Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive.
=====================================================================
You are white.
Your innocent, teen-age son went to the store to buy some candy, and now is walking home, minding his own business. He carries no weapons, just that little candy bar he bought.
Little does your son know these will be the last minutes of his life.
A black, adult, armed man, driving around, looking for trouble, spots your teen son and decides your son “looks suspicious.” We don’t know why the black man thinks your white, teen son looks suspicious. The man will refuse to tell us.
The armed man decides to drive around, following your teen son. We don’t know whether your son realizes a man is following him.
The armed man calls the police and tells them, “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about, looking at all the houses.”
We do not know why the man thinks your child is up to no good, just by seeing your child walking around. The man refuses to tell us.
The armed man follows your child in his car. The man is angry that “these assholes always get away.” He determines that your teen son is an “asshole” and would not be allowed to get away.
We do not know why the armed man, who doesn’t know your son, thinks your child is an asshole. He refuses to tell us.
The police tell the armed man to stop following your son and not to get out of the car.
The armed man disobeys the police, and decides to take matters in his own hands. He gets out of his car and follows your son, to make sure the “asshole” doesn’t “get away.”
This frightens your son, who turns and says something to the effect, “Why the —- are you following me?” The words may have been angry. We never will know. Your son cannot tell us, and the man refuses to speak.
The armed man responds to your son with angry words.
A fist fight ensues. We never will know who threw the first punch. Again, your son will not have the opportunity to tell us, and again the man refuses to tell us. It probably doesn’t matter. One is an angry and armed adult; the other is a child with a candy bar.
The man shoots and kills your unarmed, teen son. The Florida jury decides the man had a right to “stand his ground,” so declares him innocent of any crime.
Your innocent son is dead, and is no one responsible? If the man didn’t murder your teen son, who did?
Did the Southern state of Florida kill your son? Are Floridians so racially paranoid they passed a law allowing anyone to shoot anyone, so long as the victim is a teenaged “asshole” with a candy bar, who looks suspicious, and the killer claims his own life was at risk?
Was this armed man, who disobeyed police and instigated an encounter with an innocent child, who was minding his own business – was this man entitled to kill your child? One wonders what the religious right wing, so protective of the lives of fetuses, has to say about following, then shooting, an innocent child.
The State of Florida says, “Yes. Kill the assholes, so they won’t get away.”
Or did the NRA murder your son? The NRA, which claims the only solution to assholes is a gun, and the only solution to gun violence is more guns – the NRA which has been responsible for more American murders than al Quada — the NRA, which denies the fact that most gun violence is committed in the neighborhoods having the most gun ownership — is the NRA the real killer?
Or is it the Supreme Court, which tells us the following words have no meaning at all: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” and that the entire 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads only: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? One wonders why the founders bothered to put in that first phrase, but is the Supreme Court the real killer?
Or did Americans murder your teen son? Are Americans so emotionally paralyzed by fear, we hide in our bedrooms, clutching our semi-automatic, assault weapons – fearing your asshole son might get away?
Are we bible-spouting, gun toting Americans, having legalized the killing of an innocent child who was doing nothing worse that carrying his candy bar – are we Americans guilty?
I submit that George Zimmerman, the State of Florida, the NRA, the Supreme Court and all Americans share the guilt of murdering an innocent, unarmed teenager, who wanted to live, but made the mistake of going to the store to buy a candy bar – while black.
What lesson have we Americans learned from this tragedy? The lesson is this: When you next feel like shooting an unarmed asshole, whether adult or child, do it in Florida and make sure you kill the asshole.
That way you can claim self-defense, and there will be no one to contradict you.
It’s perfect.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
====================================================================================================================================================
Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%
10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
Two key equations in economics:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports
#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Thank you. I’m going to print this off for my red-neck relatives who think Zimmerman got a square deal. Two separate voice experts separated by 10 states hired by the Orlando Sentinel said it was Martin crying for help, yet none of that evidence was admitted permitted.
I’m trying to figure out how to turn Zimmerman into a verb.
I hope Zimmerman is shunned by decent people for the rest of his life.
LikeLike
Roger, I like you, man. But, this post is really out of order. People have plenty of reasons to fear young, black males. Racial profiling is not allowed in official circles, but it is a fact of life everywhere in private life, like it or not. We might as well acknowledge that and learn to deal with it. I live in FL, and I don’t like the “Stand Your Ground” law, but this case was not about that anyway. Here we had two young males here who males who acted stupidly (who wudda thunk it?). It is a tragedy. But, a great miscarriage of justice? I don’t buy it. It is done with. Let’s move on.
LikeLike
Right, “two young males.”
One was an armed adult, looking for trouble, who thinks blacks are “assholes.” The other was an unarmed kid who was just looking to go home.
If Zimmerman had “plenty of reason to fear young, black males, why did he get out of his car and follow this kid? Why not just call the cops and let them do their duty?
LikeLike
He and his father were staying with his father’s fiancé and her son. It wasn’t his regular digs, so he didn’t have a ‘regular’ route home. And wasn’t he talking on the phone with his girlfriend, or a female friend? So he was distracted.
“If Zimmerman had “plenty of reason to fear young, black males, why did he get out of his car and follow this kid? Why not just call the cops and let them do their duty?”
911 TOLD him to stay in the car because the cops were on their way.
The national Neighborhood Watch Society said that Zimmerman was not a registered volunteer. This was a guy with a gun and a buzz on for blacks.
LikeLike
One of the biggest mistakes in history was made after the conclusion of the civil war. I’ll leave the rest to your imaginations…………
LikeLike
No, tell us. What are you saying?
LikeLike
Only in the NRA . . . oops, the USA:
How long will it be before Zimmerman shoots the next, black “asshole”?
LikeLike
“If Zimmerman had “plenty of reason to fear young, black males, why did he get out of his car and follow this kid?
Isn’t it obvious. He had a gun.
LikeLike
This whole thing was a tragedy, a rash young minority feeling his oats, possibly resembling a culturally defined hoodlum, responds indignantly to a wanna be cop ,unfortunately carrying a concealed weapon, legally but not intelligently, and carnage results.Two men ominously interacted at night , one is alive to tell his version, the other is not. Surely Zimmerman should have listened to the officers command to back off, but he didnt. .He was armed , and obviously psychologically confident in his advantage. The defenses case successfully raised reasonable doubt as to whether murder was committed and self defense was accepted. A jury hearing all the facts issued their collective judgement. This was a weak case to begin with.The idea someone has to pay for numbing senseless tragedies is at times comforting. But i believe, or rather hope the jury made the correct decision. Time to move on, more important things to dwell on that can be rectified. . The media is trying to turn this into a race thing, and from what was reported so far , i cant see it. Maybe you can argue for less guns, more qualifications for concealed permits, tougher laws pertaining to police commands, or i dont know. Sometimes things just happen with horrible results, without corroborative witnesses or circumstantial evidence to support culpability you have to take the word of the survivor. Even if he used poor judgement he has a right to defend himself from an attacker, whom he had no way of knowing was a minor. Making him pay for the tragic death of Trayvon, doesnt bring Martin back. Guns are terrible, they are too easy to use and fleetingly efficient. Learning from this , so it isnt repeated is all that society can do now. Prosecuting Zimmerman for murder just makes two tragedies. Humans will continue to make mistakes, and not every grave one demands an eye for an eye, sometimes its just pointless and tragic, but without malice you just respectfully move on ,hopefully reflecting and learning something to prevent another.
LikeLike
I live in England. The general population do not have guns. The Police only have access to guns when required. Our gun deaths per capita are substantially less than yours. Why are you all getting stressed about the relative colour of the defendant and plaintiff? Maybe you are ALL racist?? Maybe it was just a fuckwit with a gun and stupid legislation? In England it probably wouldn’t have happened because we don’t have guns….and if it dd happen the shooter would serve a life sentence irrespective of his or the other persons colour.
LikeLike
Let’s not forget the jury has to go back to their neighborhood in SANFORD after the trial.
LikeLike
Rodger, your “facts” are just plain wrong. Let me list them out:
1.”We do not know why the man thinks your child is up to no good” – yes we do.There had been several break ins in Zimmerman’s area recently and local gang members frequently were seen in the area wearing hoodies.
2.”The police tell the armed man to stop following your son and not to get out of the car” – FALSE. A 911 dispatcher told him that “we dont need you to do that” (meaning follow Trayvon). This is a standard line given by all 911 dispatchers to absolve themselves of liability. 911 dispatchers have no legal authority. This was not a police order
3.”The armed man responds to your son with angry words” – no evidence of this.
4. “A fist fight ensues. We never will know who threw the first punch” – all physical evidence points to Trayvon instigating and escalating the fight. Trayvon has no physical trauma in the autopsy except marks on his knuckles and of course the eventual gun shot. Zimmerman has a broken nose, lacerations on the back of his head, and grass stains on the back of his jacket.
5. “The Florida jury decides the man had a right to “stand his ground,” so declares him innocent of any crime.” – FALSE. Stand your Ground was not used as a defense. “Self defense” was. Once Trayvon is in an MMA ground and pound mount, he has committed felony battery…..once he is banging Zimmerman’s head on the pavement, it is attempted murder. Once Trayvon see’s that Zimmerman has a gun, he states “You are going to die tonight motherf**ker.
The prosecutors charged Zimmerman with second degree murder. The evidence simply did not support this charge.
If you have gotten all of these facts wrong, i wonder what else you have gotten wrong. Is the US Monetarily Sovereign after all??
LikeLike
Got it.
A self-appointed, armed, adult vigilante sees someone walking in the rain, wearing a hoodie, so based on his own fevered imagination, he makes the assumption this innocent child is “up to no good.”
So, why did he call 911 if he wasn’t going to take their advice and he wasn’t going to wait for the police? He doesn’t even stay in his car.
No, this brave, self-appointed vigilante, emboldened by his loaded gun, decides to get out of his car to walk in the rain and trail this “up-to-no-good” kid carrying a candy bar, which somehow precipitates a confrontation.
What the heck did he expect to happen?
(By the way, when it’s raining, wouldn’t you wear a hoodie? Are you a gang member?)
The question of “who threw the first punch” is a digression. We never will know for sure. We don’t even know for sure what was said or who was on top.
All we know for sure is this: No one would have been shot if:
1. A self-appointed, armed vigilante had not gone out looking for trouble
2. This armed vigilante had not decided that an innocent kid carrying a candy bar looked like he was “up to no good.”
3. This armed vigilante had done what 911 told him to do.
4. This armed vigilante had waited for the real police, and not decided to play pretend police
5. And this armed vigilante had not got out of his car and followed an innocent kid and done whatever was done to cause a fight, no matter who threw the first punch.
If a policeman had done exactly what the armed vigilante did (i.e profiled a kid based on the kid’s clothing and color, followed him, then killed him), that cop would be in jail, today.
But I do love your very last sentence. Quite logical.
LikeLike
Hi Rodger, Thank you for your reply. I actually do enjoy your site, believe it or not.
However, just as a matter of response:
We can play “If Woody had gone straight to the police, this never would have happened” with any tragedy. Yes if Zimmerman had take a vacation to Hawaii on that day, none of this would have happened. The point of a trial is to figure out what laws were broken. All of the “armed vigilante looking for trouble, profiling, etc” acts by Zimmerman you mention are all LEGAL activities in Florida (and all 50 states i believe but correct me if i am wrong).
What i disagree with is:
1. The implication that Trayvon had no part in the outcome of this encounter. Like i said, the evidence fully supports Zimmerman’s account of a first punch thrown by Martin, and escalation up to attempted murder (I doubt anyone wouldnt feel their life was in danger if their head was being smashed into concrete). Also an eyewitness testified that the person resembling Trayvon’s description was on top. Yes we will never know “for sure” but a jury has to decide based on evidence that is presented.
2. If a policeman had gone up to Trayvon to ask him what he was doing and then was attacked by him, the cop would have gone to jail? I doubt it. Hopefully the cop would have been able to physically restrain him instead of having to kill him.
Fyi….I am not a gun nut either. Just fascinated by the lack of accuracy in reports of this case. Thanks for your time.
LikeLike
One was a child, just wanting to go home quietly with his candy bar. The other was an adult carrying a loaded gun — a self-appointed vigilante, not a uniformed cop — out looking for trouble.
If you can’t understand the difference, there is nothing more I can tell you.
By the time one reaches adulthood, he is supposed to have more sense than a 17-year-old child.
The only good news: From now on, it will be Zimmerman who has to look over his shoulder at who is following him.
LikeLike
The dummy demo in court was totally unreal. Put a kid on an adult on a mat and have the kid try to slam the adult over and over as easily as the court demo. It can’t be done. In reality the adult will stiffen twist and turn. It’s just as realistic to assume that a panicked Zimmerman hit himself in the nose and/or cracked his own skull against the cement. His wounds could very well have been self-inflicted.
LikeLike
More “facts” that are just plain wrong. I know there’s a story here that people want to believe is true…but sorry, the probable truth is a little different. And the little differences in the details make a huge difference in the overall story.
“One was a child just wanting to go home QUIETLY with his candy bar” – FALSE. Zimmerman testified that he got out of his car while on the phone with 911, then said that he lost sight of Martin and was on his way back to his SUV when Martin confronted, then attacked him.
“Out looking for trouble” – So in this supposed scenario, Zimmerman CALLED the police, and then decided to pursue Martin for the purposes of killing him JUST in time for the police (who he had just called) to arrive and arrest him right on the spot. Sounds reasonable.
A tragedy occurred. But under the law, one person broke it (Martin) and another did not (Zimmerman). A trial by jury confirmed this. Dont believe the distorted media version.
LikeLike
Right: “Zimmerman testified . . . ”
Oh right, I forgot. Zimmerman refused to testify.
And this sounds reasonable: Zimmerman, the self-appointed, armed vigilante, was innocently walking back to his car, when suddenly, for no reason, the kid comes out of the blue and attacks him. Right?
Actually, Zimmerman did call 911, then he did get out of his car when 911 told him not to.
And why did this young “asshole” (Zimmerman’s word) look suspicious to Zimmerman? Well, the kid was wearing a hoodie (It was raining), and the kid was black. Wow, a black kid wearing a hoodie in the rain. That’s plenty of reason to get out of your car and follow him with your loaded gun. Right?
Why did Zimmerman, the self-appointed vigilante get out of his car with his loaded gun? Oh, just to take an innocent stroll in the rain. Not to confront the kid or anything. Right?
My advice. Don’t walk in the rain with your hoodie up. Zimmerman might shoot you, then make up a crazy story about you attacking him for no reason at all.
Sadly, you won’t be there to contradict him.
LikeLike
Zimmerman talked to police after the incident. Thats what i meant by testify…correct that he didnt testify in court, but we do have his account of the incident.
He also said that a brief verbal exchange occurred on his way back to his car and then Martin attacked him. Yes that does sound aggressive on Martin’s part, but its certainly plausible. Zimmerman’s broken nose, scratches on his head and grass stains certainly do not refute this scenario. Its also way more reasonable than someone calling 911 prior to intentionally murdering someone.
Why did Martin look suspicious to him? Well i’ve answered this before, but there were a series of break-ins in the neighborhood prior to that night. Local gang members wore hoodies….there was a context to it. Police looked for any sort of previous racial bias with Zimmerman…found nothing.
Regardless, most of this is irrelevant to the law. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did NOT fear for his life.
Again, a tragedy occurred. Was this a senseless incident? Yes. Did it have to happen? No. But it happened and the law had to be applied to it. There’s no need to create an alternate reality of what probably occurred or to spread blatant falsehoods.
LikeLike
“The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did NOT fear for his life.”
Now there’s a challenge — to prove someone, who refuses to testify, was NOT afraid. Good luck with that.
Anyway, Zimmerman probably WAS afraid; he was afraid of black people wearing hoodies, and being afraid, he shot a black person wearing a hoodie..
I’ve been thinking about the fight, and it has me puzzled. Visualize this: If Zimmerman had the gun in his pocket or his waistband, and the kid was sitting on Zimmerman’s stomach, it would have been impossible for Zimmerman to reach his gun.
Not only would Zimmerman been using his hands and arms to defend himself from punches, but his access to his pockets would have been blocked by the kid’s butt and knees. No way, can someone pull out a gun, while lying on his back, with someone sitting on his stomach.
Futher, if Zimmerman had shot the kid during the fight, while the kid was on top of him, Zimmerman would have been covered with the kid’s blood — which apparently he wasn’t.
For both those reasons, Zimmerman must have been carrying the gun in his hand before the fight, or took it out after the fight.
If Zimmerman had been carrying the gun in his hand before the fight, and been trailing the kid, he not only violated open-carry laws, but we have a picture of a guy stalking a kid while carrying a loaded gun in his hand — clearly that makes him the aggressor.
If someone came at me with a loaded gun, I’d run like hell. But, if I felt we was wanted to kill me, and I couldn’t run away fast enough, I’d try to tackle him and get inside the gun hand.
Wouldn’t you?
If I was successful in tackling him, I’d wind up sitting on his chest, while he still held the gun. Hmmm . . . Sound familiar?
Alternatively, if Zimmerman took out the gun after the fight, he no longer had the excuse of “fearing for his life,” and simply murdered the kid out of anger.
Bottom line: There simply is no scenario in which Zimmerman, being beaten up by a kid sitting on his chest, was not originally the aggressor.
LikeLike
I agree that its pretty hard to prove that someone was not fearful. But that is the law and that was the jury’s responsibility to apply the law in that way.
However, the rest of your conjecture about the fight…is just that…conjecture.
All of the musts/impossibles, etc are your own theories.
But a few explanations (as i’ve read them) about your theories.:
– “Zimmerman not able to reach the gun.” Zimmerman told police that he was moving on the ground on his back trying to get to a place so his head was being bashed on grass rather than concrete. As he was moving, Martin saw his gun and tried to grab it. Zimmerman grabbed it first and shot.
– “Martin’s blood all over Zimmerman” – i personally have no clue as to the amount of blood that is expected for gunshot wounds. However,
the autopsy and forensic results of Martin’s clothing appear to confirm that Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin above him. A video here explains this:
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/05/29/george-zimmerman-murder-trial-evidence-room?clusterId=1529#videoplayer
Again, we can choose to believe whatever we want. We can discredit everything Zimmerman said if we want to. But the explanations above are both plausible and not refuted by physical evidence.
Also, a police officer lied to Zimmerman and told him the incident was on videotape…to which Zimmerman replied “Thank God”. That certainly doesnt sound like someone who was an aggressor and wanted to kill someone. (unless they are psychotic).
LikeLike
Right. Looked around. Couldn’t find him. Martin had disappeared. Suddenly, Martin magically appeared from nowhere and punched Zimmerman in the nose. Sounds about right to me.
It however, is a completely different story from the one the defense told, in which Zimmerman was on his back and Martin was sitting on and astride his stomach, in which case it would have been impossible for Zimmerman to reach down for his gun. Martin’s butt and legs would have been in the way.
But of course, the whole thing is moot, since the jury has decided, just as the O.J, Simpson jury decided in a similar murder case (the witnesses were dead and the prosecution was incompetent).
If you feel comfortable with the concept of armed vigilantes trailing children around your housing complex, (because those “assholes” look suspicious), then killing the children because of feeling threatened, none of this angers you, and you are perfectly at ease.
LikeLike
Right, Rodger. But Florida law is not so crazy.
As Key Mistakes Sway Jury in Zimmerman Trial explains,
“The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did NOT fear for his life.” Is wrong as a matter of Florida law, although it seems to be what the jury considered.
But the judge, not following the prosecution’s request, instructed the jury only in the parts of Florida self-defense law that helped ZImmerman’s case. NOT the fact that initial aggressors cannot use fear for their life to justify violence. So one has to do considerable gymnastics to characterize Martin (or Rodger Mitchell, in the scenario given above) as an aggressor or committer of a crime.
Also excluded from the jury – were the statements of Zimmerman’s cousin: “I know George. And I know that he does not like black people … He would start something. He’s a very confrontational person. It’s in his blood. Let’s just say that. I don’t want this poor kid and his family to just be overlooked.”
tetrahedron720: The dummy demo in court was totally unreal. Put a kid on an adult on a mat and have the kid try to slam the adult over and over as easily as the court demo. It can’t be done….
I’ve been in that situation myself. I’m not a small person, but I’m not a giant, about the same size as the two muggers who were trying to slam me into the concrete sidewalk over and over. It takes a lot of force to do that against an adult who is intelligently resisting. Trying, in particular lifting me up clearly tired them out, and I was able to slowly move all three of us into the street enough to stop the Manhattan none-of-my-business traffic, enough to make the muggers flee.
LikeLike
Question from Trayvon Martin’s mother: “We’ll ask the Department of Justice to answer … ‘Can a private citizen with a gun profile and follow our children home?’ We need to know because we’ve got to know what to tell our children.”
Sadly, the answer is, “Yes,” because in today’s America, we’re dealing with two, very large groups: Gun nuts and bigots. To them, a grown man carrying a loaded pistol and following your unarmed child is perfectly reasonable.
It also is perfectly reasonable that a black child wearing a hoodie looks like an criminal gang member who needs to be watched by an armed vigilante..
Note to black parents: Don’t let your kids walk in public. There are thousands of Zimmerman’s out there, (as you can see by some of the above comments) who will decide your kid is a criminal and take matters into their own hands — and they now have been emboldened by a Florida jury, which has decided that murdering a kid really is self-defense.
LikeLike
Question from Trayvon Martin’s mother: “We’ll ask the Department of Justice to answer … ‘Can a private citizen with a gun profile and follow our children home?’ We need to know because we’ve got to know what to tell our children.”
Sadly, the answer is, “Yes,” because in today’s America, we’re dealing with two, very large groups: Gun nuts and bigots. To them, a grown man carrying a loaded pistol and following your unarmed child is perfectly reasonable.
It also is perfectly reasonable that a black child wearing a hoodie looks like an criminal gang member who needs to be watched by an armed vigilante..
Note to black parents: Don’t let your kids walk in public. There are thousands of Zimmerman’s out there, (as you can see by some of the above comments) who will decide your kid is a criminal and take matters into their own hands — and they now have been emboldened by a Florida jury, which has decided that murdering a kid really is self-defense.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/from-my-perch-of-white-privilege/
LikeLike
Can the gun nuts get any nuttier?
Yes: http://www.nationalmemo.com/ohio-pac-were-buying-zimmerman-a-new-gun-we-need-your-help/
LikeLike