By Ron Paul | RPI | Feb. 11, 2019

Last week’s bipartisan Senate vote to rebuke President Trump for his decision to remove troops from Syria and Afghanistan unfortunately tells us a lot about what is wrong with Washington, DC. While the two parties loudly bicker about minor issues, when it comes to matters like endless wars overseas they enthusiastically join together. With few exceptions, Republicans and Democrats lined up to admonish the president for even suggesting that it’s time for US troops to come home from Afghanistan and Syria.

The amendment, proposed by the Senate Majority Leader and passed overwhelmingly by both parties, warns that a “precipitous withdrawal of United States forces from the on-going fight…in Syria and Afghanistan, could allow terrorists to regroup.” As one opponent of the amendment correctly pointed out, a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan is hardly “precipitous” since they’ve been there for nearly 18 years! And with al-Qaeda and ISIS largely defeated in Syria a withdrawal from that country would hardly be “precipitous” after almost five years of unauthorized US military action.

Senators supporting the rebuke claim that US troops cannot leave until every last ISIS fighter is killed or captured. This is obviously a false argument. Al-Qaeda and ISIS did not emerge in Iraq because US troops left the country – they emerged because the US was in the country in the first place. Where was al-Qaeda in Iraq before the 2003 US invasion the neocons lied us into? There weren’t any.

US troops occupying Iraqi territory was, however, a huge incentive for Iraqis to join a resistance movement. Similarly, US intervention in Syria beginning under the Obama Administration contributed to the growth of terrorist groups in that country.

We know that US invasion and occupation provides the best recruiting tools for terrorists, including suicide terrorists. So how does it make sense that keeping troops in these countries in any way contributes to the elimination of terrorism? As to the “vacuum” created in Syria when US troops pull out, how about allowing the government of Syria to take care of the problem? After all, it’s their country and they’ve been fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda since the US helped launch the “regime change” in 2011. Despite what you might hear in the US mainstream media, it’s Syria along with its allies that has done most of the fighting against these groups and it makes no sense that they would allow them to return.

Congress has the Constitutional responsibility and obligation to declare war, but this has been ignored for decades. The president bombs far-off lands and even sends troops to fight in and occupy foreign territory and Congress doesn’t say a word. But if a president dares seek to end a war suddenly the sleeping Congressional giant awakens!

I’ve spent many years opposing Executive branch over-reach in matters where the president has no Constitutional authority, but when it comes to decisions on where to deploy or re-deploy troops once in battle it is clear that the Constitution grants that authority to the commander-in-chief. The real question we need to ask is why is Congress so quick to anger when the president finally seeks to end the longest war in US history? 


Contributed by Ron Paul of Ron Paul Institute.

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.), founded in the 1970s as an educational organization. The Institute continues and expands Dr. Paul’s lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home.


SHARE:

By Dagny Taggart | Organic Prepper | Feb. 8, 2019

Unconstitutional gun law ideas seem to spread from one state to another like some kind of insidious virus.

Late last year, an Orwellian gun bill was presented in New York state. If signed into law, anyone who wants to buy a gun would have to turn over three years of their social media history and one year of their Internet search history.

“A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a firearm,” said Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, who has proposed the legislation with New York State Senator Kevin Parker. (source)

Before purchasing a gun, applicants would have to turn over their social media passwords to accounts like Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram. They would also have to allow police to see a year’s worth of their searches on Google, Yahoo, and Bing.

That law would also require anyone renewing their permit for a pistol to be subject to this invasion of privacy as well.

In the article, “This Anti-Gun Bill Would Require the Social Media History and Internet Search History of Prospective Buyers,” Daisy Luther wrote (emphasis mine):

Remember, these things never stop with just one state.

It’s easy to scoff and say, “Those crazy people in New York are getting what they voted for.”  I know someone’s going to say it so there, I said it for you.

But that’s short-sighted, and dare I say, ignorant of the way the world works.

Look at all the states that have recently flipped from red to blue in the midterm elections. If you don’t think it could ever happen where you are, you’re not paying attention. Please keep in mind that I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but am referring to some party generalizations here. (source)

Now, another state has an Orwellian gun bill on the table.

It turns out, Daisy’s prediction was spot-on. In Illinois, to be allowed to possess your own gun, you have to have a special card, and the requirements to get that card could be about to become much more intrusive:

Meanwhile, in the Illinois House, state Rep. Daniel Didech, D-Buffalo Grove, has filed HB 888 which would require those who apply for a state-issued Firearm Owners Identification Card– mandatory for legal gun owners– turn over a list of their social media accounts to authorities under threat of a Class 2 felony. The State Police would use the information to determine if the accounts have any “information that would disqualify the person from obtaining or require revocation” of a FOID card. (source)

FOID cards also require your photograph, height, weight, address, birthday, hair color, and eye color. That is pretty basic information for a government-issued ID card.

But that isn’t all that Illinois requires.

In order to be granted a FOID card by the overlords in Illinois:

…you have to answer a questionnaire that asks if you’ve ever been convicted of a felony, whether you are addicted to narcotics, whether you’ve been treated in a mental institution or are “intellectually disabled.” Other questions ask about convictions of some specific crimes, whether you are an illegal alien, whether you’re named on a current order of protection that prohibits firearms. (source)

As you can see, being granted a permission slip to exercise a constitutional right in Illinois is already a tedious and invasive process. If this bill becomes law, the process will become a lot more complicated and intrusive.

What kind of social media content will police be looking for?

In addition to the obvious problems with the new bill, here’s something to really be concerned about: Exactly what kind of information found on social media accounts would be used to “disqualify” people from getting a card, or lead to the revocation of FOID cards?

That seemingly important detail is not specified anywhere in the bill (which can be read here).

Will decisions simply be based on the thoughts and feelings of individual police officers who are assigned to evaluate social media accounts?

Will there be specific, objective guidelines to follow or will decisions regarding who gets to exercise their Second Amendment rights be arbitrary and subjective?

What else will the information collected be used for?

Some groups are already voicing opposition to the bill, including gun rights groups and the ACLU.

“When people look at this everyone who has a Facebook account or email account or Twitter account will be incensed or should be,” said Richard Pearson with the Illinois State Rifle Association.

But the ACLU is opposed as well.

Rebecca Glenberg with ACLU Illinois says the bill “doesn’t say anything about how that list will be retained and for how long and what uses it might be put to.”

The first amendment group worries police scanning social media may show bias.

“A person’s political beliefs, a person’s religious beliefs, things that should not play a part in whether someone gets a FOID card,” Glenberg said. (source)

This bill is another example of pre-crime legislation, and it is terrifying.

Just days ago, we reported on a new study that found the privacy of those who have deactivated all of their social media accounts – or never had any in the first place – is not guaranteed.

team of researchers from the University of Vermont and the University of Adelaide wanted to find out if fundamental limits exist when using information from social networks “to predict the activities and interests of individuals, and to what accuracy such predictions can be made using an individual’s social ties.”

This may not sound like a big deal, but think about the worrisome nature of different types of predictive technology. You don’t have to actually be guilty of anything if the tech says that one day you might be. The stuff we’re discussing here takes “guilt by association” to an entirely new level. (source)

How long until control freak politicians start calling for spying on friends, and friends of friends (and so on) to find any justification for denying gun rights to all of us?

What do you think?

This invasion-of-privacy bill has already hopped from one state to another.  Which states do you foresee it heading to next? Do you think this intrusiveness will lead to an uptick in people who refuse to comply? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.


Contributed by Dagny Taggart of The Organic Prepper.

Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of an experienced journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.


SHARE:

By Tim Brown | Freedom Outpost | February 6, 2019

It’s no surprise when politicians are lawless and fail to follow the Constitution that they will advance legislation that is also lawless and seek to criminalize law-abiding citizens.  Take HR 8, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is advancing in the House of Representatives, which would criminalize private transfers and effectively register all gun sales.

According to Gun Owners of America Executive Director Erich Pratt, this legislation is “universal background checks on steroids.”

Pratt says that either Pelosi and her anti-gun team are “profoundly stupid or genuinely evil”.

While he gives her the benefit of the doubt that both could possibly be correct, in reading the bill, Pratt sides on the genuinely evil side.

HR8 is scheduled to receive a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee this week.

According to Pratt, the bill has been “crafted” with “dozens of trap doors” that if they are actually enforced could “put millions of gun owners in prison.

Pratt writes:

So if you show off your new gun to your neighbor in your living room, and hand it to him to look at, you’re a criminal, and can go to prison for up to a year under federal level.

But as onerous as this provision is, the worst part consists of the Universal Gun Registry the bill would create.

Under H.R. 8, since every gun transfer will go through a dealer, every gun owner will have a 4473.

We know that the ATF, in connection with annual inspections conducted under federal law, is increasingly copying these forms to its database in a centrally accessible format.

So here’s the problem: if everyone has a 4473, everyone is potentially in the database.

Even the Obama Administration recognized this in 2013, when a leaked memo from the Justice Department revealed its assessment of Universal Background Checks:

Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration …. (Emphasis added.)

Here are just a few examples of this kind of tyranny.

1. ATF illegally copying 4473 forms* ATF using digital scanners.  “ATF has been copying FFL Bound Books for years — with or without FFL permission. During annual compliance inspections in other states, FFL dealers have reported that ATF industry operations investigators (IOI) brought in digital cameras and photographed the entire dealer ‘Bound Book’ without permission of the FFL holder. Other dealers reported investigators brought in digital scanners and scanned portions of the Bound Book — line by line. Of course, the Bound Book contains the dealer’s full record of lawful firearm sales transaction records.”

* GOA legal counsel, Michael Hammond:  “Several gun dealers have contacted me and asked for my advice. Invariably, they say that the ATF is, or has been, at their store — making wholesale copies of their 4473 forms — and they want to know if that’s legal. I’m not going to betray their confidence without permission, but I can tell you that this has occurred enough times to make me believe these are not isolated incidents. And this has happened despite the prohibition in 18 USC 923(g)(1)(D) which specifically prohibits anyone in the Justice Department from ‘seiz[ing] any records or other documents other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law.’”

*FFL’s complain of illegal ATF activity.  “The [ATF] is engaged in new illegal activity, this time in the state of Alaska.  According to gun store owners in Anchorage, ATF agents are requiring that they submit what is called ‘4473 Forms’ going as far back as 2007….  The ATF has the authority to inspect or request a copy of the form if agents are conducting a criminal investigation. But nowhere does the law or the rules and regulations of the ATF permit the agency to require gun stores to simply turn over these records en mass as a matter of course.  The gun stores in Anchorage are not being told that their records are being requested as part of a criminal investigation of any kind. The ATF has not specified certain forms from specific time frames as one would expect during such an investigation. The agency is telling the stores that it wants all of these records, in totality, going back to 2007.”

2.  Elected officials have used registration lists to confiscate firearms* From registration to confiscation in New York.  In the mid-1960’s officials in New York City began registering long guns.  They promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens.  But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns.   In 1992, a New York City paper reported that, “Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city’s tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms…. Spot checks are planned [for other homes].”

* Confiscation in New Orleans.  “No one is allowed to be armed. We’re going to take all the guns,” said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of the New Orleans police, right before several law-enforcement agencies began confiscating the firearms of lawful gun owners in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (2005).

3. Background checks can (and do) lead to gun registration* Justice Department report (1989).  “Any system that requires a criminal history record check prior to purchase of a firearm creates the potential for the automated tracking of individuals who seek to purchase firearms.”

* Justice Department initiates registration (1994).  The Justice Department gave a grant to the city of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University to create a sophisticated national gun registry using data compiled from states’ background check programs.  This attempt at registration was subsequently defeated in the courts.

* More gun owner registration (1996).  Computer software distributed by the Justice Department allowed police officials to easily (and unlawfully) register the names and addresses of gun buyers.  This software—known as FIST—also kept information such as the type of gun purchased, the make, model and caliber, the date of purchase, etc.   This demonstrates how easily background checks can be used to register gun owners’ information.

* Federal Bureau of Investigation registers gun owners (1998).  Despite prohibitions in federal law, the FBI announced that it would begin keeping gun buyer’s names for six months.  FBI had originally wanted to keep the names for 18 months, but reduced the time period after groups like Gun Owners of America strongly challenged the legality of their actions.  GOA submitted a formal protest to the FBI, calling their attempt at registration both “unlawful” and “unconstitutional.”

 Universal Background Checks will send us much further down road to giving the Andrew Cuomos of the world the registration lists they need for gun confiscation. But we still won’t be able to stop creeps like Adam Lanza from circumventing those background checks (he stole his weapons) and attacking children.

Any and all gun laws are unconstitutional.  Congress has not been given authority to write legislation that restricts or regulates our right to keep and bear arms, and the president has not been authorized to sign any such pretended legislation.  This issue right here refutes any claim that we are united in America and that that union is strong.  Those who side on the side of the law and the Constitution must stand and be counted, calling your representatives and telling them to shoot down this bill, along with any other unconstitutional legislation that comes to the House, the Senate or the president’s desk.


Contributed by Tim Brown of FreedomOutpost.com

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, 

GunsInTheNews.com and 

TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit


SHARE:

By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | February 5, 2019

The at-home DNA testing company, FamilyTreeDNA has admitted to giving DNA samples to the F.B.I. (Federal Bureau of Investigation.) Although the company apologized for failing to disclose the fact that they were sharing DNA with the F.B.I., customers are still rightfully angry at the privacy violations and abuse.

As the government attempts to track and treat every single citizen as a criminal, they use “the greater good” as an excuse to force at home DNA companies to give them samples from people.  If it’s to solve a murder, it’s ok, right?  Not if you want privacy and seek to protect the privacy rights of others, it’s not.

FamilyTreeDNA was caught in a bold lie proving they don’t care about your privacy. According to the New York Times, in the booming business of consumer DNA testing and genealogy, FamilyTreeDNA had marketed itself as a leader of consumer privacy and a fierce protector of user data, refusing, unlike some of its competitors, to sell information to third parties. But unbeknown to its users, the Houston-based firm quietly and voluntarily agreed in 2018 to open its database of more than two million records to the F.B.I. and examine DNA samples in its laboratory to identify suspects and victims of unsolved rapes and murders.

Regardless of how the DNA was used, the idea that a private company willingly gave citizens DNA to the government was too much for most. FamilyTreeDNA confirmed that they were violating their own privacy promise on Thursday.  In a report by Buzzfeed News, where the confirmation was first noted, there was a significant backlash among FamilyTreeDNA’s loyal users who felt betrayed and this betrayal ignited yet another debate over privacy and ethical issues with investigators using genealogical sites to solve crimes.

The company’s president, Bennett Greenspan, wrote an email to users on Sunday.  In the email, Greenspan defended the agreement with the F.B.I. but apologized for not revealing it sooner. “I am genuinely sorry for not having handled our communications with you as we should have,” Greenspan wrote, according to a copy of the email obtained by The New York Times. “We’ve received an incredible amount of support from those of you who believe this is an opportunity for honest, law-abiding citizens to help catch bad guys and bring closure to devastated families.”

It’s also an absolute privacy violation and non-consensual one at that, especially considering FamilyTreeDNA, who vowed privacy from the getgo, isn’t even apologizing for their bald-faced lie that they are a “leader of consumer privacy and a fierce protector of user data.”

“For the greater good”:

the phrase that always precedes

the greatest evil.”

― Jakub Bożydar Wiśniewski


Contributed by Mac Slavo of SHTFplan.com, where this article was originally published.


SHARE:

By Suzanne Hamner | Freedom Outpost | February 4, 2019

Since New York passed the most abominable baby murder legislation to date with Virginia attempting to pass baby murder legislation even more heinous than New York, the deafening silence from America’s religious organizations is absolutely astounding.  At what point will America’s religious organization leaders and congregations stand up to declare these pieces of legislation as nothing more than murder for hire of the unborn or newly born infants?  Will it take the proposed law in Vermont to do so?

Western Journalism reported:

A Vermont bill supporting abortion is being attacked as “the most radical abortion legalization statute in the world.”

A bill introduced with the support of 90 out of Vermont’s 150 House lawmakers asserts that “every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth to a child, or to have an abortion,” US News reported.

As noted by the Catholic News Agency, the bill says that “a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.” [Emphasis mine]

Do you understand how far this law goes?  A fetus is a baby.  A fertilized egg or embryo is life.  So, under the proposed Vermont law, an unborn baby, a human life, does not have any type of rights period independent of the mother.  What moral superiority gives these individuals the authority to determine who has rights and when those rights begin?  Pay close attention to what one of the bill’s sponsors say about this.

“It’s important to codify what is currently allowed in Vermont,” said Democratic Rep. Ann Pugh, one of the bill’s sponsors.

“My understanding is that the majority of Vermonters support what is current practice in Vermont. And what this law does is to codify, or put in statute, what is current practice,” she said, according to Vermont Digger. “If we need to make changes, that is what the legislative process is about.”

So, the majority of Vermont residents support what is in current practice, which is what this new legislation seeks to “codify”.  If that is the case, shame on you residents of Vermont!  God, not government, is the bestower of rights.  God precedes this government and all government.  You have zero authority to deny rights to human life.  Moreover, you need to learn the difference of what is a right and what is not.  Pay close attention to the last one on what is not a right – anything a politician flattered you with by claiming you have a right to it.

As a refresher, the Supreme Court does not make legislation, only renders decisions.  Therefore, the decision in the case of Roe v. Wade does not legalize the murdering of the unborn.  And, the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.  If you disagree with any of this, please cite within the Constitution for the united States of America the Article, Section and paragraph that refutes these statements.  It was Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in Federalist No. 16, that it is the people who are “the natural guardians of the Constitution.”

Vermont Governor Phil Scott supports the murder of babies and claims the bill “might not be in its final form”, saying it has a “long way to go to get through legislature, …”.

At a hearing on Wednesday, critics attacked the law.

Western Journalism continued:

“This bill isn’t protecting all women’s rights,” said Patricia Blair of Bennington, who lost twins after a car accident in 2010. “It’s only protecting the rights of women who choose death for their children.”

Sharon Toborg of the Vermont Right to Life Committee was concerned about the bill’s apparent embrace of late-term abortions.

“While most Vermonters do consider themselves pro-choice, that does not mean that they support unrestricted abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy for individuals of any age as H.57 proposes,” Toborg said.

She also raised concern about the bill’s prohibition against any public entity interfering with a woman’s right to obtain an abortion.

“Such terms as ‘interfere with’ or ‘deprive’ or ‘restrict’ are undefined in the bill, so it is unclear what the true impact of this legislation might be,” Toborg added.

One needs terms defined to understand the true impact of this legislation?  You have got to be kidding me!  If government, state or federal, can illegally and unconstitutionally legislate away the God-given individual unalienable rights of an unborn child with or without the support of the people, then that same government can seek to illegally and unconstitutionally legislate away the God-given individual unalienable rights of anyone at any age.  This is the impact of this legislation.  Wake up, Ms. Toborg!

One cannot be supportive of the “right to life” and supportive of murdering babies at any stage of pregnancy at the same time.  “Most Vermonters do consider themselves pro-choice”.  That choice is only on the side of the mother who wants to murder her baby.  What about the baby, a human life that should be protected, but instead does not have a choice?  The baby did not tell the mother to create it – that was a choice of the mother, except in rape or incest.  However, rape or incest still does not justify the murder of a baby.  If any Vermonters are Christ’s followers, those Vermonters cannot be “pro-choice”.  That is total hypocrisy and blasphemy of God’s laws.

Republican Rep. Patrick Seymour pulled his support for the bill because he prefers the bill have limits on late-term baby murder and did not think the law was necessary.  Where is his outrage at a government body illegally and unconstitutionally stripping away the unalienable rights of an unborn baby, who cannot speak for him- or herself?  It isn’t there.  Moreover, he stated more people have expressed their support for his change of position than have criticized him.

In an Op-Ed in National Review, Wesley Smith of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism said the Vermont bill is even more concerning than similar bills in Virginia and New York that have received more media attention. He labeled it “the most radical abortion legalization statute in the world.”

“Vermont’s goes all the way to creating an absolute right to an abortion, at any time in the pregnancy and for any reason, with no limitations as to method,” he said, noting  there is no language “about distinguishing non-viability of the fetus from viability.”

“There is nothing mentioned about what to do with a born baby that survives abortion,” he wrote.

Seriously?  The rights of the baby were stripped by legislation while still in the womb!  If it doesn’t have the right to life while in the womb, why would Vermont allow it to assume rights outside the womb?  And, if it does have the right to life outside the womb, at what point does that happen – beginning the descent down the birth canal, crowning, before the umbilical cord is severed after birth, if the baby survives?  Remember, the baby has no independent rights.  So, who speaks for the baby after it is born, if that is when it obtains independent rights?  The right to life is a basic human right that God bestowed upon man.  Again, where did these legislators and others receive the moral superiority to legislate when a life assumes the rights God gave that life?

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America protects and guarantees that no person shall be denied life without due process.  And, every individual has the right to self-defense.  Babies, infants, and children lack the capacity to defend themselves.  Who, then, is to defend the right of the most innocent among us to the right to life.  Usually, it is the mothers and fathers;  however, mothers are declared by politicians to have the right to decide to kill their baby and hire someone to murder that baby, denying the baby the right to life and due process.  And, to secure the mother that “non-right” and protect the executioner physician, nurse or midwife, the State of Vermont illegally and unconstitutionally legislates the rights of the baby away.

Have the majority of these people lost the ability to think or do they stop short of thinking about what this legislation means because it is so heinous no one wants to acknowledge it?  These people are in a state of cognitive dissonance of the most epic proportion.  This legislative move by Vermont is so atrocious, evil, Nazi-esque, and heinous it is difficult to even express calmly the opposition to this State’s legislature’s depravity, much less the State’s population that would support an anti-life stance that goes this far.

Here’s perspective for you – this nation was so horrified at the false story of babies being thrown out of incubators in Kuwait by Iraqi soldiers, which was part of an extensive PR campaign to sell Congress and the general public on military action in the Middle East, we entered into a war that secured oil interests, not secure human rights for Kuwaiti nationals.  The vote was so narrow to engage in military action in Kuwait that the babies thrown from incubators hoax may have worked in the Bush administration’s favor.  Now, however, several States are ready to engage in a real throw-babies-from-incubators scenario under the hoax of “women’s reproductive rights” – a thing politicians have flattered the public with claiming women have a right to engage in murder for hire involving their born infants.

So, to repeat again, where is the outrage from every religious organization in the country?  Where are not Christ’s followers gathered in the thousands at State capitols throughout the nation protesting these heinous, evil pieces of legislative garbage?  Where is the lamestream entertainment enemedia that talked about the false Russian collusion on the part of the Trump administration 24/7 for months even after the allegations were determined to be false?

Wait, is that them now?  Nope.  Crickets.


Contributed by Suzanne Hamner of Freedom Outpost, where this article was originally published.

Suzanne Hamner (pen name) is a registered nurse, grandmother of 4, and a political independent residing in the state of Georgia, who is trying to mobilize the Christian community in her area to stand up and speak out against tyrannical government, invasion by totalitarian political systems masquerading as religion and get back to the basics of education.


SHARE: