub said. “No other girl in DCF custody has been endangered in this way. The result, if not the intent, is clearly discriminatory.”

Hey, wait a minute: If you put this “transgendered girl” in a juvenile facility for females, don’t the violent tendencies of this biological male — who is likely taller and stronger than nearly all the female inmates — put those girls at risk? Also . . .

Well, penis?

Having an inmate with a penis in the juvenile girls dormitory might be kinda problematic. Supply, demand. Just sayin’ . . .

 

Category: Crime, Gays

‘Huge Disappointment’: @LenaDunham Laments Her Own Heterosexuality

Posted on | April 10, 2014 | 76 Comments

 

Where does a lifetime of liberal indoctrination about “inclusivity” lead young women? Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome:

Dunham shared her views on her lesbian sister and sexual attraction during an appearance at the Point Honors Gala at the New York Public Library Monday.

The “Girls” star thanked her sister Grace, now 22, saying, “I have always felt a strong and emotional connection to members of the LGBTQ community. It was actually a huge disappointment for me when I came of age and realized that I was sexually attracted to men. So when my sister came out, I thought, ‘Thank God, now someone in this family can truly represent my beliefs and passions.'”

It’s easy enough to wisecrack about this, but the sad reality is that feminist ideology does celebrate lesbianism as the ultimate in liberation and equality, so that Lena Dunham’s feminist “beliefs and passions” — the core tenets of her intellectual loyalty — are at odds with her personal preference for penis-in-vagina (PIV) intercourse that feminism condemns as violent oppression. (“PIV is always rape, OK?”) Perhaps you’ve forgotten the radical feminist who explained that their ideology is based on a rejection of the “sex role as fuckholes, breeders and slaves has been forced on us by men, and that this role is wholly unnatural to us.”

This pejorative description of women’s “sex role” may inspire mocking laughter, but it deserves serious critical scrutiny. What the radical feminist rejects is the idea of sexual dimorphism as a natural basis for the division of labor between the sexes. Students of design are taught that form follows function, and the observable differences between male and female constitute a sort of scientific argument for a differentiation of roles between them. The biological purpose of sex is procreation, and if we expect both parents to contribute to the survival of their offspring, the pair-bonding of parents into a permanent unit — the basis of the family — requires a system of cooperation. Viewing sex roles from this natural or biological perspective, we see that child-bearing and breast-feeding tend to inhibit the ability of mothers to work outside the home, at least until their children reach a certain level of maturity.

 

Advances in technology and the pervasive affluence of developed industrial economies permit us to ignore sexual differences — and the natural or biological basis of sex roles — to a great extent. If “work” consists mainly of sitting in front of a computer terminal, after all, there is no obvious reason that men and women should not be equally capable of such work, whereas in earlier societies, the male role as breadwinner depended largely on physical labor for which men’s greater upper-body strength made them especially suitable. Modernity makes it easy (especially for college-educated professionals who have never earned their living by manual labor) to forget that the superiority of masculine physical strength still matters, just as the development of technology — including cheap, reliable contraception — obscures the centrality of childbearing to women’s biological characteristics.

Anthropology, neuroscience and evolutionary theory all point in the same direction, namely that the differences between men and woman are not merely physical, but that the biology of the brain — including the influence of hormones on our behavior and emotions — also predisposes men and women toward different roles. Radical feminism rejects this view, claiming that apparent differences (e.g., women’s greater tendency toward nurturing) are “social constructs,” imposed on women by the oppressive patriarchy.

 

‘Please Be My Breeder-Slave’?

If you consider sexual desire and romantic love between men and women to be natural and healthy, you are not a feminist. Because male sexuality is violent and harmful, feminism teaches, women’s “emotional bond to men” is in fact a reaction to men’s “inescapable violence and oppression,” enabling men “to ensure our long-term submission” by “using us as their dick receptacles.”  There is nothing natural about sex, according to feminist ideology, no biological urge that causes women to be attracted to men. Indeed, feminism teaches, most women’s belief that they enjoy sex with men is the result of patriarchal brainwashing:

No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion — one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love.  . . .
It’s part of the global male infrastructure that ensures men a constant supply of ready-tamed and pre-possessed women to effortlessly stick their dicks in, impregnate and abuse.

The penis is an instrument of male violence and intercourse is the means by which women are forcibly oppressed, according to feminism. If any woman believes she has “attraction, sexual urges or love” for a man, this belief results from a “mental invasion” by which “the global male infrastructure” trains a supply of women who can be “effortlessly” obtained as “penis receptacles” to impregnate.

 

Perceiving male sexuality as intrinsically harmful, and believing that normal women are victims of “heteronormative” brainwashing, feminists imagine the male proposition thus:

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Please be my breeder-slave
And dick receptacle, too.

Such a crude derogation of men’s sexual desire is an insult to every woman who takes pleasure in her distinctly feminine role as wife and mother — and the insult is quite intentional, once we realize the extent to which feminism has been dominated by lesbians and abortion fanatics for decades. Overt hostility to men, marriage and motherhood are not recent developments in feminist doctrine, nor is feminism’s philosophical antipathy toward heterosexuality a “fringe” phenomenon.

Why else would Lena Dunham feel the need to express apologetic shame for her heterosexuality, if her feminist professors at Oberlin College had not taught her this sense of embarrassment at being helplessly brainwashed and voluntarily oppressed as a “dick receptacle”?

The War on Sexual Biology

Yet this phenomenon — Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome — is implicit in contemporary liberal culture, which holds that sex is merely a form of pleasure, without any spiritual or moral dimension, to be regulated only by mutual consent. Liberalism’s apparent neutrality toward the sexual preferences of consenting adults, however, is belied by the incessant cheerleading for contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Contraception and abortion are necessary to the liberal project of diverting women from the path toward marriage and motherhood by suppressing their natural fertility. And homosexuality is celebrated by liberals as part of the same project, to delegitimize the traditional family as a normative social institution.

As I said, feminist hostility toward heterosexuality “deserves serious critical scrutiny,” and this means asking ourselves what the consequences would be if, as they say, sexuality and sex roles are merely “social constructs.” Consider as a hypothetical that there is no biological impulse toward heterosexuality, no natural instinct or innate drive that directs us toward marriage and procreation.

If this were so — if sexuality is a “social construct” — then there would be no reason why, in a society free of “heteronormative patriarchy,” everybody should not be homosexual. Of course, that would result in rapid extinction of such a society, but if it is only social influences that shape our sexual behaviors, an entirely homosexual population is a theoretical possibility, at least for one final generation.

However, despite decades of pro-gay propaganda, a Gallup poll found that only 3.4 percent of the population identifies as gay.

It appears, therefore, that there may be some biological resistance to the gay agenda, some innate tendency toward heterosexuality. What has resulted from this gay propaganda is a situation in which the overwhelming majority of Americans — 96.6 percent — are subjected to routine and ubiquitous cultural celebrations of a sexual preference they do not share.  And this produces Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome, where straight women like Lena Dunham feel obligated to publicly denounce themselves for desiring sex with men.

This strange hostility toward viewing heterosexual behavior as natural, as a function of basic biology, also explains the attitude that led a Massachusetts college sex educator to complain:

I suppose I’ve been relying on students to find their own way to embracing biology as a valuable way to think about sex. But this point of view is so foreign to many of them, many of them Sociology or Women’s Studies majors who have never thought about sex in terms of biology or reproduction . . . And I suppose it was too much to ask that they get there on their own.
I wanted them to find their way to the notion that it’s not “heteronormative” to recognize that sex is an evolutionarily adaptive reproduction strategy that, in humans, involves males and females; it’s just our biology, and there’s a complex, mutually interacting relationship between the biological and the social. I’ve been working toward that all semester. But they have not gotten there.

Amazing! A biological view of sex — as simple as “Me Tarzan, you Jane” — is nowadays so alien to the worldview of college students that they reject it as being somehow anti-gay.

Given the prevalence of these weird ideas in academia, it’s  not surprising that many students are deeply confused about sex. If campus performances of “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less” are regarded as routine at universities, how many more young women feel the same kind of “huge disappointment” as Lena Dunham? Alas, they still crave men who will use their vaginas as “penis receptacles”!

Well, form follows function. That’s what I learned in college.

