Enemy of the People 2018-08-16

Today we were treated to a burst of collusion by the lamestream media.   For the past week, the Boston Globe has been encouraging journalists to publish editorials today that would condemn President Trump for calling the “fake news media” the “enemy of the people.”   Somewhere around 350 editorials were published today in answer to the Boston Globe’s call.   There were also a handful of editorials that opined that this collective effort would surely backfire and only prove Trump’s allegation that the journalists are partisan Leftists and “the Opposition Party.”

So, Ratburghers, did you bother to read any of these editorials?

Did you see any new points that you had not already heard many times?

Did you see any really good examples of arguments against President Trump?   Any criticisms that seemed to be helpful or useful to the public discourse over the battles between Team Trump and mass media?

Have you heard any conversations triggered by this effort at a collective rebuke of President Trump?

My thinking is that this is a really small deal.   Nobody will be persuaded to think differently than they already did.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Media v Evangelicals 2018 part 7

Things have been sort of quiet since my last installment in this series, what with our mass media consumed 24/7 by Trump, Russians, Mueller, Manafort, and Michael Cohen. However there were a few items that might have slipped your notice.

A historian had a book tour. Eerdmans Publishing hooked John Fea up with a tour to promote Believe Me: The Evangelical Road To Donald Trump. This got a mild round of approving articles in the usual spaces. The book is evidently pretty dry, because if it had any juice he would have been treated to a higher-profile tour.

An evangelical Christian himself, Fea argues that the embrace of Donald Trump is the logical outcome of a long-standing evangelical approach to public life defined by the politics of fear, the pursuit of worldly power, and a nostalgic longing for an American past.  As insightful as it is timely, Fea’s  Believe Me  challenges Christians to replace fear with hope, the pursuit of power with humility, and nostalgia with history.

The book is loaded with all the old slanders against traditionalist Christians from the 18th century as well as more recent slanders. I can tell this from reviews, comments and an interview with the author; I have not read the book. It has become tedium that mass media like to pass along repetitive instances of liberal “Christians” criticizing traditionalist Christians using Bible passages.

Along that same line there was a book by a liberal Evangelical pastor named Rob Schenck, who told his personal testimony about how he converted from pro-life to pro-abortion. SSDD.

I saw a few new articles from some of my favorites about the press’s general ignorance of religion and religious issues. They are clueless and it shows. Sometimes their ignorance is good for a laugh.

The most recent instance of note was a long feature in the Washington Post. It is a profile of the Trump voters in a Baptist church in Alabama.

The presidency of Donald Trump has created unavoidable moral dilemmas not just for the members of First Baptist in Luverne but for a distinct subset of Christians who are overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly evangelical and more uniformly pro-Trump than any other part of the American electorate.”

Gee, well, I suppose we can guess where this one is headed, can’t we?

So of course it is larded with the buzzwords you would expect. “Awkwardness” “predicament,” “self-reflection” and “compromising” give way to “whiffing on the big moral questions.” Problematic race history issues in the Southern Baptist Church are dredged up, just to whip up the outragey feels of this mess. Along the way is mixed in a journalism smattering of local color quotes of country Baptist people saying Christian things and saying country things and commenting on President Trump.

In a really nice turn, the reporter (Stephanie McCrummen) gave some space to a member who gave a great statement that is perhaps representative:

There was Terry Drew, who sat in the seventh pew on the left side, who knew and agreed with Trump’s position, and knew that supporting him involved a blatant moral compromise.

I hate it,” he said. “My wife and I talk about it all the time. We rationalize the immoral things away. We don’t like it, but we look at the alternative, and think it could be worse than this.”

The only way to understand how a Christian like him could support a man who boasted about grabbing women’s crotches, Terry said, was to understand how he felt about the person Trump was still constantly bringing up in his speeches and who loomed large in Terry’s thoughts: Hillary Clinton, whom Terry saw as “sinister” and “evil” and “I’d say, of Satan.”

She hates me,” Terry said, sitting in [Pastor] Crum’s office one day. “She has contempt for people like me, … and people who love God and believe in the Second Amendment. I think if she had her way it would be a dangerous country for the likes of me.”

Way to go, Washington Post. Him who has ears, let him hear. You may mock and scoff at these rubes all you like, but they see clearly what the Nevers on the Coast missed by a mile.

This long feature has a sub-plot about Pastor Crum preaching a series on the Ten Commandments, with a buildup to his sermon on Adultery. In the end the reporter was disappointed, as her readers will be, that Pastor Crum did not preach about President Trump. But in the end I think this feature is worth reading, with a very uneven mix of quotes from parishioners. In the early going I thought it was going to be simply another hit job, but it is better than that. You can still tell that the viewpoint of these simple Christians is foreign to the reporter and her organization.

I will put links in the comments. One link will be to media criticism of a Frank Bruni editorial in the New York Times, in which he describes what a dangerous ogre the theocrat Mike Pence is, on account of he believes things that traditionalist Christians always believed. Typical.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar

Enemy of the People

This tweet followed this interesting follow-up exchange at the White House yesterday.

For the sake of this room, the people who are in this room, this democracy, this country, all the people around the world are watching what you’re saying, Sarah,” Acosta said. “The president of the United States should not refer to us as the enemy of the people.”

I appreciate your passion,” Sanders responded. “I share it. I’ve addressed this question. I’ve addressed my personal feelings. I’m here to speak on behalf of the president. He’s made his comments clear.”

Acosta and his fellow-travelers in mass media think they are on the high ground here.

I think they are “the enemy of the people.”

In fact, I think they are unwittingly doing the work of the Enemy.

President Trump called them the “Opposition Party.”

They 0ppose my political values.

They oppose my social values.

They oppose my moral code.

They oppose my traditionalist Christianity.

They oppose my ability to freely exercise my religion.

They oppose American leadership in the world.

They hide the murderous crimes of America’s enemies while trumpeting any fault they can find with America.

They hide the murderous crimes of all other religions aside from Christianity, including Atheism, while haranguing us with repeated tales of Christians’ violence.

They do not want me to be able to teach my children my religion and values; they do not want me to be able to defend my family; they do not want me to have a voice in the public square; they do not want me to know the truth.

I think they are the enemy of the people, even more than President Trump does.

Like 25+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

New York Times pursues intellectual diversity

They acknowledged that they lean Left.   Far Left.   They determined to hire additional conservative voices.   So they hired two “conservatives” away from the Wall Street Journal.

Of course, both of the new hires are NeverTrumps.

That is what passes for intellectual diversity at the New York Times.

I saw an interesting attack on the New York Times that complained about the new hires.   Here is Glenn Greenwald:

On CNN, the paper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, chided critics of the Stephens hiring this way: “Didn’t we learn from this past election that our goal should be to understand different views?” He claimed that “the New York Times has a history of trying to bring in different voices,” asking rhetorically: “Don’t we want to surface all ideas?”

And I was thinking that Greenwald was right.   But then I continued to read Greenwald’s post, and discovered that he was attacking the NYT for being thoroughly establishment and centrist.

Few things are more laughable than watching the incomparably homogenized New York Times op-ed page justify itself with appeals to the virtues of diversity. If your goal were to wage war on media diversity in all of its forms, and to offer the narrowest range of views possible, it would be hard to top the roster of columnists the paper has assembled: Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Nick Kristof, Paul Krugman, Roger Cohen, Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, Frank Bruni, David Leonhardt, Charles Blow, Gail Collins, Bret Stephens, with Bari Weiss as a contributor and editor.

Beyond the obvious demographic homogeneity, literally every one of them fits squarely within the narrow, establishment, center-right to center-left range of opinion that prevails in elite opinion-making circles. Almost all of them, if not all, supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election, and now have politics close to that neighborhood. None is associated with or supportive of the growing populist left or the populist right; they all wallow in the vague, safe, Washington-approved middle ground, members in good standing of the newly overt neoliberal-neoconservative alliance. As long as Stephens avoided talking about climate change and Douthat steered clear of abortion, most if not would all be capable of giving a speech that would be cheered at a so-called #Resistance rally, or at an AIPAC conference.

We need to laugh long and hard at the New York Times as it enjoys its waning days of influence.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Invasion! fake news Venezuela edition

In the Google News aggregator all day today there has been a rolling series of articles about how President Trump wants to invade Venezuela.

https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqdggKInBDQklTVGpvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NrRUtFUWlLeWV6UGpJQU1FWUF2a1B4TXZENEZFaXhVY25WdGNDQndjbVZ6YzJWa0lHRnBaR1Z6SUdGaWIzVjBJR2x1ZG1Ga2FXNW5JRlpsYm1WNmRXVnNZU2dBUAE?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

These articles are about a couple of comments and a discussion from a meeting in August of 2017.   Evidently nobody has spoken of Trump’s questions on the issue since last September.

Fake news.

And they wonder why so many American voters say they believe that mass media sometimes or frequently post things that “they know to be false or misleading.”   Ha.

Here is that poll again.

https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html

As Mollie pointed out, it was disingenuous to lead with the very low credibility in media by Republicans (92%).   The real lead should have been the finding that 79 % of independent voters don’t trust them, either.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Fake News status report

There was a disgruntled man.  He was mad at his local paper.  He thought they had dished out shabby treatment to him personally in story about his conviction for a domestic disturbance.  He sued and lost.  He threatened.  Then he went and shot up the news room, killing five people.

Several journalists blamed President Trump.   They attributed the killings to the toxic atmosphere created by President Trump for calling them “fake news.”

I find that to be similar to the way that several media outlets blamed the Orlando gay nightclub shooting by the Muslim jihadist on the “atmosphere of hate” created by conservative Christians.

At any rate, Mollie wrote a column calling them out for this latest outrage.  In her remarks, she cited a recent poll.   It was a SurveyMonkey poll by Axios.  It shows the low state of credibility of the news media.  Rather, it should be called the high state of incredibility of the news media.  Even Democrats know that they are frequently fake news.

In response to the question whether news media published things they knew to be “fake, false or purposely misleading,” 79 percent of Independent voters said “Sometimes” or  “a lot.”   Republicans were at 92 %; I bet Ratburghers would be even higher.   Democrats were at 53 %.

I am happy to see the mass media news organizations becoming so badly discredited.  They carry water for the Enemy.

I thought y’all would be interested in Mollie’s column:

http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/29/journalists-blame-trump-for-annapolis-shooting-despite-complete-lack-of-evidence/

Also at theFederalist.com, Ms. Rachel Stoltzfoos has a follow-up post in which she reviews some recent fake news history:

http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/30/journos-blame-fake-news-for-shooting-claim-criticism-is-now-off-limits/

The summary of the Axios poll is here:

https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html

The details of the poll are brief and really interesting:

Democrats see most news outlets as unbiased. Republicans think they’re almost all biased.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar

Media v Evangelicals, 2018 part 6

I recently posted about events in the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. This was not a media-generated thing; it was a genuine grass-roots uprising that gained strength after the Washington Post took it up. It cannot be considered a media-fueled problem. However, it is worth noting that Baptist media lean left and helped push a Progressive into the office of President of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I suppose the lesson there is that journalists lean left, even when they work for theologically conservative publications.

And now to continue my periodic reviews of the ongoing media campaign against theologically conservative Christians. The Trump era has seen the media focus on Evangelicals. Well, these things go in cycles, I suppose. I am not alleging any conspiracy; it is just that journalists think alike and are prone to groupthink and herd mentality. Also, they swarm like piranha when they think they smell blood in the water, so if there is any appearance of a potential issue that could be used to wedge President Trump away from his Evangelicals base, they dive in and start muckraking with great energy.

The New York Times published a feature/ exposé/ hit piece that focused on David Brody and the Christian Broadcasting Network. Their article is one of those anthropological looks at the primitives who voted for President Trump. Rather than give a link to their execrable site, you can learn stuff you didn’t already know by checking out the review by my favorite media critics:

https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2018/5/14/old-news-the-new-york-times-discovers-david-brody-and-cbns-niche-audience-power

The New York Times thinks of David Brody as a special “kind of PR man,” as Terry Mattingly put it in his review of their article. But Brody is just a good reporter, doing good reporting, who happens to enjoy great access to the Trump White House because his reporting is favorable instead of hostile. Mostly his reporting is neutral, but the mass media “Opposition Party” coverage of Trump and the Trump Administration has been so hostile that neutral looks like favorable to both them and President Trump.

Well, gee whiz, of course Christians are tuned into Christian niche media. That is because mass media is an anti-Christian swamp of Leftism.

Pro-Trump Evangelicals only get traction in Christian niche media. Here is an example that is worth your while:

https://www.onenewsnow.com/church/2018/05/27/evangelical-leaders-trump-is-generations-most-faith-friendly-pres

You can contrast that with another hit piece. This one is an LA Times op ed about Evangelical churches are leaner and meaner, bloc voting in ways that overmatch the “nones”; The LA Times is distressed that the “none of the above religion” crowd doesn’t pull more weight at the ballot box.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sager-loskota-evangelical-20180531-story.html

And here is a newspaper editorial that takes offense. They are handwringing because Christian niche media exists.

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article211899489.html

Also, Leftist mass media continued to promote and celebrate liberal “Christians” who whine and complain about traditionalists who actually believe the Bible and try to live accordingly. Last month I wrote about the coverage of an anti-traditionalist group of liberal “Red Letter Christians” and their “Reclaiming Jesus” manifesto. Coverage continued, fueled partly because several of the signers went on tours to promote their latest books.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/christian-leaders-call-out-the-heresy-of-trumpism/2018/05/23/00f026c2-5eb5-11e8-9ee3-49d6d4814c4c_story.html?utm_term=.e8ae950ca3a9

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/us/anti-trump-evangelicals-lynchburg.html

 

Here are two very different Christian reactions to “Reclaiming Jesus”

https://www.onenewsnow.com/church/2018/05/21/religious-lingo-a-misguided-effort-to-erode-trumps-evangelical-base

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2018/05/26/christian-crowd-vows-to-reclaim-jesus-from-polarized-u-s/

And there was a press release from Gallup with polling on Evangelical voters. There was a small amount of media coverage, but I didn’t see anything worth sharing. Here is Gallup’s blog post.

http://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/235208/things-know-evangelicals-america.aspx

Every now and then we remark about how Leftism is a religion. Journalists have polled as 85 percent or so “no religion” or Atheist in surveys. But they are not irreligious. They are Leftists. It should not be surprising that, once the fig leaf of neutrality is pulled away, their naked hostility to traditionalist religions is on display.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar

violence! in the church

There was a Youtube video going viral.  It showed a Greek Orthodox baptism in a Greek church.

Journalists decried the violent treatment of the baby.

These people parody themselves.

Bizarre moment priest repeatedly dunks tiny baby in water in ‘most violent baptism ever’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5723147/Orthodox-bishop-violently-dunks-baby-water-baptism.html

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/enthusiastic-archbishop-carries-out-the-12522791


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Media v Evangelicals, 2018 part 5

In my previous post in this series I concluded by noting anti-traditionalist media coverage of a gathering at Wheaton University.  It was a group of “concerned” “Evangelical leaders.”  It included some theological conservatives, though most of the attendees tilted theologically liberal.  Since then, some sound bites by liberal Evangelicals made the rounds, mostly because they were bitterly critical of Christians who support President Trump.  Media continues to love quotes from NeverTrump clerics and pundits who have Christian or conservative credentials.

 

The continuing coverage of last month’s gathering of Evangelicals can be best represented by reading this long feature from the New Yorker, since it summarizes everything that I have seen elsewhere in mass media:

https://www.newyorker.com/news-desk/on-religion/at-a-private-meeting-in-illinois-a-group-of-evangelicals-tried-to-save-their-movement-from-trumpism

But I highlight it here because it talks about the debates, letting us know that President Trump was not the focus of that gathering, though he was obviously on everyone’s mind.  From other media accounts you would have thought that the meeting had been all about Trump.  In fact, as I had suspected all along, they talked about a host of culture war issues, with the primary issue being racism.

 

Racism got a lot of media chatter over the past few weeks (as it has ever since the Democrat Party enacted quotas for minority representation in their Party structure five decades ago).  In the past two years we have grown tired of the tedious way they slander all Christians who support President Trump as racists, which they do with complete disregard for the way Trump got more support from blacks and Hispanics than did Mitt Romney.  In my last report I linked to the Washington Post blathering about “white Evangelicals’” support for President Trump.  This trend continued.

PRRI released new poll results, and The Atlantic mined it for data to spin the racist angle, breathlessly reporting:  “…white evangelical support for Trump remains strikingly high, with 75 percent holding a favorable view of the president….”   Of course they isolated white Evangelicals.  They are still horrified that Trump showed surprising strength among blacks and Hispanics, but they say as little about that as possible.

 

Leftists were horrified at PBS, who went to the National Day of Prayer event in Washington, and got an interview with Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.  It is clear from the follow-up questions that the reporter was put on his back foot by some remarks by Rev. Rodriguez (a Pentecostalist pastor):

William Brangham:

There’s many things on that one side of the ledger that would seem to alienate him from the evangelical community, three marriages, accusations of adultery, bragging about sexual assaults.

You’re arguing that the policy side of the ledger is enough to make people think that things don’t matter as much?

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez:

No, I don’t think it’s ever to a point where it doesn’t matter.

I think it comes to the point where we don’t want to write anyone off. You don’t want to write off access to a president who can impact religious liberty, who can impact the sanctity of life. So it’s a matter of balancing these narratives in a way where we never sacrifice truth on the altar of expediency, but we likewise support policies that reflect our Judeo-Christian value system.

William Brangham:

So, it was something much more fundamental to evangelicals? When they looked at this last election, President Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, they just felt much more fundamental was at stake that made them want to support him?

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez:

Some would argue the future of American Christianity. Some argued…

William Brangham:

Is that right?

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez:

Absolutely.

 

Mass media bias was also clear from the lack of coverage of a story that got lots of attention in Christian media, which was the saga of Alfie Evans in England.  It was eerily similar to last year’s enforced death of Charlie Gard.  An English hospital decided that, in the “best interests” of the child, that they would seize him from his parents and sentence him to death, to “put him out of his misery.”  A British court upheld the hospital’s right to keep Alfie’s death on schedule.  American mass media pretended not to notice.  Three-sentence blurbs were all that consumers of mass media news got, except that Fox News provided a little bit of coverage.  This item is not an attack on Evangelicals; it is simply another indicator (as if any were needed) that mass media does not care about matters that concern Christians, except to the extent that matters of concern to Christians can be used to wedge Christians apart from each other.  They seek to divide us in order to conquer us.

 

There were continuing blasts in the ongoing #metoo sexual harassment media excitement.  Whenever a pastor is alleged to have engaged in philandery it gets special notice.  After a decade spent focused on violators in the Catholic ranks, now mass media is actively seeking out bad boy Evangelical pastors to be pilloried in the press.

 

The New York Times got all distressed about Betsy DeVos relaxing some strangling regulations related to religious colleges.  They focused on how theologically conservative Christian colleges would benefit.  They ignored the way the changes can also help theologically liberal colleges.  My favorite media critics noticed:

There are some important voices and points of view missing in the New York Times story that ran with this headline: “DeVos Moves to Loosen Restrictions on Federal Aid to Religious Colleges.” In addition to its focus on evangelical schools, this story really needed input from educational leaders on liberal religious campuses and even secular private campuses.

 

Aside from news coverage, there were the usual editorials.  One in particular may be classified as “friendly fire.”  It was a sermon by David French at National Review.  It was so awful that Bryan G. Stephens posted about it here for us Ratburghers.  D. French has a confused sense of Christian morals.  His sort of moralizing is something that irreligious mass media outlets love to spread around, as a way to drive another wedge to divide Christians.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Media v Evangelicals 2018 part 4

There were some interesting developments since my last post in this series.  There were new instances of the continuing mass media assault on Evangelicals and new instances of mass media trying to drive a wedge between President Trump and his Christian supporters.

The drumbeat over Stormy Daniels and her sex affair with Donald Trump continued to be a daily item, most recently because the lawyer who originally paid her hush money had his home and office raided by the FBI, who seized a trove of records that are now the subject of a legal hoo-raw and media tempest.  Every time they mention this matter, Nevers and mass media make sure to mention that Donald Trump is morally unfit to serve as President and is undeserving of Christians’ support.

James Comey announced his book.  Copies were provided to friendly reviewers who immediately passed along Mr. Comey’s attacks on President Trump.  They especially used Mr. Comey’s remarks to an interviewer while pumping for his book.  Mr. Comey said that Mr. Trump is “morally unfit” for his office.  This of course fed a new round of chattering about how Mr. Trump is undeserving of Christians’ support.

Some high-profile Evangelical leaders had high-profile articles appear about alleged sexual sins.  Some of this was fresh news and some was old news that got recycled in order to add to the feeding frenzy.  Nevertheless it amounted to an embarrassment for a number of Christian ministries.  Bill Hybels is perhaps the most widely known of these ministers.  Some of the coverage put me in mind of the “pedophile priests” scandal of fifteen to ten years ago.  (At that time some of us observed that “pedophile” was an inappropriate name for the problem, that the Catholic churches did not appear to have a worse situation than Protestant churches, and that churches in general did not appear to have a worse situation than other institutions such as schools or government.  The phenomenon is characterized as much by the herd mentality of the media as by the sexual sins in question.)

There was an interesting feature article that appeared at HuffPo.  It was an analysis of findings revealed in the trial of Noor Salman, the widow of the jihadi who shot up the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.  You may recall that Leftist mass media raised a clamor about how the shooter was motivated by a “climate of hate” and laid responsibility for the shooting on the “anti-gay atmosphere” created by conservative Christians and Republicans.  To the credit of the Huffington Post they ran this really interesting post by Melissa Jelten, who reported that almost everything that had been said in the media about the shooter’s motives were wrong.

There was an interesting editorial in the New Yorker.  It stirred up some outragey reactions from folk on the right.  It was an anti-Christian screed aimed at Chick-fil-A for being popular in New York City, and thereby offending the godless writer and his pals.

Wheaton hosted a conference of Evangelicals, tilted leftward.  The Washington Post headline reflects a (months-old) quote from Tim Keller:  “There’s now a red evangelicalism and a blue evangelicalism.”   As if this was news.  Conservative Evangelicals have been looking askance at Liberal Evangelicals for half a century.  The problems is that the Liberals became more and more Liberal, to the extent that some are still claiming to be Christian while espousing all sorts of heresies and syncretisms.  Some have admitted that they have “emerged beyond Jesus.”  Those are the media darlings.  (Though they keep whining about the declining size of their flocks.)

So, nothing new here, just a continuation of mass media hostility to Christians in general, with a special level of hate and snark aimed at Evangelicals who support President Trump.  I will put links in the comments.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar