Submitted by: Terry Payne
An analysis from former Captain USNR-Ret on recent CNO involvement in CRT training and WOKE nonsense. Also some thoughts on who is running WOKE/CRT show at Whitehouse. It's certainly not the bumbling Biden!
It still isn’t clear to me who is actually making decisions which should be made by the President who is the CinC, who is crafting policy, who if anybody is managing his actions and why President Biden is worrying if he goes off script or answers any questions. Here are some “suspects”.
******************************
From: Captain Davis USNR-Ret
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 12:20 PM
Subject: OH. MAJOR UH OH - MILITARY CRT INDOCTRINATIN-CNO GILDAY DEFENDS READING LIST
This link to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Gilday’s video defending book selections on the suggested Navy reading list was sent by a person interested in Naval affairs. He wanted my reaction.
In the video, the CNO is being questioned at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) about his placing CRT and BLM material he put on the 2021 Navy reading list. The list (see below), includes not only the book being challenged in this interview, but a number more on racism, sexual minorities, the “new Jim Crow” etc. Since this exchange, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), Gen. Mark Milley has also been testifying with even more anger defending CRT training, which he calls “study” and many see as propaganda, and talking about understanding “White Rage”. That seems a new accusation.
Adm. Miley makes what I think is a good point about being exposed to various points of view and open discussions, but with the actual training being reported, it seems to me there is a significant imbalance with too much emphasis being given to CRT, 1619 Theory, and discrimination or guilt by race.
Several exchanges later with the originator of this link discussing the new reading list, he raised the question of who was in charge and directed policy in the military. The question suggests a broader discussion. How is the military directed? What are its duties? Who is the final decision maker? Who advises him/her?
Some thoughts below. There are opinions along with some researchable facts, and likely will infuriate one or another of you, but so be it.
Admittedly, this has become a lengthy piece and if you aren’t interested in another’s views what the military does, is supposed to do, who directs it and what is currently being promoted both for reading and in lectures, then return to your other doings.
Being several days old, this story is now many “pages” back in the original link as sent. Rather than send that link, here is one which should take you to the original story and video. I don’t know anything about “the Western Journal”, but do know this testimony was widely reported and many other links can be found on line.
If you get searching, you may also find Adm. Gilday interviewing a group of sailors and officers reflecting on how they have become aware, through reading recommended materials or “training” and discussion, of their being oppressed, or become aware they are oppressors based on racial identity. I find that troubling.
This will get you to the article and video of the Adm Gilday testimony directly without paging back through later pages but you have to scroll far down in the article to find the link to the video which is in the picture of Gilday testifying. Click on that. If that doesn’t get you there, scroll to the bottom of this message for another link or go on line and query ‘Woke Admiral Defends…”
I am copying the originator again as there is some added detail on possible behind the scenes managers of policy and Presidential decisions added here.
It still isn’t clear to me who is actually making decisions which should be made by the President who is the CinC, who is crafting policy, who if anybody is managing his actions and why President Biden is worrying if he goes off script or answers any questions. Here are some “suspects”.
From: Captain Davis USNR-Ret
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 2:22 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: UH OH. MAJOR UH OH
XXXX
To your question about who is directing this wokeness training, especially with respect to the military and who makes decisions, directives and policy …. which of course invites thought about who is, or will be making military operational decisions should circumstances ever call for action, here are some thoughts. (Today, the word smiths call such action Kinetic Action. I call it military combat operations.)
In theory, as specified clearly in the Constitution Art.2, Section 2, Clause 1, the first named “Power and duty of the President”, the President is Commander in Chief. In this case President Biden is the CinC who sets policy broadly, strategy, objectives, and priorities. He would be the one to initiate or authorize the use of the military in combat operations. Presumably, he also is providing the guidance to the military as to overall policy.
The President is supposed to be the final decision maker, taking advantage of advice from the National Security Council, NSC and the Military through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CJCS and the Operational Commands (Unified Commands). Presumably, he and the NSC also get advice from the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, State or other relevant departments. But the President is the “decider” as G.W. Bush put it.
That doesn’t mean he should micro-manage as some have done (famously LBJ and Carter), generally to disastrous results. He establishes policy and sets the standards. Some decisions and implementation most certainly should be and are made on down through the chain of command to the most junior petty officer. In a military organization decisions or actions should be, in fact must be IAW the guidance of superiors all the way to the oval office, not to some committee in Congress or debating society, pundits in the press or University faculty lounges.
It seems to me, however, President Biden isn’t acting as though he is in charge of anything. When he has anything to say, it is scripted, read from a teleprompter (often a lens teleprompter so he seems to be directly engaged with the lens and viewer), sometimes with seeming difficulty and with reference to notes he fishes out from his pocket or notes on the dais which he fumbles with searching for the order of preselected people to call on, names and answers to the expected questions.
On major problems or issues, he seems to hand things off, (politely, call it delegating) whether the Border crisis to Kamala Harris or Worldwide threats to NATO, the EU, the UN, WHO or “the International Community”, “Global Community” or “International Norms”. After reading his speech and taking a few preplanned questions, he now is repeatedly saying “I can’t take more questions”, or “I can’t answer that”, “I had better stop now”, “I will get in trouble”, or “gonna be in trouble”, “I’ll get in trouble”, “get in trouble with my staff”, and shuffles off. Excuse me. Just who is telling him he can’t take a question or has to do this or that?
As to the military, the orders or guidance of the President (who is the CinC) who is “advised” by the NSC or National Security Council and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (who in turn is representing the advice of the Joint Chiefs), are transmitted through the Secty. of Defense to the operational Unified Commanders. There are 11 today, I believe.
President Joe Biden is supposed to be the final “decider”, especially on major decisions of significant import such as when, where and if to engage in some action or implement policy. He isn’t expected to be the field commander making local and immediate tactical decisions.
The chain of command for actual operations does not flow through the Joint Chiefs, but to the Unified Commands who are the operational commanders. Policy, philosophy, overall guidance would go to both the 11 Unified Commanders, and to the Joint Chiefs via the Secretary Defense.
The Joint Chiefs members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offer advice to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the NSC. As the chiefs of the Military Services, they are responsible to the Secretaries of their Military Departments for management of the Services. This would include such things as planning and obtaining ships and planes, manning, and support. Their primary responsibility is to ensure personnel readiness, policy, planning and training of their respective services for the combatant commanders to utilize.
The Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is, himself, pushing and defending all the woke, 1619, CRT, diversity and equity stuff. He has appointed radical consultant, Bishop Garrison, to stamp out “extremists” in the military. He is heading up the Pentagon’s Counter Extremism Working Group. I invite you to look him up if you don’t believe my characterization. They are now teaching this stuff at Annapolis and West Point. There is, of course, a difference between teaching and propagandizing. But a policy should have had the authority of the CinC behind it and likely does as President Biden hasn’t been bashful about talking about Jim Crow 2 and white racism.
Sec. Austin’s support for such “learning” seems to be being enthusiastically supported the Gen. Mulley, CJCS and in this case by Adm. Gilday, the CNO.
As to who actually holds the power to influence or even direct what President Biden, decides, directs, does and says, who knows?
Various candidates might include:
VP Harris (who seems equally ill equipped but hungry for power). The impression is, however, she isn’t managing the President but is often simply on the stage grinning when he makes announcements. Her actions and statements to date seem ultra-lightweight.
Chief of Staff Ron Klain? Former political consultant, lobbyist, CoS for VP Gore and VP Biden, also appointed by President Obama as White House Ebola Response Coordinator after reported Ebola virus cases in the United States, and senior member of Biden campaign team. He seems to be a very major player.
Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor. He was Senior policy advisor to the Hillary Clinton campaign, deputy CoS at the State Department when Hillary was the Sec. of State. He was in the middle of and key to the JCPOA negotiations with Iran and is very outspoken about getting us back into that deal, saying Trump was enabling Iran (???) and it was the JCPOA which slowed them down. He has been a visiting professor at Yale Law School. He too seems a major player. He is out front on the new negotiations with Iran and making the rounds on the Sunday talk shows, just as Susan Rice once did for Obama and Hillary. His demeanor and declarative statements during these interviews suggest he is very strongly involved not just in conveying a message, but deeply involved with and committed to the content.
Mike Donilon, senior counsellor to Pres., senior strategist for campaign and counsellor when Biden was VP? Bruce Reed, deputy CoS to President, former CoS to VP Biden after Ron Klain and followed by Steve Ricchetti?
Susan Rice, Director of the Domestic Policy Council. The former Ambassador to UN under Obama, then National Security advisor? Not made Secty of State because that involved Senate approval, impossible after her televised appearances to push the lie that the Benghazi disaster was caused by some hapless film maker who made a documentary on Islam. She was accused of other “misstatements” as well. She was a major Hillary Clinton supporter and operative. She still seems very much in the mix although I can’t give a specific example of her projecting control.
Steve Ricchetti, counsellor to the President who ran his successful campaign, and was CoS when he was VP and CoS for Operations under Clinton?
Anita Dunn, Senior Advisor to Pres. and previously White House Communications Director under Obama, Democrat campaign strategist and part of “transition team”?
How about Cedrick Richmond, a senior advisor to the president and director of the White House Office of Public Engagement in the Biden administration?
Gene Sperling, who was director of the National Economic Council and assistant to the president for economic policy under Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and now the White House Point man for the “American Rescue plan”. He is a senior advisor and manager for the nomination of Neera Tanden for OMB director faced opposition?
Anthony Blinken, Secretary of State. Under Clinton, he served in the State Department and in senior positions on the National Security Council from 1994 to 2001. He was a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies from 2001 to 2002. He advocated for the 2003 invasion of Iraq while serving as the Democratic Staff Director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2002 to 2008. He was a foreign policy advisor for Joe Biden's unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign, before advising the Obama–Biden presidential transition. From 2009 to 2013, he served as Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President. He later served as Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2015 and Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to 2017. During his tenure in the Obama administration, he helped craft U.S. policy on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the nuclear program of Iran. After leaving government service, Blinken moved into the private sector, co-founding WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm. Now he is back as Sec. of State and seems deeply committed to obliterating any traces of Trump or Pompeo and advancing the new Globalist agenda.
Stefanie Feldman, long time Biden aide, now White House aide and climate advisor. She is also deputy assistant to the president and senior advisor to the director of the Domestic Policy Council. Feldman worked as national policy director for the Biden-Harris campaign and worked in the White House for five years including as Vice President Biden's deputy director for Domestic and Economic Policy.
Samantha Power, running USAID, former Ambassador to the UN during the Obama administration and now the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development? Before the UN gig, she was the State Dept. Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights on the National Security Council during the early Obama years.
Linda Thomas Greenfield UN ambassador.
Wendy Sherman, part of original JCPOA team with Kerry et al and now back on the team trying to rejoin JCPOA at any cost.
John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton?
Jill Biden, ….? She often is seen at Biden’s events, often stepping in and guiding him or prompting him.
Of course there is Jenn Psaki who seems to craft policy and “splain” positions to her own fancy, cleaning up or creating that which Biden may or may not have said or meant, said which was “out of context”, misquoted by the evil right wing, or misunderstood and in need of “re-splainin”. She is billed as a “political advisor”.
Or there is the A.G. Garland who is showing his radical colors actively and openly pushing the House and Senate “voting reform” bills among other actions. He isn’t a law maker, or a judge any more. He is supposed to enforce laws. In demanding action from Congress he announced “we will not wait” for them to act. He has been repeating the false trope about the Jan 6 “armed insurrection”, “killed policemen”, (neither being true) and is prosecuting hundreds including those who never entered the Capitol. He characterized the invasion of the Capitol as “most dangerous threat to our democracy” and said the most dangerous threat to the US is domestic terrorism from white racism and most likely to conduct mass casualties among US citizens. He has unleashed a nationwide manhunt and is sorting through emails as well as social media to find revolutionaries seemingly based on their political views with nothing to do with overthrow of the government or violence or arms.
Ex Pres. Obama lurks about and advances his divisive racist theories despite having been twice elected president as “the first black president”. That would seem to counter his thoughts on institutional racism, white racism and discrimination but he still speaks of “systemic White Racism”.
Less likely Sec Def Austin, although he does seem to have advanced the stand downs, teaching of CRT and ferreting out “extremists” in the services. He may not be in the forefront of Biden’s thinking if he can’t remember his name, the title of his job, or the name of the place where he works.
Chris Coons is supposedly a big buddy and confidant, but I see little about him being a regular visitor or “advisor”.
My guess, and it is pure speculation and a guess, is people like Klain and others in the inside group, perhaps Rice, Dunn, Power, Sullivan and Blinken in the lead, are key to policy announced by President Biden. They hand-picked all the people who now occupy key cabinet posts and appointive jobs. They were picked for their radical credentials, and to represent every aggrieved group identified by identity politics.
President Biden may or may not even know who they are (having forgotten or fumbled several of their names), but they were all appointed and blessed by the Schumer Senate or in some cases, confirmation was not needed, with the incumbents simply installed by the Executive. The pride with which various nominations and appointments have been made, often featuring “identity”, whether race, background, gender or even sexual preference, suggests there is a clear desire to demonstrate political correctness and affirmative action to be “inclusive”. Blacks seem statistically well represented as a percent of population as are women, However, Hispanics, gays, transgenders, Native Americans, feminists, WOKE activists, Internationalists, MMT (modern monetary theory), Muslims, and Labor, all have their place in the administration. Evidently so do the radicals, whether Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals” followers or more modern revolutionary theorists of the 1619 and CRT school.
Within the power group there seems to be a wide consensus, adherence to and desire to propagate Wokeness, CRT, 1619 Movement, reparations, white guilt for white oppression and white racism, (both often characterized as “institutionalized”) fairness, equity, equal outcomes (not equal opportunity or merit based advancement). There also seems common desire to rely on Globalism, the World Community and World opinion as well as the judgment and leverage offered by the UN, EU, NATO or other International groupings.
The book in question which was put on the Navy reading list by Adm. Gilday, “HOW TO BE AN ANTIRACIST” By Ibram X. Kendi, or others he has placed on the CNO Reading List 2021 Recommended Reading List seem to me to be divisive, racist, and focused on anything but enhancing the teamwork and military skills a fighting team neads. The list of books also includes “THE NEW JIM CROW: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness” By Michelle Alexander, SEXUAL MINORITIES AND POLITICS” By Jason Pierceson, and “NO PITY: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement” By Joseph P. Shapiro. It is worth noting these are all grouped in the list for “sailors” in the overall list.
If you are interested, the recommended Navy reading list can be seen here;
Worth a look, especially the entire list recommended for “sailors”.
It seems they aren’t being encouraged to read authors like Mahan. Clausewitz, Luttwak, Sun Tsu, or even Soviet Admiral Gorshkov. Several key Chinese military leaders have written on long term objectives, strategy, policy and the marriage of the CCP, government, military, industrial base and engineering efforts all on the behalf of achieving Chinese dominance and hegemony worldwide. Reading some of those might be useful for our current and future leaders. Gen. Chi Haotian comes to mind as does Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan who defected and has written and spoken widely on the origins of the Covid 19 virus variant. Some US citizens of Chinese heritage and frequent authors and commentators, Gordon Chang, Taiwanese such and Dean Cheng an analyst with many articles, writers like Bill Gertz also come to mind.
Personally, I have no problem with the Military being widely read, including the works of enemies, potential enemies, and theory of opposing systems from Marx and Engels, Lenin, Mao to Mein Kampf. In the context of our freedoms and history, they should appreciate what opponents, whether philosophical, religious, economic or form of government believe and espouse.
But there is a problem, in my opinion, if there is no exposure to US History, our Freedoms, our Constitution, our form of government, our rule of law, our economic system, and a contrary view is being actively pushed as accurate, true and better than our form of government, traditions and freedoms.
Heaven forbid they get into reading and studying things like the basis of International law and Laws of War and historical thinkers on law of war like Grotius.
They might even be urged to read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Both short, fairly easy to read, logical. Even the Federalist papers dealing with the reasoning of the founders and authors of the Constitution provides insight into their thinking and logic. With any understanding of the words written, and the years of argumentation and explanation including the Federalist Papers, gives the lie to the 1619 theorists as our being founded on slavery.
What about devoting time to Naval History, traditions and the heroic exploits from John Paul Jones to Perry, Bainbridge, Farragut, Preble, Decatur, Somers, Lawrence, or the likes of WWII Nimitz, King, Halsey, Spruance, Leahy, or Cdr. Evans who, during the battle of Leyte Gulf, took his lonely Destroyer, the USS Johnston directly into attack against a massive Japanese fleet of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. How about the code breakers who enabled victory at Midway. Maybe an appreciation of Eisenhower who had to pull together the biggest Combined Operation in history, planned the massive D Day invasion with all the innovation, clever deceptions, coordination of logistics and incredibly tough decision making right up to the moment of ordering a “go” despite inclement weather and the note he had written taking full responsibility on himself to be revealed if this incredibly complex plan failed at the beaches.
Part of developing an effective team and culture is learning history and about the example of great moments and heroic responses to them. Taking pride in our country, especially our efforts over the centuries to perfect the union, eliminate evils, correct errors and create what is, in fact, the most free, fair, innovative, productive and prosperous civilization in history. Claiming the US is evil and race is a key discriminator, with the majority white condemned as irretrievably evil with all others victims and oppressed, is both wrong and hardly the basis for building a cohesive, effective team.
Pres. Biden may not even know what is being taught at the military schools or preached in the ranks, nor on the suggested reading lists, but my guess is the general atmosphere and approval comes from the power group, flows through Austin and thence to the JCS and the CNO with his defense of the book noted in the article you asked about.
Likely it is also being pushed down through the Unified Commands. Note the 60 day “stand-down period” ordered by Sec. Def. Austin to “address extremism”. Evidently during this period, Commanders were ordered to schedule events for "needed discussions" about extremism. It isn’t clear how many events or how many days.
So during a “stand down” for any period, whether a day, week or month, ships, planes, army units in the field and all installations weren’t focused on warfighting training, maintenance, training for necessary skills and advancement in rate, exercises to hone warfighting skills, work on leadership and team building. They weren’t showing the flag, doing humanitarian work, doing their “Unified or Specified Operations”, exercises or training, conducting “Combined Operations” with joint training with allies, or doing (FON) Freedom of Navigation transits.
They were “standing down”, ferreting out “extremists” which is also the mission of the Sec. Def. appointed Bishop Garrison, Senior Advisor to the Secretary on Human Capital and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. This may well include those who don’t agree with, resist, or push back against the current push for condemnations based on race, equity vs. equal opportunity and a meritocracy and divisive guilt mongering where racism and discrimination aren’t the problem.
They are probably guilty of clinging to ideas about the rule of law, the Constitution, and the role of the military not as a social experimentation venue. They believe in a military organized to operate as a unified, trained team to defend the Constitution and the interests of the United States, with maximum responsiveness and lethality to fight to win should deterrence not work.
In my opinion, the military isn’t a “democratic” organization for debate and resolving real or imagined social ills. It isn’t a police force, a “nation building force”, social workers, or “Peace Corps” volunteers. It is a warfighting organization with discipline, training and standards. It must focus on building a unified team dedicated to fighting together to win. Setting any group against another is destructive to the aims of a unified fighting force.
This emphasis on grievances and separation by race and other identifiers does NOT seem to me to be the path to building a unified, team oriented, warfighting organization keyed to fighting and winning and maintaining itself in a well-trained cohesive team, postured for and equipped to carry out the mission. Our military has been a leader in eliminating bias, restrictions based on race, religion or gender and in fact being a meritocracy. It isn’t perfect, but it has moved in the right direction for most of the post WWII era.
In my admittedly biased view, the military WAS a team oriented, results oriented, meritocracy type organization, best, fairest, most team oriented, law abiding military in the world. Despite adversity ranging from feckless leadership committing to wars without a defined objective, measure of success or plan for an end game, to periods of serious maintenance shortfalls, lack of supplies, overwork and unending deployments, they carried on. Pride, professionalism, teamwork and striving for excellence remained core values. As the old saying went, doing more with less, a lot with a little and everything with nothing sometimes seemed that which was demanded. The military carried on, in part due to history, traditions and a need to build a winning team not because separate aggrieved groups were set upon each other.
Yes, I know, papers are now written about the mistaken, “can do” idea of completing the mission as opposed to reflecting on it, debate, negotiations, or doing it half way. But the military did carry on and generally has proven itself effective, law abiding, and always responsive to civilian authority.
Now, the “military culture” is vilified. Ads soliciting enlistments seam to feature differences, self-pity, victimization and the opportunity to serve on your terms, with your problems at the forefront. Purpose, mission, teamwork, all seem unimportant. How YOU feel, how YOU identify, what YOU want to do, when YOU want to do it, how YOU want to do it, YOUR rights, YOUR emotional state, whether or not everything and everybody is “nice” and treats YOU with respect is what counts. If YOU weren’t promoted, then it is the fault of others, the “others” now characterized by their skin color. It’s all about what YOU feel and want, not the team, not the mission, not the country.
Psychologically troubled, sorry, self-centered loners, seem the target audience for these ads, not strong, talented, physically and mentally fit, capable team players with proven skills or proven ability to learn. The military, in recent history, has done just his, having all races, religions, ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, national origins well represented. The teamwork has been noteworthy as have some of the accomplishments. It has gone where asked, served as directed, even when civilian authority, the keystone of our system, has been weak, indecisive, failed to establish objectives and goals and then abandoned the effort. Both the executive and legislative branches have roles they played in these and other uses of the military over the years.
I won’t get into the debates over the end of the Vietnam effort, Somali disaster after political mission creep, Iraq withdrawal leading to ISIS or current decisions regarding Afghanistan and the Taliban resurgence.
And now we are teaching that we should hate our Constitution, hate our country, hate the police, hate our military, find racism, sexism and other offensive “isms” under every rock and preach the inherent evil of one race oppressing all others? Recipe for destruction of the US in my opinion.
Who is setting the agenda? Who are the actual power players? Is the objective to destroy the US as we know it, the rule of law under the Constitution, in favor of some all-knowing, all seeing, all powerful autocracy? Or is there just an overreaction to efforts to acquaint people with alternative viewpoints, with indoctrination and propagandizing not the objective?
What say you? Any insight or opinion from your end as to who is doing all this or where it leads?
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 8:51 PM
To:
Subject: UH OH. MAJOR UH OH
Oh, boy. And that takes us back to the question of who's cutting the orders. Do you have a suspect, Chuck? I can picture that it's being channeled through the addled resident of the White House, but am inclined to believe that the pusher is another programmer.
Xxxxx xxxx
xxxx
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 3:17 PM
To:
Subject: UH OH. MAJOR UH OH
Xxx and I have just read something that, I'm afraid, we have come to consider as 'required reading' (shades of Amherst course days?) for you.
If, after perusing it, you haven't had a serious dose of apoplexy, we'd be grateful to have the benefit of your views.
All offered in the spirit of ensuring another good night's sleep.
Xxxxxxx
I have added this for those coming new to this conversation. To find the article on Adm. Gilday’s testimony and link to the video, go to www.westernjournal.com, then go down partway on the page to Latest News and click on the "politics" tab, which will bring you to an article that begins, "Woke admiral..." To get there, days having gone by, you have to go to the bottom of the page and click next page, repeating several times to get back to the “Woke Admiral” article. I think it was near the end of their 22 June page. Then click on GOP Rep Nails Woke Admiral Over Anti-White Author He Wants Every Sailor to Read, Officer Can't Even Give Straight Answer to the Simplest of Questions”. Scroll down to the video link and click on that to see the YouTube hearing segment. It is fairly far down in the article
I think https://www.westernjournal.
If that doesn’t work, this should. Again, scroll down to mid-article and click on the picture/like for the actual video .
No comments:
Post a Comment