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
— Matthew 19:4-6 (KJV)

 

Category: Celebrities, Feminism, Gays

The Liberal Race-Mongering Derby

Posted on | April 10, 2014 | 25 Comments

About three weeks ago, I briefly took notice of a debate between liberals Jonathan Chait and Ta-Nehisi Coates about the “correct” view on race relations. Ann Althouse notices that the debate has continued, and has been recapped by Clare Sostanovich.

Let me add two cents: Back in the 1990s, when some piece of legislation was pending in the Republican-held Congress — its passage in doubt because of President Clinton’s veto threat — I talked to a GOP House member who explained the basic political calculus: “It depends on whether we want a bill, or whether we want an issue.”

That is to say, they could make changes in the legislation so that the President would sign it, thus giving Republicans a chance to claim credit for the bill, or else they could pass the measure as it stood, forcing the President to veto it, and giving Republicans an issue that they could then take to voters in the next election.

It seems to me that Ta-Nehisi Coates, who offers himself as a progressive spokesman for black America, must make a similar choice:  Does he want to address racial problems with the idea of doing something about those problems, or does does he just want to continue invoking a sense of black grievance that is more or less permanent? Does he want the bill, or does he want the issue?

Many conservatives have observed that liberals thrive on the political exploitation of problems that their policies never solve. As Ronald Reagan quipped: “We had a War on Poverty. Poverty won.” Of course, liberals have never stopped claiming that poverty is a problem which always demands more liberal solutions. But if they ever got rid of poverty, liberals would be out of business, and so they are politically invested in policies that don’t actually work.

All of this discussion was originally provoked by Rep. Paul Ryan’s remarks about “inner-city” culture as a cause of poverty. Talk to any upwardly mobile middle-class black parent, and they will tell you that one of their greatest challenges is trying to prevent their children from adopting that “inner-city” attitude which is too often presented in popular culture as the only way to be “authentically” black.

It’s really sad to see how often black suburbanites — teachers and accountants and managers who have worked to earn their kids a chance at life in affluent communities with good schools — are heartbroken that their sons and daughters reject the opportunities they’ve been given, instead getting involved in drugs and gangs and every other “inner-city” problem their parents sought to escape.

Such problems involve layers and layers of complexity that cannot be explained — and certainly can never be solved — merely by reference to white racism, nor by invoking a historic “legacy” of discrimination. In 2014, it is impossible to say that racial discrimination is worse than it was half a century ago, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Yet it is perplexing that liberals refuse to consider the paradoxical possibility that liberal policies of the past have in some ways caused (or at least, made worse) the problems that liberals so frequently complain about today. Go read Doug Ross’s summary of how race hustlers tried to smear the Tea Party as racist, a timely reminder of how Democrats shamelessly exploit racial division for partisan purposes.

Whatever your problem is, “vote Democrat” is never the solution.

 

Category: Racism

In The Mailbox, 04.10.14

Posted on | April 10, 2014 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: Sluggish and “Now We’re Just Haggling Over The Price”
Michelle Malkin: The Meltdown Of The Obama Genderhawks
Doug Powers: House Panel Requests DOJ Prosecution Of Lois Lerner
Twitchy: Abominable Doucherocket Michael Tomasky Of The Daily Beast Explains Why Conservative Women Are So Dumb


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Ayaan Hirsi Ali – Banned At Brandeis
American Thinker: Pro-Choice – Defending The Right Not To Be Gay
Blackfive: The Bigotry Of The Myth Of The Ticking Vet
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: Shocker – Gathering Of Drunk, Half-Naked College Students Ends In Disaster
Conservatives4Palin: Governor Palin Tells Holder “These Are My Identifying Bracelets”
Don Surber: Daily Scoreboard, April 9
Jammie Wearing Fools: Obama Pal Sharpton Wore FBI Wire To Save Himself From Drug Sting
Joe For America: Video Of Violence Breaking Out Between Ranchers, BLM Officers Over Cattle Dispute
Pat Dollard: IRS Agents Caught Openly Campaigning For Obama
Protein Wisdom: Radical Identity Politics, Homosexuality, And The Irony Of The New Jihad
Shot In The Dark: Chanting Points Memo – The New GULAG
STUMP: Public Pensions Watch – The Detroit Deal’s Basics
The Jawa Report: CAIR Complains Women Having Human Rights Is Anti-Islamic
Lonely Conservative: Lois Lerner Hoped To Get A Job With Organizing For America
This Ain’t Hell: Marine Corps Sergeant Major Says Poor Marines Are Best For The Corps
Megan McArdle: How Ukraine Could Alter New York’s Skyline


Five days left in tax season.

