Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2t3211e
.BLOGSPOT.COM
For Wednesday, Dec. 27, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave
Won’t be long now --- 64 days to start of Spring Training --- Go Red Sox
New Research Suggests Christmas Story of Visit by Wise Men Was ‘Historically True’
by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D
Despite attempts by modern biblical scholarship to debunk the gospel account of three magi visiting the newborn Jesus in Bethlehem, the stories were “historically true” according to extensive research by author Dwight Longenecker.
In his new book, Mystery of the Magi: The Quest to Identify the Three Wise Men, Longenecker, a scholar and Catholic priest, states that an impartial study of the relevant data “shows beyond reasonable doubt” that the Magi of Matthew’s gospel were historical figures.
For many years, Longenecker writes, skeptical scholars have rejected the possibility that the infancy stories about Jesus could be historical for a number of reasons, such as the fact that they contain supernatural elements.
“The first problem with this is that the skeptic simply assumes supernatural experiences are impossible, therefore any story that contains supernatural elements must be a fanciful invention,” he notes.
“In the early twentieth century, Bible scholars began to write off the stories of Jesus’ birth—especially the story of the wise men—as pious fantasies,” he continues. “They did so without considering if the stories might, at least, be rooted in real events.”
Because of this prejudice, most scholars never did the necessary research to “sift out the historical element buried beneath levels of legend,” he says.
Moreover, the idea that there might be a historical basis to the magi story “became an academic no-go zone,” Longenecker says. “When one’s academic reputation might be at stake the motivation to challenge the academic dogma and entertain the possibility of a historical basis to the magi story becomes even more remote.”
As one Biblical scholar noted: “If you want a career in New Testament scholarship that’s somewhere you just don’t go.”
As a result, within the vast realm of Biblical scholarship there is surprisingly little research and writing on the stories of Jesus’ birth, and there is almost nothing which takes seriously the possibility that the story of the wise men is historical, he says.
Assuming that the Magi story is pious fiction, scholars have not bothered to investigate the political, historical, geographical and cultural connections that come together to show that the visit of the Magi was historical.
In this work, Father Longenecker sets out to fill this lacuna in Biblical scholarship, examining the possible identities of the three men known simply as magi, wise men, or kings.
Longenecker comes to the conclusion that the visitors from the east were historical figures, and most probable Nabataeans, who “shared an ancient ancestry and world view with the Jews.”
Herod the Great, as it turns out, was brought up by the Nabataeans, and with a Nabataean mother, was forging an alliance with the Nabataean king at exactly the time of Christ’s birth in 6 BC.
“As Herod was old and ailing, it makes perfect sense that the Nabataean wise men travelled to Jerusalem on behalf of their king to pay homage to Herod’s heir,” Longenecker suggests.
While Biblical scholars as a body give little credit to the infancy narratives of Jesus, this does not reflect the faith of common Christians.
A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that a majority of Americans still believe in the essential elements of the Nativity story surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem.
A full 68 percent of Americans, in fact, say that the three wise men were guided by a star and brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh to the infant Jesus.
An absolute majority of American adults—57 percent—believe in the full biblical account of Jesus’ birth, with all of the elements related by Saints Luke and Matthew in their gospel narratives, Pew found.
Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter
Adam Schiff Saying Something About Russia Doesn’t Make It True
Adam Schiff’s Wall Street Journal opinion article shows yet again that Democrats have no evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. Schiff’s wild claims harm himself, and America.
By Willis L. Krumholz
By Willis L. Krumholz
Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, writes in the Wall Street Journal that evidence abounds of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.
But rather than providing evidence, he proves the opposite: Democrats have absolutely no proof of President Trump colluding with Russia. And Schiff harms himself and the country by making such wild claims. To see why, take Schiff’s points in turn.
Manafort, Papadopoulos, and Flynn
First, Schiff claims that because the probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller has led to charges, this must mean Mueller is on to something. Really? Paul Manafort was charged with crimes unrelated to his time as Trump’s campaign chair, and Manafort’s brief time as the campaign chair was only due to a lack of GOP operatives willing to work with Trump who understood the Byzantine process of a floor-fight at the Republican National Convention. As soon as Trump realized Manafort was problematic, he dropped him like a hot potato.
The charges against Manafort are related to him failing to disclose work for, and payments received by, foreign governments. Yes, this is a problem, but many in DC who violate this statute go unprosecuted. During the time in question—before Manafort was Trump campaign chair—Manafort was working with Tony Podesta, the brother of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta. We are all patiently waiting for Democrat Tony Podesta, and many others who ran afoul of this law, to be charged.
George Papadopoulos, a 29-year-old, was made a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign in March 2016. At this time the Trump operation was desperate to show that Trump didn’t just get his opinions on world events from “the shows.” While in Europe, and after he was added to the Trump campaign, Papadopoulos met with a Russian “professor” on March 14, 2016. The professor introduced him to Vladimir Putin’s “niece,” and on April 26, 2016, the professor told Papadopoulos the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of her emails.
Schiff assumes the professor was talking about the WikiLeakes emails from the Democratic National Committee. As the president would say: Wrong! In April 2016, news of the DNC email theft had not been made public, and everyone living in conservative-ville was focused on finding the 30,000 emails Hillary Clinton deleted from her home-brew server. This was because many believed finding these emails would show Clinton doing favors at the State Department in return for cash from foreign actors.
And while the professor, Papadopoulos, and Putin’s “niece” talked a lot about setting up high-level meetings between Trump and Putin, absolutely nothing came from this. Papadopoulos even proposed a meeting between Trump and Putin to the Trump campaign, and the Trump camp quickly shot this idea down.
Mueller charged Papadopoulos with lying to the FBI. The “lie” was that Papadopoulos told the FBI the first meeting with the professor had occurred before he was made a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, when it occurred after he was made a foreign policy adviser. In truth, the meeting occurred after the Trump campaign had decided on Papadopoulos but before he had been officially announced.
You can be the judge on whether this was a prosecutorial gotcha, or whether Papadopoulos was purposefully lying to protect the president. Either way, as Andrew McCarthy has noted, the Papadopoulos indictment is exculpatory to President Trump, and not damning in the least bit—because the Trump campaign clearly rejected Papadopoulos’ proposals.
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn also pled guilty to lying to the FBI. The lie in question occurred during an interview that took place only four days after Trump took office. Flynn was interviewed by FBI agents, including Peter Strzok (whom we’ll get to later), at the behest of former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, who sought to nail Flynn for violating the Logan Act when he communicated with the Russian ambassador during the “transition” period after Trump’s election but before the inauguration.
The act basically says that anyone outside of the executive branch can’t influence the decisions of foreign powers. Flynn allegedly did this by asking the Russian ambassador, on December 22, 2016, to delay or vote against a U.N. Security Council resolution that would declare Israeli settlements illegal (the Obama administration was planning on abstaining from the vote rather than voting against, a first for U.S. policy), and by asking the same ambassador on December 29, 2016 to not “escalate” after the Obama administration imposed last-minute sanctions on Russia (Russia did in fact not escalate, possibly due to Flynn’s request). Schiff says that this amounts to Flynn “conspiring secretly” with the Russians.
Not only do we want incoming administrations to talk to foreign powers, and not only were Flynn’s conversations totally non-nefarious, but the Logan Act, signed into law by John Adams in 1799, has been flagrantly violated since its existence, violations have never been prosecuted, and there are serious doubts about the act’s constitutionality (a question that has never been directly examined by a court).
On top of this, Yates never should have seen Flynn’s side of the conversation without a warrant, as it should have been redacted since he is a U.S. citizen. Unmasking Flynn’s side was not illegal per se, but it was an abuse of power using a loophole that Congress needs to address. The leak of that Flynn phone call to the media, which was politically framed as nefarious when it was not, was flagrantly illegal.
Aside from using the Logan Act as the pretext for investigation, the other thing out-of-the-ordinary here was the foreign policy crap sandwich Obama was trying to hand Trump only weeks before the transition of power. Outgoing presidents aren’t supposed to make big changes like this before they shuffle out the door.
Instead of being a legitimate response to Russian meddling, the action against Russia could have been purposed to hype claims of major Russian election interference. Even more egregious, Democrat politicians, including prominent senators, had been calling for a prosecution based on the non-crime of a Logan Act violation throughout the election. Is it downright appalling that politicians would call out a target, and our prosecutorial powers would dutifully aim and shoot.
The Trump Jr. Meeting in Trump Tower
Schiff then claims that the Russians “followed up” the Papadopoulos meetings with “an approach to the highest levels of the campaign—the president’s son, son-in-law, and campaign manager—once again offering dirt on Mrs. Clinton as part of what was described as the “Russian government’s effort to help Mr. Trump.”
Schiff says the Trump campaign agreed to accept Russian help, and that when the Trump campaign was disappointed in what Russia offered during the meeting, Russia countered by delivering the stolen emails to WikiLeaks days later.
Baloney. The two Russians who met with the Trump team, Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, didn’t offer dirt on Clinton but instead talked about their quest for a repeal of the Magnitsky Act during the meeting. That’s a law Congress passed to penalize Kremlin associates who had a hand in the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. They were doing so while working with Fusion GPS, the same firm the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid to come up with “evidence” of Trump and Russia collusion.
Fusion GPS was behind the now-disproven stories about a secret server communicating with Russia in Trump Tower. Fusion GPS gave Democrats’ money to former British spook Chris Steele, who possibly gave the money to alleged or former Russian intelligence agents, who spun the stories that created the infamous Trump-Russia dossier—a document that claimed Trump was under Putin’s thumb due to blackmail that involved prostitutes performing abnormal sex acts in a Moscow hotel.
This dossier is likely what sparked the FBI and Department of Justice’s investigation of Trump in the first place, even though FBI number two McCabe just testified to Congress that the only thing that could be verified in the dossier was Carter Page’s trip to Moscow—something that was already public information before the dossier was written.
Back to the Trump Tower meeting, Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson told Congress that he had no knowledge of the meeting, although he met Veselnitskaya both just before and immediately after the meeting occurred. To make things even more interesting, the only reason Veselnitskaya had the right to even be in the country at the time was due to a special entry request granted by the Obama DOJ.
Again, this was still days before the existence of any DNC email theft was made public. When a music promoter from the U.K. emailed Don Jr. to set up the meeting in Trump Tower, it is entirely possible that Don Jr. thought the promoter was referring to Hillary Clinton’s deleted 30,000 emails.
Here’s some news for the uninformed: no presidential campaign in the history of our country would have passed up the opportunity to get a hold of those missing emails. If anything, looking into these claims was a public service. If Hillary was elected, and a foreign government did have Hillary’s missing emails, she would be prone to the same blackmail that many, without evidence, are suggesting controls the actions of Donald Trump. Some say Trump Jr. should have gone to the FBI. This is the same “institution” that allowed those emails to be destroyed, no-questions-asked, in the first place. Uh-huh.
The So-Called Social Media Support
Schiff continues: “Days after the meeting in Trump Tower, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks announced receipt of the hacked DNC emails. The Russians also published stolen emails directly through their fictitious proxies, DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0. At the same time, the Russians ramped up a massive social-media campaign using an extensive network of fake personas and accounts to help the Trump campaign, vilify Mrs. Clinton and sow general discord.”
First, there are good reasons to doubt that Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks were related to the theft of emails and documents that led to the WikiLeaks disclosure, and there is even evidence that the non-damaging information Guccifer 2.0 released was harvested internally (as a side note, everything Guccifer 2.0 released was also at the fingertips of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s corrupt IT aid Imran Awan).
Second, Russia’s “massive” social media campaign amounted to about $200,000 spent between Google and Facebook, and 40 overtly pro-Trump Twitter accounts. This compares to the $90 million spent on social media advertising by the Trump campaign’s vaunted digital advertising operation. And most of the “Russian” Facebook ads ran in 2015, which, as Schiff surely knows, was not an election year.
Even the widespread narrative of Russia hacking state elections systems started to fall apart, and then went radio-silent. In general, we still don’t have conclusive evidencethat Russia orchestrated a massive interference campaign during the 2016 election, despite the Russian election-hacking narrative being treated as gospel truth by the Democrats, Mueller, and the media.
Where Does the Evidence Lead, Then?
Schiff concludes: “To claim that these facts show no evidence of collusion requires a willingness to avoid seeing what is in plain sight…” Here’s what is in plain sight.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign, seeking to distract from her ethics troubles and the DNC’s mistreatment of Bernie Sanders, sought to blame Russia and the Trump campaign for the release of the DNC’s files by WikiLeaks. Crowdstrike, a private cybersecurity firm paid by Democrats, was the only party to examine the DNC’s server. The FBI was not allowed to, or did not want to, examine the server. This allowed the Clinton campaign to go into the Democrat National Convention and talk “Russia,” instead of talking about how poor Bernie was mistreated by corporatist Democrats.
Whether or not the DNC was hacked by Russia (the later phishing of the Podesta emails did credibly add to the narrative), Hillary Clinton and the DNC then paid Fusion GPS to tie Donald Trump to the alleged Russian hacking. Fusion GPS was also working directly for Russian interests at the time, to repeal an American law that was passed after the murder of an innocent man in Russian prison. In its work for the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS used Democrats’ money to interview Russians who spun tales damaging to Trump.
The result of the “information” gained by Fusion GPS from alleged Russian intelligence agents—the Trump-Russia dossier—was scooped up by an all-too-willing FBI and Obama Justice Department, after even the media wouldn’t dare publicly touch it. Deputy associate attorney general Bruce Ohr, who reported directly to Yates, met with Steele, author of the dossier, before the election, and met with Fusion GPS’s Simpson after the election. Ohr’s wife, who has ties to the CIA, worked for Fusion GPS with the specific role of trying to connect the dots between Trump and Russia.
C-suite FBI agent Peter Strzok and other top officials at the FBI and DOJ—the same who had cleared Hillary Clinton, including by changing their assessment as to whether foreign actors accessed Clinton’s server, where an honest assessment would have been highly damaging to her political future—began to investigate Trump and his campaign before the election on the basis of a dossier that was totally unverified and rife with verifiable errors.
Strzok was later added to Mueller’s crack team of investigators. It is likely that these same FBI and DOJ officials even obtained a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, or Trump campaign associates, based on the dossier paid for with Democrat money by Trump’s political opponents.
We could know for sure, but on the issue of the FISA warrant or warrants, and on many other issues, the FBI and DOJ are currently flipping Congress the bird, refusing to even testify or present the documents that Congress has requested. After stalling, the FBI finally released pre-election texts between Strzok and his mistress, where Strzok talks about the need for an “insurance policy” because ostensibly he, FBI number two McCabe, and others “can’t take [the] risk” of Trump getting elected.
We Are in Dangerous Territory
The really sad part of all this, aside from the absence of justice in our country, is how much all this is harming America. There are some very powerful people, organizations, and an entire political party so invested in the Trump-Russia collusion story that turning up only dead-ends would be a catastrophe to their pursuit and maintenance of power.
What’s more, if it turned out that the real collusion with Russia occurred on the Democratic side, and that the whole Trump and Russia collusion narrative was cooked up by a Democrat’s presidential campaign and a corrupted Justice Department and FBI, it would be an existential crisis for the media, the Democrats, and maybe even the federal bureaucracy. Even some Republicans would have something to lose if this were the case.
Because of this, we are in dangerous territory. Like an animal trapped in a corner, many who have pushed the collusion narrative will now do and say anything to survive. Former director of national intelligence James Clapper was just on CNN and literally claimed that Trump was Putin’s “asset.” It is only so long before talk like this, including the babble coming from the likes of “Morning Joe,” will prompt some mentally deranged person to violence. Indeed, this has already happened.
On the other side, some Trump voters, who have real concerns and have been ignored for years, won’t go silently into the night if the Democrats opt for impeachment without concrete proof of a crime. This certainly seems to be where the Mueller investigation is headed. In short, Schiff, and those like him, are pulling our country dangerously close to a ledge of division where we have been before, and dare not go again. Democrats and Republicans alike in Middle America would do well to keep a level head and try to remain as unified as possible going forward. If we don’t, nobody will.
Willis L. Krumholz is a fellow at Defense Priorities. He holds a JD and MBA degree from the University of St. Thomas, and works in the financial services industry. The views expressed are those of the author only.
Fascism and Communism
By Walter E. Williams
By Walter E. Williams
Before the question, how about a few statistics? The 20th century was mankind's most brutal century. Roughly 16 million people lost their lives during World War I; about 60 million died during World War II. Wars during the 20th century cost an estimated 71 million to 116 million lives (http://ift.tt/2Bh0YDs).
The number of war dead pales in comparison with the number of people who lost their lives at the hands of their own governments. The late professor Rudolph J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii documented this tragedy in his book "Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900." Some of the statistics found in the book have been updated at http://ift.tt/2Bkp9RL.
The People's Republic of China tops the list, with 76 million lives lost at the hands of the government from 1949 to 1987. The Soviet Union follows, with 62 million lives lost from 1917 to 1987. Adolf Hitler's Nazi German government killed 21 million people between 1933 and 1945. Then there are lesser murdering regimes, such as Nationalist China, Japan, Turkey, Vietnam and Mexico. According to Rummel's research, the 20th century saw 262 million people's lives lost at the hands of their own governments (http://ift.tt/2oSfBHM).
Hitler's atrocities are widely recognized, publicized and condemned. World War II's conquering nations' condemnation included denazification and bringing Holocaust perpetrators to trial and punishing them through lengthy sentences and execution. Similar measures were taken to punish Japan's murderers.
But what about the greatest murderers in mankind's history — the Soviet Union's Josef Stalin and China's Mao Zedong? Some leftists saw these communists as heroes. W.E.B. Du Bois, writing in the National Guardian in 1953, said, "Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. ... The highest proof of his greatness (was that) he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate."
Walter Duranty called Stalin "the greatest living statesman" and "a quiet, unobtrusive man." There was even leftist admiration for Hitler and fellow fascist Benito Mussolini. When Hitler came to power in January 1933, George Bernard Shaw described him as "a very remarkable man, a very able man." President Franklin Roosevelt called the fascist Mussolini "admirable," and he was "deeply impressed by what he (had) accomplished."
In 1972, John Kenneth Galbraith visited Communist China and praised Mao and the Chinese economic system. Michel Oksenberg, President Jimmy Carter's China expert, complained, "America (is) doomed to decay until radical, even revolutionary, change fundamentally alters the institutions and values."
He urged us to "borrow ideas and solutions" from China. Harvard University professor John K. Fairbank believed that America could learn much from the Cultural Revolution, saying, "Americans may find in China's collective life today an ingredient of personal moral concern for one's neighbor that has a lesson for us all."
By the way, an estimated 2 million people died during China's Cultural Revolution. More recent praise for murdering tyrants came from Anita Dunn, President Barack Obama's acting communications director in 2009, who said, "Two of my favorite political philosophers (are) Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa."
Recall the campus demonstrations of the 1960s, in which campus radicals, often accompanied by their professors, marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving Mao's Little Red Book. That may explain some of the campus mess today. Some of those campus radicals are now tenured professors and administrators at today's universities and colleges and K-12 school teachers and principals indoctrinating our youth.
Now the question: Why are leftists soft on communism? The reason leftists give communists, the world's most horrible murderers, a pass is that they sympathize with the chief goal of communism: restricting personal liberty. In the U.S., the call is for government control over our lives through regulations and taxation. Unfortunately, it matters little whether the Democrats or Republicans have the political power. The march toward greater government control is unabated. It just happens at a quicker pace with Democrats in charge.
Chinese Killed At Least 10,000 At Tiananmen Square, Newly Declassified Documents Claim
ANDERS HAGSTROM
People's Liberation Army (PLA) amphibious assault vehicles rumble pass Tiananmen Square in a massive parade to mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China in Beijing October 1, 2009. REUTERS/Nir Elias∧Newly declassified British communications paint a more gruesome and detailed picture of China’s 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre than ever before.
Communications from Sir Alan Donald, British Ambassador to China at the time, described injured students begging for their lives before being bayoneted by soldiers, and the remains of protesters being incinerated and then flushed into drains, the Independent reported Saturday. Donald’s source for the communication was a “good friend” serving on China’s State Council who he said had “previously proved reliable and was careful to separate fact from speculation and rumour.”
“The 27 Army APCs [armoured personnel carriers] opened fire on the crowd before running over them. APCs ran over troops and civilians at 65kph,” Donald wrote. “Students understood they were given one hour to leave square, but after five minutes APCs attacked.”
Donald said that the attacking troops – the 27 Army of Shanxi Province – were “primitives,” 60 percent of whom were illiterate. Donald later said that his friend in the Chinese government said they’d been chosen because they were the most loyal to the communist government.
“Students linked arms but were mown down. APCs then ran over the bodies time and time again to make, quote ‘pie’ unquote, and remains collected by bulldozer,” he wrote. “Remains incinerated and then hosed down drains.”
Donald’s shocking recount describes the events of June 3 and 4 in more detail, alleging that the military didn’t limit itself simply because it was attacking civilians.
“1,000 survivors were told they could escape but were then mown down by specially prepared MG positions,” Donald wrote. “Army ambulances who attempted to give aid were shot up, as was a Sino-Japanese hospital ambulance. With medical crew dead, wounded driver attempted to ram attackers but was blown to pieces by anti-tank weapon.”
Donald later says that he estimated a “minimum” of 10,000 civilians were killed, a number far above previous estimates. The Chinese government admits only that roughly 200-300 were killed, while the Chinese Red Cross released estimates that roughly 2,700 were killed.
There is evidence to support Donald’s number, however, as the U.S. was reported in 2014 to have files indicating that the Chinese military’s own internal estimate was 10,454.
PM Netanyahu: ‘Very Proud’ Israel ‘Says Merry Christmas,’ Come Next Year and ‘I’ll Be Your Guide’
by MICHELLE MOONS
AFP/GALI TIBBON
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared how very proud he is to be the Prime Minister of Israel, a country that says Merry Christmas, and invited Christian friends from around the world to come to Israel next Christmas and “I’ll be your guide” for a tour in the footsteps of Jesus.
The Prime Minister said rain or shine he would “always be here for you.” He said it was a pleasure for him to be in Jerusalem, the “holy city,” on Christmas Eve.
“I’m very proud to be the Prime Minister of Israel, a country that says Merry Christmas, first to its Christian citizens and to our Christian friends around the world,” said Netanyahu. He added that he’s also proud that Israel is the country where Christians “not only survive, but they thrive because we believe in this friendship among people and we protect the rights of everyone to worship in the holy shrines behind me.”
I'm very proud to be the Prime Minister of Israel. A country that says Merry Christmas, first to its Christian citizens, and to our Christian friends around the world! #MerryChristmas
Prime Minister Netanyahu then proposed to all Christian friends to come to Israel next Christmas and visit all the holy sites in the footsteps of Jesus. He said next year for Christmas he would take a guided tour, “in fact I’ll be your guide on this guided tour!”
Netanyahu asked viewers to think of all the places in the footsteps of Jesus they could walk: the Jesus boat on the Sea of Galilea, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, any places they want to visit where Jesus walked and the origin of “our Judeo-Christian heritage.”
“Please come to Israel, next year in Jerusalem and Merry Christmas to all of you,” Netanyahu concluded.
Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2017/12/httpift_26.html
Related Posts :
Spongebob | La sigla di Halloween | Nickelodeon Italia
Fuga dalla biblioteca di Mr Lemoncello | L'inizio del gioco | Nickelodeon Italia
Crushing This Week with Alyson Court (Voice of Arkayna on 'Mysticons') | YTV
Poemas sombrios | The Loud House | Nickelodeon Brasil
Mysticons | La fête du couronnement | NICKELODEON FRANCE
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment