Saturday, September 14, 2013

Open Carry Activist Defeats 6 Police Officers with the Constitution (WATCH)

Uploaded today by Sombusiness on YouTube

Activist Post

Every Friday we go out and exercise our right to free assembly and protest the government. We call it #ForLibertyFridays. Usually we gather on a street corner during rush hour traffic and waive signs and flags. Some of us open carry rifles and side arms too. We have never had any problems whatsoever from the police or sheriff, who have always known the laws, and only treated us with respect.

Today I decided just to stay in front of my house in Rochester Hills instead of our usual location. I was outside with my rifle and my Gadsden "don't tread of me" flag how I usually do. After about 15 minutes of doing this was when the first officer (and the 5 other cars right after) rolled up on me, and demanded that I put my rifle down and walk over to him. The he began yelling on the loudspeaker "not to point the gun at him", when I absolutely certainly did not and it facing the ground. I stood there until he told me not to create a "Bad Situation" and unholstered his weapon. I felt threatened and didn't want to risk this cop who probably watches too many crime shows to shoot me in the back. I laid my gun down on the ground, while showing my him hands (one hand holding my smartphone) and then walked towards him. He then ordered another officer to seize my rifle that I had set on the ground.




I am a 2nd-year law student and can run circles around him in the law and criminal procedure. This was an assault on me, my property, and my peace. In Lake Orion, myself and others do the EXACT same thing and literally have OC Sheriffs saluting us.

I was assaulted, detained, and my property was seized. And what crime did he suspect me of? He couldn't quite think of one ... Maybe it was for lawfully exercising my constitutionally protected God-given right to keep and bear arms, while holding the flag of our founding fathers on my lawn that I mow every 2 weeks? In reality this entire encounter was about 45 minutes ... The video is shortened for the sake of time.




BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Boy! He be walk'n with baseballs between his legs!

Anonymous said...

I am a Libertarian and 100% support the second amendment, however, this is ridiculous and I am not about to watch the video. As you state you can "run circles around" the local law enforcement...did this exercise make you feel better about yourself, then? If someone in my neighborhood that I didn't know was parading around their front yard with a rifle, with no signs or any indication that this was a civil protest or demonstration of some kind to prove a political point, I'd be the FIRST to call the police. This is the kind of thing that is not only a waste of time but sets us back in fighting the onslaught against the 2nd. Yes, it is your right- that doesn't mean it made sense. There was no indication that anything you were doing was a threat, but there wasn't any indication you weren't out of your mind and doing something that DID pose a threat. You just wanted to screw with the cops. Period.

Anonymous said...

ANON 2: This guy has been exercising his 1st & 2nd amendment rights every Friday without "screwing with the cops".

Are you a LINO (Libertarian in name only) or are you actively trying to make a difference?

This law student is making a difference lawfully and peacefully. How do you suggest we do it?

Anonymous said...

I noticed at least two cops who had their badges covered. Is that legal?? If so, that's disgusting.

We absolutely cannot allow cops in uniform to be anonymous. I have to opine that if they cover their badges, then they have to give up their authority.

Anonymous cops are criminal cops!

Darrel said...

"If someone in my neighborhood that I didn't know was parading around their front yard with a rifle, with no signs or any indication that this was a civil protest or demonstration of some kind to prove a political point, I'd be the FIRST to call the police."

"There was no indication that anything you were doing was a threat, but there wasn't any indication you weren't out of your mind and doing something that DID pose a threat."

Both statements disqualify your claim to being a Libertarian.

Anonymous said...

R.O.W. is not city property. A Right Of Way is just that, a property owned by an individual who allows the city to use it for public use. What are your taxes based on? The property up to the sidewalk or to the center of the street? Corner plot have extra taxes charged because of this reason.

Anonymous said...

How did it make a difference in any way except to get him an article here? Explain to me how this is made a "difference" in any way except to cause tension in a residential neighborhood?

Actively trying to make a difference would never involve anything to further the misconception that Libertarians, gun owners or supporters of our right bear arms are a bunch of crazies, are a danger or menace to society or must be extremist and scary.

Ways to do this are to continue lobbying your lawmakers, state and local to make sure they know there is a LOUD and active majority of their constituents who will NOT support them if they vote for any legislation unfavorable to gun owners. To become active in your communities, getting to know your local law enforcement and fostering good relations with them. And to participate in well thought out public demonstrations that advocate protection of our Constitutional rights in a way that will not create more harm than positive attention to the cause! In other words- ACT INTELLIGENTLY.

You do not yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater even though we have a right to free speech. It's called common sense, look into it.

Anonymous said...

Daryl- correct- if Libertarianism has been reduced to everyone do whatever the hell they want and misuse the idea of our Constitutional rights, then no, I do not want to be associated with that.

I guess I will, from now on, claim to be a part of the Common Sense Party. This is for people who support not only our Constitutional rights, demand limited government, but also stress INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY (that is, to make intelligent choices).

Darrel said...

"Daryl- correct- if Libertarianism has been reduced to everyone do whatever the hell they want and misuse the idea of our Constitutional rights, then no, I do not want to be associated with that."

According to the statement of principles at http://www.lp.org/platform, the Libertarian Party declares that:

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

Misuse of Constitutional rights? The Common Sense Party's declarations seem to vary, depending on which website you visit. The most basic principles are listed at http://www.commonsenseparty.org/platform.html. They are:

"Government should leave us alone.
F*%@ people with no sense of humor."

I would venture to say that the man in the video complied with Libertarian and Common Sense Party principles.

Anonymous said...

I suspect him of stupidity. There is no fixing stupid. He is purposely trying to aggravate these police, saying he has the right to be on the property but the police don't? What is the point? He is just an agitator. Wouldn't you want the police to check out someone standing around with a rifle for not apparent reason? Again what's his point except to aggravate the police and get his 15 min of fame.

Anonymous said...

The title of this article makes the man sound like a hero, but watching the video makes him appear like a real jerk.

Anonymous said...

Good for you my brother. Hopefully you will get some retirement pay out of this one and get this drone locked up for armed robbery. Most likely, he will get a promotion or does that only happen when they shoot someone?

SNAKEBELLY said...

I am proud as hell to stand up for what is right. Just by my actions on a daily basis; writing, reading, talking, posting and on occasion, carrying a sign will I continue to protest this government's illegal suppression of of our liberties. Hell yes! Let's put an end to an over-reaching government that supports and protects the criminal actions of corporate entities irregardless of the people's needs. This Rothschild/Rockefeller cabal has nearly destroyed this nation. I say: "Screw them!"

Anonymous said...

Hey Darrel, point well taken, however this man did have his sign, the Gadsden Flag and no indication that he was some wacko standing around looking to shoot anyone. Apparently you do not know what the Gadsden Flag represents even though it spells it out. As far as the label, Libertarian, do you have to be one of those to exercise your Constitutional rights?
Keep in mind that these corporate drones with guns and badges are only there to protect the corporation and their pay checks.
Rod

Anonymous said...

Well Mr Law student May be You could Teach these Terrorists some Law like Title 18 U.S.C. 4; 241; 242; 245; 1961 ( A) , (b). and Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 for Civil Rights Violation and add to Your Law School fund about a Half Million F.R.N.'s, (better Gold or Silver species- Lawful Monem), for Statutory Rights Violations?

Anonymous said...

File a Writ for replevin and a Felony Armed Robbery Complaint for Stealing Private Property under Presentment of Arms with Gang Terrorism Violation Patriot ACT.

brad said...

The rifle was strapped horizontally. i really doubt enough other citizens have the intelligence or knowledge to realize that without a hand on the gun it is not any kind of threat.
That said, the intelligent way to have the rifle is at sling arms. He's not sneaking up on Charlie in some paddy for crying out loud.
Keep the rifle on the shoulder at sling arms. You still have the rifle, it is safer, it is not threatening to the gun control morons, and you wouldn't have been in all this stress.
Appreciate the relative coolness and calmness and doubt i would have been so controlled. Couple more pejorative comments/names would have leaked out from somewhere most likely, and the resolution would not have been as peaceful.
i can see why the officer thought there was a possible threat and he actually seemed to do a half-way decent job if people called in worried about him doing this.
Yes, he does this every friday - AT another location. Thus the neighbors don't see or understand what he is doing, and if they don't understand, they likely accept the programming that any gun out of a house is going to kill every (child - no cute child. And kitten) within 4 miles. With a call in, the officer had to respond, the rifle was on the shoulder sling and did point toward the officer. Had the guy w/the AR-15 chosen (been on psychoactive drugs?) he could have simply grabbed the trigger, flipped the safety and let a stream of semi-auto fire off. That would be stressful for the officer - and i can understand that.
Ultimately the gun and flag were returned and i don't know how the hell this taught me anything.

Mark McCandlish said...

I appreciate the fact that a second-year law student has the guts (if not the good sense) to take a stand on the Second Amendment. But I thought this was a terrible waste of law enforcement manpower and time- all to prove a point. I agree with the comment above, that it does more harm to the cause of protecting our right of self-defense than helping it.

This is the kind of event that pushes the whining liberals in government to fear for the sanity of gun owners. And then someone like the traitor, Diane Feinstein vows that if she had it in her power, she would take them all away. People judge gun owners by the company they keep. And right now, that guy isn't someone I would want to "hang out" with.

DJ said...

If you had been handling a weapon on my range or unit, and covering me with the muzzle of your weapon like that dude, one, I would have thrown you off the range and banned your ass...

...if I was a LEO, I would have warned you... and the next time your muzzle covered me I would have holstered my weapon and told you to hit the dirt...

...if you still didn't at least pretend you knew how to handle a weapon, I would be compelled to shoot you.

You don't let your muzzle cover something you don't intend to shoot, or threaten to shoot... EVER!

Your crappy gun safety skill is an insult to every decent law abiding gun owner trying to retain and secure their 2nd amendment rights.

Take a gun safety course dude... but don't handle your weapon like you did here... the range master will throw you off the property.

You have rights... that's true. But if you are too stupid

Anonymous said...

Maybe the cops in this case are the ones overreacting and trying to aggravate the situation? Maybe the individual that called 9-11 had a political axe to grind? Or, maybe their hysteria which was caused by the media and public school indoctrination, was the reason they called. Did the gutless wonder that called police first attempt to question this man? He obviously wasn't firing his weapon, or even close to doing so. Lack of knowledge and lack of intestinal fortitude is really our biggest problem.

Cal said...

@anonymous September 14, 2013 at 2:18 PM
"How did it make a difference in any way except to get him an article here? Explain to me how this is made a "difference" in any way except to cause tension in a residential neighborhood?"

Open carry rights is just that, you can carry your gun anywhere you want to. There was a time that everyone - just about - had their rifle with them, even high school students left the in the "pic-ups" in the back window rifle rack. That has been within the last 40 or 45 years.

Guess what, we didn't have shootings at school, fewer muggings, it was safe to walk around or - in many cases - ride bikes, horses around even at night.

"Ways to do this are to continue lobbying your lawmakers, state and local to make sure they know there is a LOUD and active majority of their constituents who will NOT support them if they vote for any legislation unfavorable to gun owners."

Asking those corrupt individuals currently in office for permission to please let us have ur guns is NOT the LAW here in the USA. They are the ones who are eagerly assisting those destroying our nation. The "officers" broke their oath which is a crime; actually falls under a few crimes. Remember the US Constitution is the supreme LAW of this land where it conflicts with state laws ONLY. Federal authority is listed in the US Constitution and they can NOT lawfully take more "authority" unto themselves. Each state's constitution is the highest law of that state EXCEPT where it conflicts with the US Constitution in this constitutionally listed areas - mostly dealing with foreign affairs.

US Constitution (caps are mine)
The first LAW statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

The requirement for ALL Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.
(This is a part of the contract they agreed to when they took the position they are occupying be it a cop, state rep, governor, US president.)

They are bound by their Oath to support the US Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure - political remedy for a political offense; civil and criminal charges.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” (con't)

Cal said...

@DJ
I am not sure what you are talking about as far as his handling his rifle, it was pointed towards the ground. Not straight up and down as is UNNATURAL but in a groundward manner as is NORMALLY done.

@anonymous September 14, 2013 at 2:18 PM
"How did it make a difference in any way except to get him an article here? Explain to me how this is made a "difference" in any way except to cause tension in a residential neighborhood?"

Open carry rights is just that, you can carry your gun anywhere you want to. There was a time that everyone - just about - had their rifle with them, even high school students left the in the "pic-ups" in the back window rifle rack. That has been within the last 40 or 45 years.

"Ways to do this are to continue lobbying your lawmakers, state and local to make sure they know there is a LOUD and active majority of their constituents who will NOT support them if they vote for any legislation unfavorable to gun owners."

Asking those corrupt individuals currently in office for permission to please let us have ur guns is NOT the LAW here in the USA. They are the ones who are eagerly assisting those destroying our nation. The "officers" broke their oath which is a crime; actually falls under a few crimes, plus it breaks the contract under which they took the position they occupy.

The US Constitution is the supreme LAW of this land where it conflicts with state laws ONLY. Federal authority is listed in the US Constitution and they can NOT lawfully take more "authority" unto themselves beyond that constitutionally assigned to them.

Each state's constitution is the highest law of that state EXCEPT where it conflicts with the US Constitution.

US Constitution (caps are mine), The first LAW statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

The requirement for ALL Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.
(This is a part of the contract they agreed to when they took the position they are occupying be it a cop, state rep, governor, US president.)

They are bound by their Oath to support the US Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure - political remedy for a political offense; civil and criminal charges.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” (US presidenta are held to a higher requirement because they are the executive branch. he wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.
(con't)

Anonymous said...

Actually, considering the police state that we live in these days, the cops showed quite a bit of restraint. (That's not to say that they acted within the bounds of the Constitution, however.)

If this had happened in the People's Republic of CT, he would have been mowed down as soon as they arrived.

Cal said...

(con't) 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take before assuming office.

5 U.S.C. 3333 requires the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Article VI, Clause 2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The Constitution of the United States of America and all laws, bills, treaties, etc that are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF are the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI does not declare that laws passed by the federal government are the supreme law of the land unless they are doing their constitutionally assigned duty in a constitutional manner. What it says is that the “laws of the United States made in pursuance” of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. In PURSUANCE thereof, not in VIOLATION thereof.

Cal said...

(con't) Realize that these are NOT all the laws that apply. Also, as an attorney he can go through his state laws when he sues them, make sure that he names all LEO officers above including the Chief of Police, the state Attorney General, the Governor as the executive branch and who they report to - admittedly thru a chain of command - but if the US Constitution and the state constitution was being upheld theat would NOT have happened. See EXACTLY what that state constitution says they can and CANNOT do and hold them accountable to that including the judges.

If the state constitution unlawfully goes against the US Constitution (Which would mean the unalienable Bill of Rights) in any way start getting that changed.

Good start!

@DJ - I am not sure what you are talking about as far as his handling his rifle, it was pointed towards the ground. Not straight up and down as is UNNATURAL but in a groundward manner as is NORMALLY done.

"...if I was a LEO, I would have warned you... and the next time your muzzle covered me I would have holstered my weapon and told you to hit the dirt..."

That would have added assault and battery to the charges of unlawful detention and the FEW I listed above - which is IN NO WAY a complete list of crimes committed just within this short video by the "law enforcement". Quite possible terrorism also:

28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism: “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives

Anonymous said...

Dj , this man broke no laws. And if you were here hunting on our dove field you would probably in up shooting someone. Thinking they are threatening you. Now go play with your bald headed friends.

Cal said...

(con't) (con't) Because the Constitution of the United States of America is our form of government, like it or not.

Notice this:
US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.
The congress has the constitutionally assigned duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal - which is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people.

Clause 12: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”. The money that the congress has illegally spent beyond the lawfully allotted time of two years of supporting a “standing military” must be returned to the people. It was/is a misappropriation of funds (misappropriation n. the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one's own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person's estate, or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another's assets (a fiduciary duty). It is a FELONY (a crime punishable by a prison sentence.

Clause 16 also makes clear that the ARMING OF THE MILITIA OF EACH STATE is a duty the congress is REQUIRED to carry out: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

I hope you are aware that the Militia of each state IS EVERY able-bodied person over the age of 18. Congress is lawfully required to ARM them and each state is LAWFULLY requried to TRAIN them in the same or better arms that the US might be attacked with.

As Madison, the Father of the US Constitution said in Federalist No. 51, at 323: "In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments (referring to the states and the federal government), and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments (executive, legislative, and judicial – within both the state and federal). Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself".

Hope this helps you to understand the LAWS of the USA, instead of the UN and other foreign entities and nations. Because here in the USA ONLY constitutional laws are lawful. Everything is is just usurpations - unlawful theough there may be thugs and criminals who are illegally enforcing them.

Anonymous said...

Awesome job! Don't listen to these morons posting on here which oppose your 2nd amendment actions.

WE WON'T HAVE ANY 2ND AMENDMENT LEFT IF WE DON'T PROTECT IT!

Darrel said...

@Rod on September 14, 2013 at 8:16 PM

I think you meant to say that there was "no indication that he was NOT some wacko standing around looking to shoot anyone". Yes, I'm familiar with the history of the Gadsden flag, although what it represents to me is probably different than what it represents to you. If the Gadsden flag was an issue, the man could have been more emphatic by displaying a Culpeper flag. In addition to the coiled snake and the "Don't Tread On Me" motto, the Culpeper flag contains the "Liberty or Death" phrase. But, I don't believe the Gadsden flag, nor the sign were the reasons for the neighbor's or the cop's alarm. Brandishing a rifle in plain sight was clearly the cause for the cop's "visit".

Regardless of how the rifle was slung, the muzzle was clearly pointing towards the ground as seen in the video. Several times the first responder claimed that the muzzle was pointed at him. Although the cop unholstered his pistol, he never pointed it at the man, which would have happened if the rifle was actually pointed at the cop, as he claimed.

I agree with other commenters that the cops showed remarkable restraint in the face of verbal abuse from the man in the video. Maybe he was hoping for a confrontation and relished the situation when it happened. I don't know. I do know that the man was NOT assaulted, as he claims, unless it happened in deleted video footage. That's highly improbable.

No, one does not have to be a Libertarian or lay claim to being one in order to exercise his natural rights, guaranteed by the Constitution. One must be a U.S. citizen who knows his rights in order to assert them. Not that they will be honored by the opposing party or parties.

"Keep in mind that these corporate drones with guns and badges are only there to protect the corporation and their pay checks."

On that we both agree.

Anonymous said...

The American debating team was intensely engaged in competition over the details of their rights while they lost them.

None saw any more foolish.

Anonymous said...

Why do they (Cops) cover the badge Numbers with tape

Hide Behind said...

@anon: Sept 15 2:32 pm: Damn I've never read or heard spoken anymore truthful and pertinent a statement in regards to american gunowners.
Bravo.
Instead of copy/ save I wrote it within my special notes .
"None saw any more foolish."
Damn!
I am not an intelligent man but I am not blind.

Anonymous said...

It sounds perfectly reasonable to advise folks to "call their congressmen" when they have a beef with the way things are going, instead of setting up Alex Jones-style spectacles with police who can't tell the Constitution from toilet paper. Thirty years ago this may have been great advice. The problem is we no longer have a representative sort of government. There are 42,000 registered lobbyists in Washington. How much do you think your single vote can do against that onslaught? The contrived war on terror, Patriot Act II, NDAA and hundreds of illegal 'executive orders' masquerading as law have made sure we are- at best- sharecroppers- and at worst, enemies in our own land. Our government has crossed the Rubicon. The Republic is dead. Please stop pretending it's not. Instead of tip-toeing around, hoping we won't have our heads bashed in during an illegal checkpoint, or shot because some paranoid cop pumped up on steroids 'thought' we were a threat, why not use every encounter as an opportunity to educate? The truth stands up for itself, doesn't it? Yes, it's contrived, and probably risky, to walk around town openly armed, waiting to confront cops, but how else do we protect our rights unless we exercise them from time to time?

Anonymous said...

With blogs like this around I don't even need website
anymore. I can just visit here and see all the latest happenings in the world.

Post a Comment