Climate change is a tool used by the Globalist Cabal to support most of their agenda. Here we provide you the truth and resources you need to reference

This is a "primer" for a more extensive report that will be updated over time as part of our "In-Depth Report" series. I will go back and update each section/bullet point with another more in-depth article, and link it back. If you have additional resources and links that can add to the benefit of this report. Please use the comment section below and share that with us!

This will all be available to you, to research later, and keep as a reference tool that you can use to help explain these complicated topics to others.

Global Warming/Climate Change...What is it?

Global Warming is now referred to as Climate Change by the globalists and media around the world. It is an everyday topic in the media and political circles.

After all of the face melting predictions by Al Gore, and his types, failed to produce anything close to expectations, the globalists knew they had to change the phraseology. They can't show "Global Warming", but they can show "Climate Change", right? I mean just look out the window. It changes everyday.

The success of the left is based on their ability to oversimply a situation down to one basic emotional causation. The effectiveness of this new phraseology manifests itself every morning in the leftist brain. Is it a little hotter today than yesterday?

Of course, as is always the case, climate change is a much more complicated subject. Very complicated in fact. The truth is that people who look outside and try to gauge temperatures from one day to the next are talking about weather, not Climate Change.

Climate Change is the effective Earth climate (or weather) over an elongated period of time; decades, centuries, even millennials. So immediately, they have it all wrong, but it is an effective tactic to use with people without knowledge who seek simplified causations. So, lets see if we can fix that!

I want to provide you with a bullet point summary for quick reference, then we'll get into each aspect. I will try to touch on each topic briefly, but this focus is on the truth behind climate change and the globalist agenda.

I'll be updating, and adding to, this report over time by getting into each bullet point in more detail. I want you to have all the reference tools, and links, you need to help others. There may be, and probably are, other things I've missed. I'll add to, and update, this report as I find additional resources to support any additional causations. If you come across a great resource that would benefit this report, please share!

The Summary:

  • The climate crisis is a made up event for Globalists to gain control of every aspect of our lives.
  • After a period of warming, The Earth is actually been cooling
  • Climate Change has very little to do with our activities
  • Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not even the most voluminous or effective gas for creating the greenhouse effect
  • Increased CO2 levels may likely be a result of Global Warming, not the causation.
  • CO2 is not a "pollutant" as they define it.
  • Global cyclical changes affect the Earth's climate.
  • Space weather, and the Sun itself, affect Global Climate
  • So many false studies and erroneous climate models, parameterized to return a particular result. These models don't match up with actual data collected.
  • The EPA is the enforcement arm of the Deep State globalists. It was granted, by the Supreme Court, the ability to regulate CO2, and thus massive industries, if it could prove CO2 was detrimental to public health.
  • Russian climate model is much more accurate when compared to actual results collected, but we aren't using it.
  • Hurricane intensity and frequency is not increasing
  • What does cause Climate changes? Cyclical patterns of the Earth, Sun, and other space weather factors, the rotation and angle of the Earth, Earth's shields, solar winds, atmospheric radiation, and catastrophic events.

Read about some of the common climate change myths here

Is Global Warming or Climate Change even true?

Let's start with who most people consider the "father" of the climate change/global warming debate, Al Gore. He's had some crazy predictions over the years! He said our faces would melt off in 10 years, 15 years ago. The fact is all his predictions have failed, and he hasn't even been close! Each time their predictions fail, they just move the goal posts and say your face will melt in another ten years. Right out of the gate, time has proven that they have zero credibility.

But, somehow, we allow this narrative to continue as "settled science", as they like to say. Al Gore hasn't even practiced what he has preached. All of his homes, planes, and even buying beach front property in the face of catastrophic sea level rises. What a sham! He has a massive "carbon footprint". I'm not going to get into him too much. To give you a little more on Al Gore, you can check out the link below.

Al Gore, Self-Proclaimed creater of the internet and "Father" of the Climate Crisis.

Al crisscrossed countries waving his arms, passionately declaring, “We can’t wait… We have a planetary emergency… the future of human civilization is at stake! … Global warming is the greatest challenge we’ve ever faced!”

What we have to figure out here first, is whether any of this is true or not. As you all know, we still all have our faces, and half the country isn't under water from rising sea levels. But, but, what about all these climate models that show our faces will melt in another 10 years?

Well the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. When Al Gore first began his campaign with such a sense of urgency, we didn't have actual collected data to really compare against their predictive models. Now, we do! How have these models stacked up to real data collected? They don't!

Actual Data collected shows an extreme difference from the predictive models, save the Russian model.
Actual Data collected shows an extreme difference from the predictive models, save the Russian model.

As you can see above, the actual data that has been collected through 2015 is far, far away, from the vast majority of the predictive models used by governments all over the world. This red line indicates their average. Looks like around 2030 we are back in face melting range according to these predictions.

There has been some warming over decades, but there's various reasons for that which we will get into later. The warming we have seen all seems to be within the normal range of what the planet's typical cycles are.

Surely, if their predictive models were true, then we would have to look for an additional explanation, but they are not. This chart goes up to 2015.

It depends on how you look at the data. We have actually been cooling for the last 10 years, and are in a long term cooling trend. Completely opposite of what everyone is telling us.

Lets look at the data below that shows us that we are cooling.

Global Cooling?


You can see in the chart above (the red arrow in the top right) showing a long term down trend in global temperatures for the last 3,000 years. Think of this chart like a stock chart. But, each little uptick in the downward trend, is cause for the left to freak out.

Entering a "Grand Solar Minimum", we may find ourselves more worried about freezing to death, rather than our faces melting off!

[In the past] "Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998."

Why are we not using the Russian predictive model and why is it so much better?

The closest and most accurate model is the Russian model. Think of this like the hurricane predictive models. You have a number of outliers, but there's generally some kind of consensus. Well, not here! The only consensus is that they are all way off! So, why aren't we using the Russian model which is quite close?

Well, this gets interesting and more complicated. Could you imagine if Donald Trump asked the same question publicly right now? Now, he's "colluding" with the Russians to push a false narrative, opposed to the "settled science" of climate change. Wow, what a headline that would be!

Whatever you think about Russia, one thing is true; They are not part of the globalist cabal that is driving so much of today's fake information propaganda.

What is the globalist cabal? It's an extremely complex web of power players from around the world, working together to push the globalist agenda. Politicians, business people, etc. Think George Soros, and think "the Bilderberg group" to keep it simple for now. The globalist agenda?...think the UN's Agenda 21.

Here's a tid bit to tease you about the Bilderberg group from their own site, but it won't give you details. That will take a totally separate in-depth report that we'll add later.

The Bilderberg Group

Above, is the link for to the Bilderberg's own website. More on them later! Now, I guess you want to read about the UN's Agenda 21 on the UN website. Ok, here's the link for that.

Read more about the UN Agenda 21 here on their own website

The basics are population control, open borders, climate control, etc. All the same agendas being pushed by the socialist left.

The Russian's are not part of this globalist agenda, and frankly, they have no agenda here but to provide accurate data, as far as I can tell. Trump isn't part of this agenda either. They are both the enemy of the state for this reason (in simplified terms); Enemies of the Deep State  that is, and the globalist cabal. The Deep State also has other agendas. But, anything that can give them more power and control; they will sign onto.

Why are the majority of the models so wrong?

I think we have established that there is an "agenda", by showing you that their data is inaccurate. In fact, it's not even close to the truth. Instead of fixing it, they try to justify it. Instead of owning the failures of their predictions, they just move the goal post a little further down the road. This is a clear demonstration of intent and agendas, rather than just making a mistake.

The problem with any information these days is a lack of true and pure facts. That is, facts generated without an agenda.

Everyone has one bias and even sub-conscious agendas, if not overt. The left, the right, and everyone in-between. Figuring out what bias there is in a report, or study, a news story, etc., is more important than the data itself. I've touched on this bias before in reports about the media and how to actually get to the truth. The same applies with any study.

Not only do we have to look for the bias, but we have to look for the background of the one who developed the study. Too often, researchers and scientists, with a particular specialty, try to fit every piece of data into their area of specialty, rather than following the evidence to a logical conclusion that may be outside of their specialty.

Studies can be generated in many ways to draw many different conclusions, all using the same "facts". Show me one study that draws one conclusion, and I can show you another that draws the opposite conclusion. We've all seen that....repeatedly.

This propensity to do a study, or report, to draw a particular conclusion is much too prevalent. Everyone has an "ax to grind" even if they don't have a particular agenda. Getting through all of this is quite difficult, especially when it comes to technical matters above our pay grade.

These biases, and "axes", must be kept in mind regarding any study, on either side, along with the person's particular background that he is trying to stuff his data into. Unfortunately, it seems these scientists can't get together to actually "put it all together". Surely, the answer lies within multiple fields of relevance combined, with regard to such a complex issue.

With all that in mind, we have established that there is, in absolute fact, an agenda, as well as, a bias within their work. The comparison of actual data to their modeling proves that. But only now, has enough time to passed to analyze the comparative data between their models and data of the actual results collected.

With "agenda", well established, let's take a look at what makes the data itself faulty and the bias that it contains.

Virtually all of the models, I believe 73 in total, from a variety of countries use data based on CO2 levels. We'll talk later about why CO2 levels are not the causation, but their modeling paramiters do. Not only do they believe that CO2 is the causation, they are basing their data from a spike in temperature from the 1920's to the 1950's. This time is widely accepted as not having had enough man-made CO2 production to have caused the increases seen.

Below is an interview with Dr. Patrick J. Michaels by Mark Levin. Have a listen and then I'll hit the highlights.

Dr. Micheals says,"It's the scientists, not the science, that's determining how much it's going to warm".

There's really no way to summarize, what I have already written above, any better than what Dr. Michaels said. But, let's take a look at some key points that I have not yet touched on,  in case you haven't watched. He spoke of a publication written in Science Magazine in 2016 (that I cannot find, but do have the study referred to) in which a French Climatologist explains the process by which "tuning" the model, or "Parameritizing", or "fudging",  in order to "give an aticipated acceptable range of results" is done. Below is a link to the entire PDF version of the report that was written.

This is a direct link to the online .pdf study

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency): The enforcement arm of the Deep State and Globalist Cabal.

To talk about "Fudging" or "Parameterizing", we have to talk about the EPA; The enforcement arm of the globalists, then we'll get back to more about the climate argument.

In a case in 2007, the EPA was told by the Supreme Court, that if they could find that carbon dioxide was harmful to the health and welfare of citizens, then they would be allowed to regulate the industries producing it. The EPA initiated it's own study to obviously come to this conclusion. Here's the link to the Supreme Court opinion.

Read the details of this Supreme Court ruling on their website with the button below

The EPA, naturally, produced these findings in a report in 2009 (guess who was in office?). The problem with the EPA results in it's findings, is that 100% of those findings were based on these erroneous predictive models.

Of course, I think this was all coordinated and intentional, but that aside; if these models were found to now be false, or otherwise inaccurate, the EPA (along with the globalist deep state) would lose it's regulatory authority over virtually ever company in the country with regard to CO2 emissions. That's ALOT of power!

The regulatory power of the EPA is the key tool for the Deep State and the Globalist Cabal to enforce their agenda. It has the power to bring virtually any company, or country, to it's knees. And, it's all controlled by a few unelected bureaucrats.

We saw a lot of this power demonstrated by the Obama administration in the form of stifling regulations. Many of these regulations were targeted at companies over climate change.

"The Paris Accords" would have locked us into a global treaty to make these regulations permanent. It would have had supremacy, even over our own Constitution.

Ditching the Paris Accords was critical in the fight against this globalism. Trump has cut more regulations than any President in history. This has unleashed the US economy as you can see.

There's a big question that remains regarding this immense power of the EPA. Who's next? While President Trump has done a great job in managing this power properly, who is going to be the next person to take office? How will they use that power against us?

This is way too much power for just a few bureaucrats to have with virtually no oversight! Especially when the whole basis for their power, and control, lies in it's ability to conduct it's own study to show why they should have this power.

This is just insane. It relies on the belief that the government is always fair, impartial, and always has the best interest of the citizens in mind, and that it will uphold the Constitution in the process. All of these assumptions, as we have observed in the past, are clearly false.

In simple terms, it is as if I asked myself, whether I should have the authority to walk into my neighbors home and take everything he owns. Sure, I think you should.

Regulatory authority, especially unchecked, is the key tool in the globalist agenda. This is something that must  be totally undone, not just rolling back the regulations produced by a previous administration. Otherwise, the next administration can roll them right back in! Not many, if any, will ever turn over that power willingly. I doubt even Trump would.

Now, let's get back to debunking other common myths, and arguments, about climate change.

More about Climate Hoaxes

What about all the more intense, and more numerous, hurricanes the government told us about?

The federal government released a report talking about the increase in hurricanes, and its impact on the United States (Global Climate Change Impacts on The United States-2014).

Of course, this report supports the global predictive models (and the EPA report that supports its own ability to regulate industry). Predictably, this report cherry picks information, and certain data sets, that help shape a narrative that it wishes to promote. It's a 2014 report, yet they excluded information available past 2009 that negates their point. The reductions in global temperatures from 2009 to 2014 negate their entire argument.

Additionally, some like to focus on how much more damage is being caused; as a relation to power of storms. The fact is, there are more people, with more property, living on the shorelines in front of weather. Naturally, this will have a result of higher property damage costs than they did in previous decades.

The "real" measure, is to calculate the property damage numbers compared to GDP. When doing so, there is not any real change in effect, or power, of storms causing damage.

Of course, we've all seen the videos of the fake news weather guys standing in a ditch, leaning over to show the force of such strong winds, while a couple of passers by laugh, as they are walking in flip flops, through ankle deep water. The media is complicit in helping to drive this narrative.

What's the truth about the climate?

As leftist always do, the have over-simplified an issue into a single emotional point. "Your face is going to melt in ten years because CO2 is killing our planet!" They are even parading kids. I saw kids attacking Feinstein over the New Green Deal, because "our planet is dying".

How many movies/tv shows do you see on air that have this apocalyptic theme? It's everywhere. That's the media wing of the Deep State pushing the same agenda in a coordinated way. It's known as "Project Mockingbird". I've mentioned it before, but that's another deep dive article. The point is the coordination. When you see it everywhere, it must be true, right?

Anytime you see an issue that simplified, it should be a major red flag that something is not right. Nothing is that simple! Nothing! That is why you must question EVERYTHING!

One of the key factors we have seen is that the left always have this sense of urgency attached to their agenda. That's because, as we have seen, that if allowed enough time, the public will come to realize that their agenda is a sham, and they won't be able to take credit for the incredible results that saved the world!

We can already see that their predictive models don't come anywhere near the actual data collected. If we let this go unchallenged, then once we are locked into their agenda, via regulations and global treaties, then they would begin to rectify the errors in their predictive models, slowly. This would be an attempt to show everyone that these new policies are working, and take credit for saving the planet!

Somehow, we all still have our faces, but yet the left is able to re-invent the same arguments and agendas. But, let's try to dive into some of the issues that really do affect our planet's weather and climate. It is a lot, so bear with me. I'll try to be brief and dive into more detail later in separate reports.

Let me introduce you to "space weather". Now, not all climate related issues are tied to space weather, but it is one piece of the puzzle.

These government predictive models on climate change are based on the idea that if you go higher into the atmosphere that temperatures should rise dramatically. That's not happening. A couple of sources that I like to refer to are and

Space weather is an excellent source for a number of issues that affect our planet's climate. They are a great resource and provide real-time data from NOAA and NASA satellites and other observatories that can help you draw your own relationships and conclusions.

If you're new to space weather, or not, BP is an excellent resource to help explain what's what, and how it affects the planet, especially in his videos. Let's take a look at one of those now.

BP Earthwatch posts things other than just space weather and I do find most things interesting, and helpful, but his strengths, in my opinion, are the space weather issues of his channel. In the video above, he discusses a number of interesting topics to get your feet wet, but trust me, the complexities of space weather is something you learn over time.

For instance, when the sun is in a solar minimum, or a grand solar minimum as we are entering now, earth's shields are weaker and the upper atmosphere is thinner. This allows more cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere as you can see in the graph below.

This same radiation puts frequent airline travelers at much higher radiation exposure rates. But, it also makes us burn easier, even on cooler summer days. It seems like global warming in a sense, but it's actually the cooling that's allowing those things to happen.

This same cosmic radiation, coronal mass ejections (CME), and even solar flares, force radiated protons ( let's just say radiation) to actually enter the earth's core.

This can heat up lava and create more intense quakes and volcanic eruptions. Not exactly what you might expect from a "solar minimum" unless you have this greater understanding of the cause and effects.


As you can see above, we are already getting into some of these complexities. Above is a graph of recent activity in the Stratosphere. The radiation increase of 18% here is indicative of a thinning, thus cooler, atmosphere. Below, is another good link with resources to more technical data.

Read more from the notrickzone. They have some good links you can follow around for more technical explanations.

We've already talked a little about space weather. But, there's much more to cover. I won't cover everything here, but let hit the highlights.

As I stated above, we are going from a solar maximum into a solar minimum. These are natural cycles of the sun's output. This happens about every 11 years.

But, we aren't in just a solar minimum, we are transitioning into a grand solar minimum. That's a lot of transition. Transitions from the maximum to the minimum can have some noticeable effects on the planets climate. But, transitioning to a GRAND solar minimum is surely having some noticeable effects. These are times when little ice ages are made.

The sun's intensity provides a supercharge to the Earth's own magnetic shields, through solar winds and proton radiation that interacts with the shields, typically observed as the northern lights, or the aurora borealis.

When the sun is spun up, it provides more energy to the Earth's own magnetic shields. The increased spinning effect helps keep the polar vortex in it's place; tight around the northern pole. When the sun's activity decreases, less energy is provided to the Earth's shields, and the polar vortex dips out of it's normal area.

This is a recent example of just how the sun's energy effects the climate on Earth. We saw the massive dip in the polar vortex that came down over the United States, and how frigid the temperatures were across the whole nation.

I know, every laughed, scoffed, and had a good time with pictures that mocked global warming, but in reality those two issues are not related.

The kind of climate change that we will be seeing, is really more localized climate changes. Like what happened with the polar vortex here in the US. However, with global media pushing narratives, this will not be seen as localized weather, but as global climate changes.

However, this is because of a number of natural cycles and phenomena. It's not really the product of any global warming or cooling, but rather an effect of the current grand solar minimum from the sun, in this example.

So, what about all the strong summer sun and sunburn? Yes, that seems confusing, but in a grand solar minimum, you have to remember that the Earth's shields are weaker. As I stated above, you have to remember the thinning atmosphere and shields.

Remember the graph above about increases in stratospheric radiation? Sometimes it seems an oxymoron to feel the sun so strong during a solar minimum.

It seems terribly confusing, I know. Lower sun activity is actually going to make things feel hotter, and make me burn more from higher radiation exposure? Yes.

It's part of the reason why the left is so successful in taking such a huge/complex issue, and making it one simple emotional issue. No one really wants to put this kind of time into trying to understand all this. We see the left do this with other complex issues, like the economy. They play to the inherent laziness of people who would just rather be told what to know, understand, and do.

This lower sun activity can also causes more extreme winter weather as we described above with the polar vortex issues. The polar vortex can decide to dip out of it's normal rotation wherever it wants to. It may be the US one time, and hit Europe the next. That is really unpredictable. We only know that it will hit someone. This all contributes to a feeling of "Climate Chaos" and the media loves it! It may seem like the world is coming unglued, especially the way that they report on it all, but I think we'll survive!

There are so many other factors that can affect the global climate.

  • The rotation of the Earth skews
  • The tilt of the Earth's axis shifts
  • The orbit around the sun elongates

The above are all things that have happened, and do happen on cycles. Most are fairly predictable, but some are not.

For instance, the Fukushima earthquake; the one known for the Japanese power plant failure, and the tsunami that followed, was so large at 9.0 that it tilted the axis of the earth, slightly, but measurably.

Shifts in the angle that the sun's light and energy hits the planet, even a slight one, can shift the climate of the planet, but especially affect some localized weather.

Just think of it this way overall; At one time the Sahara Desert was a lush topical jungle. Change happens....naturally.

Above, is the devastating effects of a 9.0 earthquake on Japan, that literally change the rotational axis of the earth. Just prior to this, the planet was hit by a very intense CME.

If you travel the world, you'll find images like the one below. There's monuments to the equator, and meridian lines of the earth, but changes haves caused these lines to move.

Every year, in some places, new lines are drawn to reflect these changes, like below. The Equator no longer runs through there monument but down a side street.

I recall watching one of my favorite YouTube "crusing" channels, and I think they were in Ecuador. They took a picture of multiple road signs marking the new equator line as it moved  down the road over the years (wish I could find that picture!). It was pretty shocking, but all these changes can, have, and will continue to have effects on our climate.


When we get hit with high solar winds or cosmic radiation bursts, especially with lower shields; this extra energy can reach our planets molten core, heats the lava, and makes it expand.

This expansion creates more earthquake activity as tectonic plates riding on molten lava are forced to move more. This is a predictable phenomenon but exactly where the earthquake will happen is more of a question. The "Pacific Rim" (the area surrounding the Pacific Ocean) always seems to get the worst of it.

Volcanic eruptions are also, in part, a result of increased cosmic radiation with lower shields. The same heat energy that can create more earthquakes, can also create more volcanic activity as the lava heats and expands, it needs somewhere to go. We have seen this around the globe recently, but just remember what has taken place in Hawaii recently.

I think you get my point about all the "space weather" that can have effects on the planet.

More about Natural Cycles

There has been global warming, and cooling, effects though natural cycles for millions, if not billion, of years. We can go back quite some time through ice core plugs. Ice cores give us a snapshot of the past.

Data that has been obtained from these cores shows us that CO2 build ups have occurred AFTER  naturally occurring warming cycles. This makes CO2 and effect of warming, not causation.

By basing all of their models on the assumption that CO2 is a warming driver, they have skewed their models irrefutably.

Glaciers have been growing, and receding, since the dawn of time. We can count at least 33 times throughout pre-historic history where this ebb and flow has taken place, before were ever here.

Some of the sea rise is certainly due to the natural cycles and melting of glaciers, but there's other issues that cause sea level rise as well. One very overlooked issue with sea levels is what I call the "equatorial expansion belt". That may, or may not be, the correct name. I'll try to update that later.

This belt around the equator, is a bulge of water, swelling like an old man's beer gut, that has more volume, and rises above the natural sea level. It's a natural phenomenon caused by the rotation of the Earth and centrifugal force. If there's any deviation in the planet's circulatory speed, it will cause the bulge to flatten to some degree. And, it does happen.

Where do you think that water will go? It will manifest in increased sea level rises. This slowdown has happened, though I'm sure it doesn't account for everything. The point is that it is all very complex, and can have multiple factors and reasons, why this or that is happening.

Sea levels have been so high in the past, long before man was here, that shark fossils have been found far inland. Here on the East coast, some were found dating back to the Tertiany period of the Cenozic era.

They had beachfront property near the Appalachia Mountains back then! The evidence for this is also supported by core samples that reveal a sea floor.


Much like that map above, we've been to these places before, and man wasn't even here to cause them. Where do you think they got this map of where sea levels may one day rise to? They know where the ocean levels have been in the past, long before "we" were here to cause it.

There are ancient cities currently under water, and ancient cities high above sea levels, that show signs of being underwater. There's nothing new going on here.


With all this in mind, there are many reasons for changes in our climate, weather, and sea levels; short term and long term. These reasons are usually complicated and involve multiple factors.

If you think a world, as complicated as ours, comes down to one simple emotional answer to all these complicated influencing factors, then you are just braindead.

As normal, and typical, the left has over simplified these complex issues. Naturally, they will tell you that you are "over-complicating" them.  You can look to many things to try to make a comparison.

Pick one you know something about. For me, it's like the economy. They make it sound so simple, but we know the reality of an economy is based on many factors.

You now have some tools, some resources here, to not only educate yourself further, but to help educate others. I will try to dive more in-depth into certain areas and add more detailed links to this report.

If you have a preference of where I should start, then please leave a comment below. Knowing what questions you still have, or parts you still do not understand will help assist me in updating this content more appropriately.

As always, thank you, and please share this link with your friends! Sharing is easy with the links below!  Subscribe! Follow, like and share our Facebook version of our page too. Thank you for all the support!

Sharing is easy!

Leave a Reply

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

You may have missed