JustOneMinute: Fahrenheit 8

Category: Linkagery

77 Cents on the Dollar?

Posted on | April 10, 2014 | 43 Comments

President Obama’s repetition of feminist “pay gap” lies — the false claim that women earn only 77 cents for every dollar men earn in the same jobs — has come back to haunt him, Jennifer Rubin says:

I’m betting the White House staffer who thought up the equal pay initiative is getting some fairly icy looks and snippy calls from Democrats.

Rubin cites a series of consequences, including this:

The White House discovered this week that calculations using average wages can yield unsatisfactory results. McClatchy newspapers did the math and reported that when the same standards that generated the 77-cent figure were applied to White House salaries, women overall at the White House make 91 cents for every dollar men make. White House spokesman Jay Carney protested that the review “looked at the aggregate of everyone on staff, and that includes from the most junior levels to the most senior.” But that’s exactly what the Census Department does.

The magic feminist “77 cents” number is derived from a crude comparison that, in essence, aggregates millions of apples-to-oranges comparisons. To compare the average income of all women to the average income of all men necessarily yields these false comparisons, because such crude averages do not take into consideration a host of factors that account for differences in income. Once you control for such factors — occupational specialty, years of education, etc. — the mythical “wage gap” evaporates. Caroline May at the Daily Caller reports:

The pay gap among women in the White House is more than twice as large as the average in the nation’s capital.
While female White House staffers earn about 88 cents for every dollar men in the White House make, women in the District earn about 95 cents for every dollar a men make, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
That’s a 12-cent pay gap at the White House compared to a five-cent pay gap in the District of Columbia.

It’s always fun to play “gotcha” with liberals, using their own professed criteria to indict them for hypocrisy, but it’s important to remember that this is not ultimately the point of the exercise. When we call attention to the falseness of Democrat rhetoric by citing their inability to live up to the standards they would impose on others, our larger purpose should be to expose the erroneous beliefs that are embedded in liberal “standards.”

The radical  egalitarian worldview, which sees “discrimination” and “social injustice” wherever inequality exists, and which proposes government regulation as the solution to such alleged problems, invariably produces “solutions” that make life worse for everyone — except, perhaps, for the bureaucrats who get paid to enforce the regulations. A free economy may not result in what everyone would call fairness, but it does reliably produce prosperity. The radical egalitarian goal of “social justice” is a mirage, as Friedrich Hayek explained, and the pursuit of mirages is a waste of human resources.

 

Category: Barack Obama, Economics, Feminism

Texas Tranny Teacher

Posted on | April 9, 2014 | 55 Comments

Say hello to Laura Jane Klug who, until quite recently, was Kurt Klug. In fact, as recently as July 2011, Kurt Klug was complaining on Facebook about the emotional turmoil caused by his wife leaving him. And so now, the divorced Kurt has decided to be “Laura Jane,” and wants to be a fifth-grade teacher in small-town Texas:

A transgender substitute teacher said she has been told she should not return to her classes, after parents complained about her.
Laura Jane Klug, who was born Kurt Klug, worked as a fifth grade substitute teacher at Lumberton Intermediate School, but was asked not to return after some of the students’ parents contacted the school.
Klug told 12 News that she met with a representative of Lumberton Independent School District’s Human Resources and Superintendent John Valastro Tuesday afternoon. Klug said they suspended her pending a decision by the school board on whether to continue using her as a substitute teacher.
Roger Beard, whose son was in the class Klug was subbing, said what concerns him is the distraction he believes a transgender teacher poses to ten and eleven year old children.
“If it does affect my child and his ability to learn or if it causes questions that I don’t feel are appropriate then undoubtedly there’s an issue with having somebody transgender, transsexual or transvestite, to be teaching that age group,” Beard said.
Klug said that she has substituted at the school without any issues before and she’s unsure what instigated the outrage.
“I have always conducted myself in a professional manner and would never discuss my gender identity in school,” Klug said.

The population of Lumberton is not quite 9,000 people.

12 News KBMT and K-JAC. News, Weather and Sports for SE Texas

 

You really need to read the report by David Bellow at Texas Conservative Republican, which includes comments from people on Facebook, e.g.: “Here is what a [Lumberton] teacher said yesterday at church: ‘He has 5 o’clock shadow and fake fingernails. The 5th grade class he was in spent more time staring at him than taking their test, so he was pulled out for hall duty.” We can expect LGBT activists to portray  Klug as a victim of bigotry, but common sense suggests that if your mid-life crisis involves a sex change, maybe “fifth-grade teacher in small Texas town” is not an ideal career choice.

 

Category: Education, Gays, Texas

Police: Child Welfare Official Exposed Himself to Teenage Girls at Hotel

Posted on | April 9, 2014 | 13 Comments

The victims of this weird crime “were staying at the hotel while attending the Nebraska Family, Career and Community Leaders of America state leadership conference” in Lincoln, Nebraska:

A director of a national child welfare center in Washington, D.C., was arrested and jailed Monday night for allegedly exposing himself to four teenage girls in a Lincoln hotel.
He was in town to help the state Department of Health and Human Services work on child welfare issues. . . .
Steven L. Preister, 68, was cited by police after allegedly confronting the girls as they exited a stairwell and began lecturing and yelling at them for being too loud. He allegedly followed them to their room and held the door open despite their attempts to close it — all while intoxicated and wearing nothing but a T-shirt, according to Katie Flood, a police officer with the Lincoln Police Department.
Police were called shortly before 10 p.m. to the Cornhusker Marriott Hotel, where four girls, ages 14 to 15, said they were confronted by Preister. Two adult chaperones and another hotel guest reportedly witnessed the incident.
The Washington, D.C., man is associate director of the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement. He is listed as a faculty member at the Cutler Institute for Health and Social Policy at the Muskie School of Public Service, which “develops innovative approaches to pressing health and social challenges faced by individuals, families, and communities.”
Flood said Preister was in Lincoln to speak and provide assistance with child abuse investigations. Kathie Osterman, spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Human Services, said Preister was recommended by the feds to give the state technical assistance.

More at Watchdog.org. (Hat-tip: Melissa Clouthier on Twitter.)

 

Category: Crime, Sex

House Democrats and the IRS Cover-Up

Posted on | April 9, 2014 | 19 Comments

Headline by Katie Pavlich at Townhall:

BREAKING: Emails Show Lois Lerner
Fed True the Vote Tax Information
to Democrat Elijah Cummings

Details from Eliana Johnson at National Review:

The war between Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa and the committee’s ranking member, Elijah Cummings, rages on.
Issa on Wednesday accused the Maryland Democrat of colluding with the Internal Revenue Service in its targeting of the conservative nonprofit group True the Vote . . .
In a letter signed by his five subcommittee chairmen, Issa raised the possibility that Cummings coordinated with the IRS, “surreptitiously” contacting the agency to request information about True the Vote.
E-mails unearthed in the course of Issa’s investigation into the IRS’s inappropriate targeting of right-leaning groups show that in January 2013, a member of Cummings’s staff contacted the IRS asking for any publicly available information on True the Vote. The matter was discussed by IRS officials that included Lois Lerner, the former exempt-organizations chief who retired in the wake of the targeting scandal. One of Lerner’s deputies, Holly Paz, subsequently sent the organization’s 990 forms to Cummings and his staff — not an illegal disclosure of taxpayer information, though sources say the exchange of such information was not routine.

More documents are available at the Oversight Committee web page. Remember what I said yesterday:

My interpretation is that Democrats who have repeated claims that there was no political bias in the IRS are essentially part of a cover-up effort. And make no mistake: There was (and still is) a cover-up.

Elijah Cummings is a corrupt liar. Which is to say, he is a Democrat.

 

Category: Democrats, Scandal, Taxes
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin