On Islamic Violence: Forget the Koran, Look to History

Source: On Islamic Violence: Forget the Koran, Look to History

by Raymond Ibrahim

The debate around Muslim violence all too often centers around doctrine—around what the Koran and Hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad) really mean and say. Forgotten in this debate is that Islamic scriptures are unnecessary in determining whether Islam teaches violence and war against non-Muslims.

History suffices.

Consider some facts, attested to by both Muslim and non-Muslim primary historic sources: A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia.  In just a few decades, Muslims had permanently conquered what was then two-thirds of the Christian world.  The heart of the Muslim world today—nations like Egypt, Syria, all of North Africa, Turkey and more—were, in the 7th century, the heart of Christendom.

Thereafter it was a continuous war on Christian Europe.  Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination throughout the centuries are (to give them their modern names and in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.

Less than three decades after the traditional date of Islam’s founding (622), three of the five original Christian centers (“sees”) founded by the apostles—in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—were forever swallowed up by Islam; the fourth, Constantinople, valiantly resisted the Islamic onslaught for centuries, but was finally conquered in the name of Islam in 1453.  Though sacked and burned by Muslims as early as 846, only distant Rome—the Vatican, fifth of the ancient Christian sees—remained unconquered.

The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany.  That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” This was not mere paranoia; as late as 1627, Muslim corsairs raided the northern Christian island seizing four hundred captives and selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.

Nor did America escape.  A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs.  The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s right and duty to make war upon non-Muslims wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.

There was no mystery about Islam in those days.   As early as the 8th century, Byzantine chronicler Theophanes wrote in his Chronographia:

He [Muhammad] taught those who gave ear to him that the one slaying the enemy — or being slain by the enemy — entered into paradise [e.g., Koran 9:111]. And he said paradise was carnal and sensual — orgies of eating, drinking, and women. Also, there was a river of wine … and the woman were of another sort, and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring [e.g., 56: 7-40, 78:31, 55:70-77]. And all sorts of other nonsense.

Six hundred years later, in the 14th century, Byzantine emperor Paleologus II told a Muslim scholar: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman — such as the command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Such was the honesty of interfaith dialoguing in former times.

It deserves repeating, by the standards of historiography, the aforementioned historical outline is unassailable, and attested to by both Muslim and European sources, from the traditional beginning of Islam till the modern era.

In short, regardless of what the Koran and other Islamic scriptures really “mean,” for roughly one millennium—punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that the modern West is obsessed with demonizing—Muslims waged unrelenting war on the West. And they did and continue doing so in the name of Islam.

——

And therein lies the rub: Today, whether as taught in high school or graduate school, whether as portrayed by Hollywood or the news media, the predominant historic narrative is that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians.  (Watch my response to a Fox News host wondering why Christians have always persecuted Muslims.)

So here we are, paying the price of being an ahistorical society: A few years after the Islamic strikes of 9/11—merely the latest in the centuries-long, continents-wide jihad on the West—Americans elected (twice) a man with a Muslim name and heritage for president; a man who openly empowers the same Islamic ideology that Western warriors fought for centuries.

Surely the United States’ European forebears—who at one time or another either fought off or were conquered by Islam—must be turning in their graves.

But all this is history, you say? Why rehash it?  Why not let it be and move on, begin a new chapter of mutual tolerance and respect, even if history must be “touched up” a bit?

This would be a somewhat plausible position if not for the fact that, all around the globe, Muslims are still exhibiting the same imperial impulse and intolerant supremacism that their conquering forbears did.  The only difference is that the Muslim world is currently incapable of defeating the West through a conventional war.

Yet this may not even be necessary.  Thanks to the West’s ignorance of history, Muslims are allowed to flood Europe, so that hardly a day now passes without headlines of Muslim on non-Muslim violence.   Most recently—or at least as of this writing—Muslims invaded a church in France, forced the priest on his knees, and slit his throat.

All this leads to another, equally important point: If the true history of the West and Islam is being turned upside down, what other historical “truths” being peddled around today are equally false?  The narrative concerning Islam’s alleged peacefulness is only being questioned because the world sees Muslims committing violence on a daily basis.  But surely there are other nefarious and seditious forces that are intelligent enough not to expose themselves?

In the future (whatever one there may be) the histories written about our times will likely stress how our era, ironically called the “information age,” was not an age when people were so well informed, but rather an age when disinformation was so widespread and unquestioned that generations of people lived in bubbles of alternate realities—till they were finally popped.

Video: Muhammad’s Early Jihad Raids

Source: Islam Watch: Jihad – Holy war or plundering raids? Muhammad’s early Jihad raids; first success at Nakhla

Muhammad’s initiation of Jihad in Islam. Bloodshed, murder, and capture of booty in Nakhla Jihad raid.

The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise Under Islamic Rule

myth-andalusia

Source: The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise

The existence of a Muslim kingdom in Medieval Spain where different races and religions lived harmoniously in multicultural tolerance is one of today’s most widespread myths. University professors teach it. Journalists repeat it. Tourists visiting the Alhambra accept it. It has reached the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, which sings the virtues of the “pan-confessional humanism” of Andalusian Spain (July 18, 2003). The Economist echoes the belief: “Muslim rulers of the past were far more tolerant of people of other faiths than were Catholic ones. For example, al-Andalus’s multi-cultural, multi-religious states ruled by Muslims gave way to a Christian regime that was grossly intolerant even of dissident Christians, and that offered Jews and Muslims a choice only between being forcibly converted and being expelled (or worse).”1 The problem with this belief is that it is historically unfounded, a myth. The fascinating cultural achievements of Islamic Spain cannot obscure the fact that it was never an example of peaceful convivencia.

The history of Islamic Spain begins, of course, with violent conquest. Helped by internal dissension among the Visigoths, in 711 A.D. Islamic warriors entered Christian Spain and defeated the Visigothic king Rodrigo. These Muslims were a mixture of North African Berbers, or “Moors,” who made up the majority, and Syrians, all led by a small number of Arabs proper (from the Arabian peninsula). The Crónica Bizantina of 741 A.D., the Crónica mozárabe of 754 A.D. and the illustrations to the thirteenth-century Cantigas de Santa María chronicle the brutality with which the Muslims subjugated the Catholic population. From then on, the best rulers of al- Andalus were autocrats who through brute force kept the peace in the face of religious, dynastic, racial, and other divisions.

These divisions, and the ruthless methods of dealing with them, were not unique to Muslim Spain. The jihad launched around 634 against the then-Christian Middle East by the successors of Muhammad was marked by internal conflict after the assassination of the third Caliph, Uthman (644-656). The founder of the Emirate of Cordoba, Abd al-Rahman I (734?-788), “The Emigrant,” had to flee Syria to avoid the extermination ordered against his Umayyad family by the rival Abassids. Allied with Berbers from North Africa and helped by Yemenite and Syriansettlers in Spain willing to betray their masters, he proceeded to enter Spain from Africa, defeat the Abbasid governor of al- Andalus in 756 , and make himself Emir. He kept peace among Muslims and between Muslims, Catholics, and Jews by means of an army of more than 40,000 soldiers. It was he who ordered the demolition of the ancient Catholic church of Cordoba to build the much admired mosque. During his reign and that of Abd al-Rahman II (822-852), the conqueror of Barcelona, Catholics suffered confiscations of property, enslavement, and increases in their exacted tribute, which helped finance the embellishment of Islamic Cordoba.

Under Abd al-Rahman II and Muhammad I (822-886), a number of Catholics were killed in Cordoba for preaching against Islam, while others were expelled from the city. Among these victims was Saint Eulogio, beheaded by the Islamic authorities.2 Muhammad I ordered that “newly constructed churches be destroyed as well as anything in the way of refinements that might adorn the old churches added since the Arab conquest.”3

Abd al-Rahman III (912-961), “The Servant of the Merciful,” declared himself Caliph of Cordoba. He took the city to heights of splendor not seen since the days of Harunal- Rashid’s Baghdad, financed largely through the taxation of Catholics and Jews and the booty and tribute obtained in military incursions against Catholic lands. He also punished Muslim rebellions mercilessly, thereby keeping the lid on the boiling cauldron that was multicultural al- Andalus. His rule presumably marks the zenith of Islamic tolerance. Al-Mansur (d. 1002), “The One Made Victorious by Allah,” implemented in al-Andalus in 978 a ferocious military dictatorship backed by a huge army. In addition to building more palaces and subsidizing the arts and sciences in Cordoba, he burned heretical booksand terrorized Catholics, sacking Zaragoza, Osma, Zamora, Leon, Astorga, Coimbra, and Santiago de Compostela. In 985 he burned down Barcelona, enslaving all those he did not kill.

By 1031 the internal divisions of al- Andalus had caused its fragmentation into several tyrannical little “kingdoms,” the socalled taifas. Between 1086 and 1212, new waves of Islamic jihadists from North Africa washed over the land. The first wave were the almoravides, fundamentalist warriors invited by the taifa rulers to help them against the growing strength of the Catholic kingdoms. With the support of the Muslim Andalusian masses and of Muslim legal scholars, who resented the heavy taxation and what they regarded as the debauched and impious life of their princely rulers, the almoravides deposed the taifa kings and unified Andalusia. They pushed back the Catholic advances and made the life of both Catholics and Jews much more difficult than before. By 1138, however, their empire was falling apart under pressure from the Catholic kingdoms and another wave of North African fundamentalist Muslims, the almohades. The almohades thought that the almoravides had become too lax in their practice of Islam—perhaps, one may surmise, because of contagion from the Catholics. By 1170 the almohades had taken control of Andalusia and unleashed new horrors on Catholics, Jews, and other Muslims. That the ruthless almohades also produced marvelous architecture and were responsible for the beauty of some mozarabic buildings, such as Santa María la Blanca in Toledo, captures nicely the true nature of Andalusian Spain. But the almohades were decisively beaten by the allied kings of Castile, Aragon, and Navarra at Navas de Tolosa in 1212. From then on the Catholics kept the military initiative, finally defeating the last Muslim kingdom, Granada, in 1492.

The early Muslim invaders were relatively small in numbers, so it was politically prudent to grant religious autonomy to Catholics, while trying to protect themselves from the “contagion” of Catholic influence by segregating themselves from the subject majority.4 Therefore they maintained the Catholics in a state of dhimmitude —as a “protected” class curtailed from any possibility of sharing political power or compromising the hegemonic position of Islam. In times of war or political turmoil, the Catholics’ freedom was further restricted. Catholics fleeing Muslim rule lost all “protection,” and their property was confiscated by the conquerors. “Tolerance at this extreme,” notices historian Robert I. Burns, “is not easily distinguished from intolerance.”5

For similar reasons of strategy, not “tolerance,” the invaders obtained the help of Jewish leaders unhappy with their treatment under the Visigoths. Continue reading

An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, in Their Own Words

Source: Center for Security Policy | BOOK RELEASE: Ikhwan in America: An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Their Own Words

(Washington, D.C.): The Center for Security Policy is proud to announce the second release in its Archival Series, Ikhwan in America: An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in their Own Words.

Like the first volume in this series, The Explanatory Memorandum: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, this new volume provides context for the needed, far deeper understanding of the true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood (known as the Ikhwan in Arabic). It does so by making accessible an original source document – along with an evaluation of its ideological, historical and organizational significance to equip our countrymen and women, and their elected representatives, to make informed decisions about one of the most serious threats facing our country: the Islamic supremacist enemies within.

“Ikhwan in America” was the title given an early 1980s lecture about the Muslim Brotherhood by a man who was at the time one of the organization’s most prominent leaders: the chief masul (“guide”) of its executive office, Zaid Naman (a.k.a. Zeid Noman). The audience were participants in a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood camp in Missouri.

The Center for Security Policy is proud to present this monograph as the latest in its Muslim Brotherhood Archival Series. Ikhwan in America is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com. As with this Archive Series’ Explanatory Memorandum, this one can also be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.

A PDF of the newly released monograph is embedded here:

 

 

Islam and the Christian Genocides in Turkey

Source: Islam and the Christian Genocides in Turkey | Gates of Vienna
by Serkan Engin

As some have said in the West: in truth the Armenian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Nestorian and Pontian Greek genocides* were “Christian genocides”. On the other side were Muslim Turks and Kurds. The basis in society and the justification in conscience of these genocides were Islamic rules.

Islam gives permission to all Muslims to kill and rape every non-Muslim, and also to grab all their money and property. The de facto killers in these genocides were the predatory bands of the “Secret Organization” (In Turkish: Teşkilatı Mahsusa). The Turks and Kurds who killed their non-Muslim neighbours, enslaved their women and little girls as sex slaves, and grabbed all their property, had no awareness of “nationalism,” as did their commanders, the leaders of the Union and Progress Organization. So the Turks and Kurds who took part in the Armenian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Nestorian and Pontian Greek genocides massacred innocent humans with pleasure, did not do all this for the benefit of “Turkish nationalism”. They were simple farmers, describing themselves as “Muslim”, but not as “Turkish” or “Kurdish”.

The massacre order given by the Union and Progress Organization leaders was a gift for the Turks who lived as predators for two thousand years, and only turned to agriculture and the breeding of livestock in Anatolia. They considered it a gift because they got the chance to pillage their “rich” non-Muslim neighbours on the order of their government, and also they could take revenge upon non-Muslims who had, in their eyes, a great deal of money.

Kurds had been living in the same region for thousands of years and didn’t have ability, aptitude and historical experience except in the jobs of agriculture and the breeding of livestock. They, like their Turkish coreligionists, became happy too, because along with the Turks they would loot the money and property of the non-Muslims.

Muslim Turks and Kurds pulled their non-Muslim neighbours to pieces with the appetite and wildness of hyenas without any mercy; moreover, they gloated over all of this. They grabbed all the houses and stores of the non-Muslims, and they enslaved the women of non-Muslims as sex slaves and also domestic slaves in their “harems” as their “booty,” as is ordered by the rules of Islam. And they sold some of these women and girls at the slave bazaars for a bit of money.

The perpetrators of this terrible period didn’t feel any self-reproach. On the contrary, they were very happy, because they became more worthy of Allah, the god of Islam. They became better Muslims with these disgusting massacres. So they came closer to the heaven of Islam, with its many houris (group sex) and open buffet bar (rivers of kevser wines).


(Click to enlarge)

They were at peace with themselves because they were obeying the laws of their own god, Allah, and the government.

They raped tiny girls and women, slaughtered innocent humans, burned children alive, and massacred millions of non-Muslims by the order of the “peaceful” religion Islam.

Because their Allah was very merciless to the ones who disbelieved.

* In 1913, the Turkish Ottoman government of the supposedly liberal Committee of Union and Progress initiated a program of forcible Turkification of non-Turkish minorities. Starting in 1915 the government turned to deliberate extermination of indigenous and Christian ethnic groups — Assyrians, Greeks, Armenians, Chaldeans and Nestorians. Most well-known is the wholesale slaughter and destruction of the Armenian Christians living in what is modern-day Turkey. It is estimated that between 1 and 1.5 million Armenians were killed. In 1943 the Armenian holocaust inspired the Polish-American lawyer Raphael Lemkin to coin the term “genocide” to define the planned and systematic extermination of entire nations or ethnic groups.The genocides ordered by the Turkish government and perpetrated by Turkish and Kurdish Muslims are accepted as fact by serious Western historians but are till this day strenuously denied by the Turkish authorities.

Source: AINA

The New Crusade & How the Crusades Saved Europe

First: The New Crusade – The Daily Reckoning

We’ve all grown up believing that one of the key exports from the Middle East is oil. And yes, that’s true. But now, in the past year, about 2 million “migrants” have left Africa and the Middle East and basically invaded Europe. I’m sure you’ve seen accounts.

Let’s say that “only” 1% of these migrants are ill-intentioned toward the West (it’s likely much more, per Interpol and FBI accounts). What’s 1% of 2 million? That’s 20,000 people… and in the Army, they call that “two divisions.”

But two divisions require a large military base, right? Not exactly — not when you have Europe’s welfare states to provide food, housing and walk-around cash. Not when there’s the Internet, from which potential terrorists and wannabes can download everything they need.

And not when Saudi Arabia has funded over 50,000 mosques and madrassas across the world, staffed with hard-line Islamists — and often a source of weapons, as we’ve recently learned from France.

Now let’s say those 20,000 radicalized people break into small terror cells. How much trouble could a couple thousand terror cells cause? Well, 19 terrorists — 15 were Saudi — caused carnage on 9/11 and instantly cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars.

A few dozen people caused the Beslan, Russia, massacre of 385 people in 2004. Fewer than 10 bad guys perpetrated the Paris massacre last year, killing about 130. We don’t have all the details about the recent attacks in Brussels that killed 35 people last week. But investigators believe they were carried out by the same cell behind last November’s attacks in Paris. Closer to home, San Bernardino was two people — husband and wife — killing 14, and gravely injuring dozens more, within minutes.

Former Navy SEAL Matt Bracken has written extensively about the growing probability of a looming “Tet Offensive” by Islamist terrorists across Europe, North America and more. Bracken’s reference is to the 1968 battle in Vietnam, when Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops appeared out of nowhere to wreak havoc:

A Paris or Beslan attack takes 10 jihadists, operating in pairs with controllers on cellphones. One percent of [just] a million means 1,000 major attacks, but the effects will be vastly magnified by the synergistic effects as the anti-terror police are overwhelmed and burned out… Europe will be at war this year. Once the European war detonates, it’s going to rip open like a zipper or a fault line from the North Sea to the Indian Ocean. Think the European banks are failing now? How will the economy run in a continent engaged in bloody civil war?

In the U.S. right now, according to the FBI, law enforcement is tracking over 900 “active” potential terrorists in all 50 states. Astonishing. Terrorists in Alaska? North Dakota?

Here’s more from Bracken:

Imagine a ‘Super Tet Offensive,” with every type of target on the hit list from airports to zoological parks, each being assaulted by an eight-man squad of such killers. Some attacks smaller, some larger, from pairs to platoons in strength.

To paraphrase the long-deceased Leon Trotsky, you may not be interested in this war, but this war is interested in you.

This story has a wide footprint. And while I’ll admit that we’re in the early stages of what could be a catastrophic wave of terrorism and anti-Christian attacks, this story simply must be on your radar.

From a military standpoint — or that of the FBI, CIA and Department of Homeland Security — this won’t be an easy war to win. You know that. I know that. We’re fighting an ideology with deep roots and long-reaching tentacles.

For decades, Middle East terrorism has run rampant. Decades ago, we saw “Palestinian” terrorism, such as with 1972 Olympics in Munich. Then mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the 1980s… then the Taliban splintered off in the ’90s… Meanwhile, we saw the rise of al-Qaida throughout the Middle East… Today we’ve got ISIS.

These groups differ in time, place and some ideology. But they all utilize brutal terrorist tactics and the desire to indoctrinate the world with hard-line, ruthless Islamic law.

Today this situation is much worse than ever before. With breakdowns in many Middle Eastern and North African governments, terrorist groups like ISIS are gaining legitimate footholds. Combine that with the onset of the Internet and global connectivity — and their reach is much more effective than in years past. The “black flag” is spreading.


There really is no difference in ideology. It’s about spreading Islam and ruling by sharia. The article continues:


I hope you understand the seriousness of this situation. And frankly, if you’re a bit unnerved or worried, you should be.

Let’s cover one more important part of this story. This could be the powder keg ISIS has been waiting for… that’s the Saudi connection.

Saudi Arabia is in the midst of internal revolution. There’s an elderly king and a young defense minister who’s filled with zeal and ambition. A power struggle is unfolding. At the same time, the U.S. is offering less support to Saudi, along the lines of President Obama’s “detente” with Iran.

There’s a real probability that Saudi’s royal family will fall and radicals within that nation will take over all the money, oil assets and U.S.-supplied military equipment and munitions that fill Saudi vaults. Then the overall radical Islam movement will become even better funded. Now imagine that just a “little bit” of success in global jihad breeds further unrest. Then the jihad revolutionary cancer will grow.

If you don’t think Saudi could become the largest ISIS breeding ground in the entire Middle East, think again.

All in all, the U.S. is not mentally geared for the coming firestorm. In this new religious war, the typical Western mind is what military professionals describe as an “unprepared battlefield.”

Eventually, people will wake up. Sooner, I hope, not later. When blinders finally come off, it’ll be a nightmare to realize what’s happening. And if this situation gets legs, watch out. We’ll find ourselves fighting a form of “crusade” — and I use that word intentionally, whether you’re religious or not.

It might not be your crusade, but the enemy has a vote too.


Read it all and then watch the video below: How the Crusades Saved Europe

Related:

Misconceptions about the Crusades

Jihad vs Crusades: The Facts (video)

1993 World Trade Center Bombed By Illegal Aliens Given Amnesty

Well-vetted no doubt. Source: 23 Years Ago the World Trade Center was Bombed Because of Illegal Alien Amnesty | Daniel Greenfield

On February 26, 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim terrorists who had been allowed to stay in this country because of illegal alien amnesty. Bill Clinton chose not to come down.

Mahmoud Abouhalima, the taxi driving terrorist, applied for amnesty claiming to be an “agricultural worker”. Remember that the next time you’re fed some nonsense about how we need agricultural workers to do the “jobs Americans won’t do”.

Six months after Abouhalima arrived in New York, his tourist visa expired. Fortunately for him, Congress was preparing to authorize an amnesty program for more than 1 million illegal aliens who merely had to assert that they worked as migrant farmers. Abouhalima applied for amnesty in 1986, received temporary legal residence in 1988 and became a permanent resident two years after that.

Through an attorney, Abouhalima now claims he worked for seven months on a farm in South Carolina. But his current wife told a TIME reporter that she can remember no travels outside the New York metropolitan area except for one trip to Michigan to visit friends.

“The amnesty program was a joke,” says Duke Austin, a spokesman at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. “Since documentation wasn’t required, the burden was on the government to prove the aliens were not farmers. Fraud was widespread and enforcement virtually impossible.”

Just what happens with these “sensible common sense reforms”. And Abouhalima wasn’t the only one to take advantage of our porous immigration laws.

Mohammad Salameh: The case of Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, shows why an amnesty will not hinder terrorists. His application for amnesty was denied because he was not as adept at making fraudulent claims as was Abouhalima. His amnesty application was rejected. But because the government did not deport failed amnesty applicants, he continued to live and work in the United States illegally and ultimately take part in terrorism.

And let’s not forget bombing planner Ramzi Yousef.

Yousef applied for political asylum at JFK Airport. A search of his luggage found identification papers with different names. The immigration inspector recommended that he be detained; [2] instead he was released on his own recognizance and told to report back for a hearing in a few months. And he never showed up for his hearing.

Yousef’s co-conspirator Ahmed Ajaj filed for political asylum. As did the Blind Sheikh terror boss. Just more “refugees”.


Related: Feb 26, 1993: Muslim terrorists bomb World Trade Center (video)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59,994 other followers

%d bloggers like this: