Keep Hate Alive

Art by A.F. Branco

Antifa Keep Hate Alive
Antifa Keep Hate Alive
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

USA –-(Ammoland.com)- Keep Hate Alive.

Ronald Reagan said “that when fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism.

Did you enjoy this cartoon?

You call yourself pro-gun? Prove it by joining anyone or all of these fine civil rights organizations:

And, please consider support for the Second Front in Defense of the Second Amendment:

About A.F. Branco

A.F. Branco is a GrassRoots Conservative Political Cartoonist for Conservative Daily News, Net Right Daily, Legal Insurrection, and now Ammoland Shooting Sports News. Share this page and help spread our pro gun, conservative message with humor.

AmmoLand Join the NRA Banner
AmmoLand says Join the NRA

  • 62 thoughts on “Keep Hate Alive

    1. @VE, Your cadre taught you well. When you write, “… illegal or/ unconstitutional won’t stand in a military Courts-martial unless you have absolute proof that said order would endanger your life in a careless way. Otherwise you don’t have a leg to stand on. The military obeys the Uniformed Code of Military Justice – NOT civilian law.” YOU are absolutely correct.
      The U.S. does not allow its military people to be tried for “war crimes” in international tribunals. The U.S. has not even signed a Hague Convention in more than a hundred years. The proper forum is the Court Martial pursuant to any alleged violations of the U.C.M.J.
      Only people that live on planet Ignorance think that war crimes apply to U.S. military persons.

      1. @Wild Bill, are you saying that US military personnel should commit & get away with war crimes?

        Anyway, what, except your blind hatred of liberty, makes you think I don’t know that there are different courts & that the US doesn’t allow its troops to be tried in non-US courts? I’m right in my POV otherwise Lt Calley wouldn’t have been convicted over the My Lai Massacre. Oops!

        1. @Darren or xx or TS, I am saying that US personal can not commit a “war crime” per se, and are not subject to war crimes tribunals. We have not signed a Hague convention for over a hundred years. Lt Calley was not convicted of a “war crime” per se. You are only half right in your opinion because you got the whole thing from some half wit teacher.
          Have you read the Calley case, the Hague conventions, the UCMJ? You will not really get any good military law instruction unless you get it from the JAGC.
          Oh, and the US still is not an empire just because some liberal professor told you so. Not that there is anything wrong with being an empire.

          1. @Wild Bill or Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy I have no idea what you’re hallucinating now about who I am but it makes for a good laugh.

            You can nit pick all you want about what is or isn’t a war crime & about jurisdictions it doesn’t change the criminal nature of the acts. All I see is that you’re massively in denial. The US military commits war crimes all the time these days.

            Last I checked George Friedman isn’t a liberal professor:

            Coming to Terms With the American Empire
            https://worldview.stratfor.com/weekly/coming-terms-american-empire

            Neither was Patrick Henry a liberal. There’s a reason he titled his speech against the CONstitution “Shall Liberty or Empire Be Sought?”:

            “If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object…But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble. Would this constitute happiness, or secure liberty?”

            https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Henry%27s_speech_in_the_Virginia_Ratifying_Convention

            So if you really think “Not that there is anything wrong with being an empire” you are a traitor to the cause of liberty.

    2. To all posters – Nazi stands for National SOCIALIST German Workers Party, and ANTIFA is following Communism which is just another form of SOCIALISM. They are two different classes of thugs fighting for the same thing – full control of the Government and all property, education, industry, healthcare – and neither one can last in the face of intelligent dissention hence they both must suppress it.

    3. The cartoon is good and Antifa certainly exhibits elements of National Socialist (NAZI) behavior. More accurately however, I believe it should have shown the passing of the “torch” from a communist, like Stalin or Mao. Nazis did there share of killing and atrocities but were pikers in these activities compared to the communists, who are more the progenitors of Antifa’s brand of fascism.

    4. While the cartoon makes a great point it ignores the other, more traditional, side of fascism, the nationalistic one. Antifa is bad, very bad but let’s look at the other side. Militarism, police state, “patriotism” can lead us to fascism too. As John Flynn put it in “As We Go Marching” https://mises.org/system/tdf/As%20We%20Go%20Marching_2.pdf?file=1&type=document :

      “But when fascism comes it will not be in the form of an anti-American movement or pro-Hitler bund, practicing disloyalty. Nor will it come in the form of a crusade against war. It will appear rather in the luminous robes of flaming patriotism; it will take some genuinely indigenous shape and color, and it will spread only because its leaders, who are not yet visible, will know how to locate the great springs of public opinion and desire and the streams of thought that flow from them and will know how to attract to their banners leaders who can command the support of the controlling minorities in American public life. The danger lies not so much in the would-be Fuhrers who may arise, but in the presence in our midst of certainly deeply running currents of hope and appetite and opinion. The war upon fascism must be begun there.”

      Conservatives have their own fascistic ways. By advocating ever more police & military they promote a different kind of fascism as Antifa but fascism it still is.

      1. Conservative fascism? Advocating more police and military? I didn’t realize protecting our country and its citizens was fascist. Police should be for enforcing laws and protecting citizens in need, and our military should only be deployed in defense of state, with limited other reasons, such as when another country has had a disaster and needs aid – that isn’t fascism. Antifa is physically assaulting people- that’s the big difference.

        1. Nazi by definition are fascist… Your contention that neo Nazi are somehow American is shocking and disturbing as are the Antifa. What the F. Did you not read American history in school? For your information a world war was essentially fought to stop fascism… I suggest you read up on that. Fascism is just that even if it hides behind the second amendment. Look around the school of fish you swim with its who you are. I chose to fight against both the neo Nazi and the Antifa. They have the right to speak not the right to cause violence.

          It is very worrisome to me that second amendment folks think neo Nazi are ok. They aren’t. Your father and grand father died fighting Nazi just 79 years ago. They haven’t changed. A wolf is a wolf regardless of its clothes. For God’s sake wake up to both problems.

          Wake up and Smell the Coffee…

          1. Firebrand, I made no mention of Neo-Nazis in my post. Any group that goes around physically assaulting people and preventing free speech is closer to Hitler in mind and body. Hitler said to oppose opposition speech by all means necessary, including violence.

          2. @Firebrand First you’re hallucinating I’ve never said “that neo Nazi are somehow American”. Is this an Antifa style smear?

            You should read Flynn’s As We Go Marching. FDR’s New Deal was based on Mussolini’s fascism. WW II cemented an American version of fascism, progressivism, here.

            BTW, WW II was about establishing an American empire. It wasn’t about fighting for liberty, we allied with Stalin’s USSR for crying out loud,

            1. @Oldvet so you admit that Stalins USSR was one of the worse dictatorships in history? Commies are worse than Nazis, they killed many more people. Much was lost when we delivered 1/2 the world to communism.

              Why ally with anyone in WW II? Before FDR baited the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor most Americans wanted no part of the war. They were right.

            2. @Dipstick …Now you are hallucinating. Don’t put word in my mouth. I ask you a question. your wormy brain is so fowled up you cannot make sense of any thing. Go back to playing with your finger paints try not to get it mixed up with what you found in your dirty diaper.

            3. @Darren, I don’t think that the Japanese invaded all this places in the Pacific and China so that America could have an empire. I don’t think Hitler invaded so many countries in Europe so that America could have an empire. After WWII, America did not colonize anything, in fact, we rebuilt Europe and Japan, and huge cost to the American taxpayer. And it was not much of an alliance with the USSR.

            4. @WildBill, Of course Germany & Japan wanted to build their own empires. That doesn’t change the fact that the US built its empire on the ashes of the Axis’ empires. Just like Carthage didn’t fight with Rome to help them build their empire the 3rd Punic War made them into the Roman Empire.

              The US empire is built on vassal states & military bases worldwide.

              Lastly, the US, UK, France et al were very closely allied with the USSR. They stuck together in WW II concluding no separate peace.

              Coming to Terms With the American Empire
              https://worldview.stratfor.com/weekly/coming-terms-american-empire

          3. @Fireb, You may have a point, but your tone is so harsh, and your analogies are so vague that it is difficult to ferret out what that point might be. You are doing a lot more typing than you would have to, and using a caustic tenor that we, here, do not usually use with each other.

            1. @Wild Bill – I think Darren thinks he’s impotent, oh wait that’s important, oh in his case it’s the same thing! LOL

            2. @Macof, Apparently, Darren does not know that the US did not colonize all those weak beaten countries after WWII; that we are the only country in the history of the world to rebuild the economies of our former enemies; and that we rent all those bases.
              He is also unaware that he can not use the history of Rome to prove a case against the United States.
              He is also unaware that he is not the only one to read a book.

          4. @Firebrand – neo Nazi’s and ANTIFA are both American, just the wrong kind. Sounds like you are starting down that road too.

            Maybe you should wake up, get out of the basement and smell the coffee!

        2. “Should be” “should only be” sure but it doesn’t happen that way in real life. I guess the whole train of thought that motivated the Founders blew right past you. Try John Trenchard’s thinking for instance

          An Argument Shewing, that a Standing Army is inconsistent with a Free Government, and
          absolutely destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy
          http://www.reformation.org/john-trenchard.pdf

          Or Patrick Henry arguing against the CONstitution:

          “You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.

          “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be?” https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Henry%27s_speech_in_the_Virginia_Ratifying_Convention

          The real world isn’t like your fantasy world of Adam 12 or the john Wayne movie Green Berets. In the real world standing forces abuse & aggress against people & are a danger to liberty.

          1. Darren, I don’t see where our “standing army” has committed any tyranny against its citizens. You appear to be arguing on both sides of the issue.

            At least you now agree with my point about it not being, in your words, “Conservative Fascism “. I don’t live in your fantasy where such a thing exists.

            1. In the Founder’s time they didn’t have police as we do today. When the King wanted to tyrannize he sent the army. Today, the “standing army” that we have to worry about domestically is the huge law enforcement establishment. I’m talking about not only state and local police but also agencies like the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and ad nauseum. Rather than deploy troops on the streets they use law enforcement to control us. While these agencies exist our liberty will always be in danger. Of course, if you submit to their will they seem benign. Get in their way & they’re not so nice.

            2. @Darren – In the founders time fools like you would have been tarred and feather, then run out of town on a rail!
              Guess you should be thankful for the little things!

            3. @Macofjack, In the Founders time I’d have been a patriot (an advocate of liberty) & you a traitor to that cause just as you are today.

      2. @All…Once again the liberal troll clouds the issue by obscuring his basic premise by making definitions arbitrarily as he wishes. As in a rose is a rose is a rose by any other name is a chair. By getting an argument started in an erroneous direction it can never arrive at a conclusion relating to the original question.

      3. @Darren – I’ve seen some far out BS, but yours take the cake. Don’t know what you’ve been smokin’ or drinkin’ but it has really warped your mind!

        1. I see that your years spent in govt indoctrination centers (euphemistically called public schools) has really paid off for your masters. Good slave.

          1. @Darren – the only slave I see here is you. You are a slave to the liberal ideas and BS they pump out every day. Good sheeple or is it snowflake? Whatever.

            1. @Macofjack Liberals think I’m a conservative, conservatives think I’m a liberal. Libertarians just can’t get through to fools. When was the last time you saw a liberal citing John Trenchard & Patrick Henry?

          2. @Darren – An old quote goes something like this – ‘It is better to have people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.’

            You have removed all doubt for all times!

            1. @Darren, you, too, have engaged in empty ad hominem attacks. In fed speak, POV is privately owned vehicle. What is POV to you? Because my privately owned vehicle is, also, currently empty.

            2. @Will Bill Yaaaaaawn…. I sometimes get smart with people that try to insult me but I always put out arguments not just try to insult.

              On the Internet POV means point of view. BTW, I’m sure your POV is empty 🙂

            1. @Maco, This Darren character, knows a lot less than he thinks he knows. I believe that he is one of those guy that reads the Constitution out of historical context and then jumps to conclusions about what its meaning are. I also believe that he like to have the debate break down so that he can merely engage in insult, rather than learn something. His style is reminiscent of other posters by other names. I will waste no more time with him.

      4. For claiming to know about this Country’s laws and founding principles you have just showed you don’t. You seem to forget that the oath the president takes is to PROTECT and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, FOREIGN and DOMESTIC, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. The Antifa Left and neo NAZIs are both DOMESTIC enemies which he would have the power to put down if they decided to riot. See “Whiskey Rebellion and George Washington.” Most Presidents have left it up to the States to handle their internal affairs, but when the ANTIFA is calling for the overthrow of the United States government by any means necessary (funny they are affiliated with an organization that goes by those initials (BAMN), then they have put themselves directly in the Fed’s crosshairs and the President has the right to use whatever force he deems necessary. Up to and instructing the Governor of the State to send out the National Guard.

        Furthermore when you try to delineate between ANTIFA and Fascism you are basically splitting hairs, because both are Socialistic in nature. In fact the only reason the Communists supposedly hate the NAZIS is because before 1941, the Germans and Russians were all cozy with their pact and Russian support for National German Workers Socialist Party governance. When the Germans invaded the Soviet Socialist Republic, then Josef Dugashvilii created a lie with the help of an American reporter from the NYT to elicit sympathy and aid from the US. Its all in the history books, just research it.

        1. @VE Veteran – Old Man’s Club wrote, “Up to and instructing the Governor of the State to send out the National Guard.”

          Where does the CONstitution give the prez the power to boss around governors of states? There’s supposed to be a separation of powers not a unitary govt.

          “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

          Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Charles Hammond [1821]

          1. @Darren, The president has many ways to “boss around” the governors of the several states. One way is to federalize the national guard, to wit: transfer the national guard from title 32 status to title 10 status. The president has the power to do that transfer pursuant to his authority as Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

            1. @Will Bill Federalizing the NG is bossing governors around how? VE Vet talked about the prez instructing governors to deploy the NG, not the same thing.

              Actually, the CONstitution says there should be state militias not an NG, again not the same thing. The Constitution gives congress, not the prez, power to call on the militia. Article 1, section 8, clause 15:

              “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”. Oops!

              Antifa is bad but not a fed matter. They don’t rise to the level of an insurrection &, hopefully, never will.

              Regardless, your making my & Jefferson’s point that DC is too strong & that power is too centralized in the fed govt.

            2. Well, Darren, I would call taking the Governor’s army away bossing, yes.
              Telling a governor to make his army do a thing, and taking it away to do the same thing is pretty much the same result.
              Yes, the Constitution said that there should be state militias, the national guard had not been thought of yet. But you can not ignore other federal statutes.
              Yes, Article 1 sec. 8, clause 15 effects the militia, but not the national guard.
              Antifa is a federal matter if even one of them cross state lines to avoid prosecution, and I am sure that there are other statutory jurisdictional basis, if I carried enough to look.
              Somehow, by the grace of God, and not your own mental prowess, you have stumbled on the correct conclusion “… that DC is too strong & that power is too centralized in the fed govt.”

            3. @Wild Bill, I thought you were done with me but since you keep coming back for more…you wrote “you can not ignore other federal statutes.” Statutes have to conform to the CONstitution, you do know that, right? You should try reading Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm

              “1.Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

            4. @VE, This Darren character is just another paid troll. He has never been in combat, tried a case in any court, or written an appeal. His arguments are in that obvious high school style. Let him learn the hard way, and go unpaid.

            5. LOL @Wild Bill I guess I’d better call accounting at Paid Commie Trolls ‘cuz they ain’t sent me any checks they promised yet. Anyway, come back when you actually have some ideas & arguments to present I’ll be happy to bat your slow pitches out of the park.

          2. @Darren – you stated “Where does the CONstitution give the prez the power to boss around governors of states? There’s supposed to be a separation of powers not a unitary govt. ”

            But in upholding his oath, the President CAN do things that enable him to protect the Constitution, up to and deploying the National Guard in the States. More times than not the President will leave it up to a Governor for the deployment of National Guard troops in the case of rioting or Natural Disasters, but the President still holds that particular power to call them up if he needs them. After all they are auxiliary troops for the Army and have to take an oath upon their enlistment to serve and protect – here for your further edification is the Oath of Enlistment:

            37. Enlistments in National Guard; oath of enlistment.
            (a) Enlistments in the North Carolina National Guard shall be for the periods and subject to the qualifications as prescribed by the secretary of the appropriate service.
            (b) Enlisted persons shall not be recognized as members of the North Carolina National Guard until they shall have subscribed to the following oath of enlistment:
            “I do hereby acknowledge to have voluntarily enlisted this ____ day of ________, ____, in the (Army) (Air) National Guard of the State of North Carolina and as a Reserve of the (Army) (Air Force) with membership in the (Army National Guard of the United States) (Air National Guard of the United States) for a period of (Years – Months – Days) under the conditions prescribed by law, unless sooner discharged by proper authority.
            “I, (First Name – Middle Name – Last Name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the State of North Carolina against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to them; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of North Carolina and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law, regulations, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so help me God.” (1917, c. 200, s. 30; C.S., s. 6820; 1921, c. 120, s. 6; 1957, c. 136, s. 6; 1959, c. 218, s. 10; 1975, c. 604, s. 2; 1999, c. 456, s. 59; 2009-281, s. 1; 2011-195, s. 1(a).)

            You will of course note that it states “obey the orders of the President of the United States” which kills you fallacious argument of “Where does the Constitution give the power to the President to boss around” – The Constitution plainly states that the President is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the Armed Forces of the United States of which the National Guard is a component. Ergo the “Prez” or CINC CAN call up any National Guard Unit if he deems it necessary. He will of course consult with the SECDEF on the matter – but it is WELL WITHIN HIS PURVIEW to call on them!
            Shall I force you to admit to yourself that you have all the foresight of a fathead?!
            “Go away son – ah said … ah said … go away son you bother me.” – Foghorn Leghorn

            1. @VE Vet, except that one doesn’t have to obey illegal/unconstitutional orders. That’s why the “just following orders” defense doesn’t work. The NG with its dual enlistment isn’t a militia by another name but a reserve of the standing military. As such it’s unCONstitutional as a militia substitute, nowhere does the CONstitution mention this only militias are legal.

              Regardless, I’ve already showed where the CONstitution says that only congress can call up the militia not the prez.

              There are none so blind as old vets so emotionally invested in their militarism that they can’t see the destruction they cause. O quam cito transit gloria mundi

            2. @Darren – illegal or/ unconstitutional won’t stand in a military Courts-martial unless you have absolute proof that said order would endanger your life in a careless way. Otherwise you don’t have a leg to stand on. The military obeys the Uniformed Code of Military Justice – NOT civilian law. Once again you lose.

            3. @VE Vet I don’t know what planet you’re on. An order to do something illegal like say execute prisoners doesn’t have to be obeyed. Just following orders won’t save you from that one in court.

            4. @ Darren – You’ve never been in combat so how would you know even the first thing about treatment of prisoners?! You might believe all that crap that the Geneva Convention says, but the reality of things is much different – especially if you get a first hand look at how our troops get treated when captured.

              I met a WW2 Navy Sub veteran one time who told me about an incident they had when they had sank a Jap freighter. There was a group of Japanese sailors swimming in the water that had survived the torpedoing and the subsequent sinking of the ship that were in close proximity to his sub. The Commander of the sub gave the order to machine gun the Japanese sailors in the water. The order was carried out and no prosecutions were ever done. The mitigating factors being the sub didn’t have enough supplies to feed all the mouths, the Commander didn’t want to chance all of the Japs trying to take over his sub, and they would’ve starved to death if he’s just went off and left them alive. So he turned them into shark chum. War is hell cherry boy! But all your BS might work in a perfect world, but this world isn’t perfect. Now who’s living in another world ,,, we realists who’ve been around call it La-la land!
              Go away Cherry Boy.

            5. OK so your navy pal got away with a war crime. That doesn’t make it right. Even Curtis Lemay saw it that way:

              “Killing Japanese didn’t bother me very much at that time… I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal…. Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you’re not a good soldier.”

              I’ll take the title Cherry Boy over Murdering War Criminal, thank you.

            6. @ Darren – hello you Booger eating moron. Calling me a “War Criminal” doesn’t bother me as its not the first time I’ve been called names by P*ssies who didn’t have the “stones” to defend their country. But they are the FIRST ONES to sit in judgement on those who expended their youth in the effort to keep their lame asses free. You don’t know squat about combat, or serving anything bigger than yourself. It must really suck to be you. You and your neo-hippy buddies sitting around in your basement smoking joints and listening to sub-par jam bands is really making the world a better place to be. You don’t feel that anything is worth fighting for and cannot ever stand up with brothers in arms. Even our worst douche – bag Sailor was better than you on his worst day.
              Judge not lest ye be judged – thus sayeth the Lord.

              “For those who will fight for it … Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.” – LCpl Tim Craft , Khe Sahn, 1968

            7. @VE Vet You didn’t defend liberty you fought for an empire that is destroying our liberty. If you weren’t so emotionally invested in your vet identity you’d see that. Get it through your head, when you serve the govt you betray the cause of liberty. Call me a coward if you like, it doesn’t matter. I hold my head up high knowing that though when I was young & didn’t know better I served the govt too I’ve learned the error of that way & now serve the cause of liberty. You remain a traitor to it.

              Also, you’re so confused you don’t even realize that you judge me while blathering about not judging.

    5. @VE Veteran, Reagan was able to correct a lot of things that had gone astray in this country. Trump’s job is harder because he has to deal with a RINO congress, many more snowflakes and many more aliens whether illegal or legal they do not agree with our form of governmnent.

      1. I concur except I would ship all the students to Iran, ship the Professors off to some third world hell hole, tear all the buildings down brick by brick and sew salt into the earth on its site so that nothing would ever grow there again.

    6. Today is 9/11/2017
      16 yrs have passed since hate tried ‘
      to destroy our way of life ! Little did
      they know it would only bring us together !
      God Bless the U.S.A.

    Leave a Comment 62 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *