Sought to block expulsion vote
State Representative Diego Hernandez (D-Portland) was denied a temporary restraining order
against the Oregon Legislature by US District Court Judge Ann Aiken. He was hoping to get a reprieve from a vote to expel him. That vote is scheduled for Tuesday, February 23 at 11:00.
Hernandez is being disciplined for allegations that he engaged in harassing conduct involving women who had business before the legislature. The suit filed by Hernandez
presents new evidence that Hernandez claims he was unable to present to the House Committee on Conduct.
The suit names House Speaker Tina Kotek (D-Portland), as well as Representatives Julie Fahey (D-Eugene) and Ron Noble (R-McMinnville) who are Chair and Vice-Chair respectively of the House Committee on Conduct, which is considering the actions against Representative Hernandez. The suit also names Jackie Sandmeyer who is the head of the Legislative Equity Office which oversees the work of the Conduct Committee.
In her opinion on the restraining order, Judge Aiken says,
[Hernandez] makes numerous arguments that defendants did not properly follow the requirements of Rule 27. For example, [Hernandez] alleges he was only given seven days to respond to the draft report instead of ten. He also complains that he was not allowed to cross-examine his accusers. However, these technicalities do not in themselves mean that [Hernandez] has failed received (sic) adequate due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The "very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation."
Though members of the same party, Speaker Kotek and Representative Hernandez have been at odds over Hernandez's no vote on SB 1049
in 2019. The bill, which was introduced by Speaker Kotek, required that public employees contribute to their retirement fund.
|Post Date: 2021-02-20 20:05:29||Last Update: 2021-02-20 20:55:43|
The assumption of racist values and beliefs is destructive to students
The Oregon Department of Education received national attention from major media outlets this week after releasing their monthly Math Educator Update. The news sources focused on a specific teacher training course
that claims “white supremacy culture infiltrates math classrooms in everyday teacher actions,” and, “[c]oupled with the beliefs that underlie these actions, they perpetuate educational harm on Black, Latinx, and multilingual students, denying them full access to the world of mathematics.”
The ODE Update also included a document called The Mo(ve)ment to Prioritize Antiracist Mathematics. The board states they have been thinking about using some of the principles outlined in this document to promote anti-racism in teaching mathematics throughout Oregon public schools. The anti-racist and equity principles put forth in these resources are more widely known as Critical Race Theory
, which is built on the premise that racism is ingrained in our society and a fact of American life. “CRT questions liberalism and the ability of a system of law built on it to create a just society.” CRT teachings are divisive and harmful to students because they utilize immutable external characteristics rather than individual behavior and actions to determine culpability in perpetuating racism.
Here is a quick look at some of the CRT material promoted by ODE:
“A Pathway to Math Equity Micro-Course”
Within this course, math educators are guided through monthly practical exercises to reflect on their own biases and teaching practices to better recognize and subsequently deconstruct White supremacy culture in their classrooms. One example given, for instance, is the common request teachers make for students to “show their work.” The authors theorize that this is evidence of White supremacy culture, stating that it is “a crutch for teachers seeking to understand what students are thinking,” instead of an attempt to gain insight into student comprehension of new concepts. Teachers trying to understand students' thinking, they claim, is racist.
They go on to state that White supremacy is reinforced by the belief that “teachers are teachers and students are learners,” ingraining cultural ideals of “paternalism and power-holding” in teachers. Furthermore, “valuing independent work” is White supremacy culture because “[independent work] reinforces individualism and…, does not give value to collectivism and community understanding, and fosters conditions for competition and individual success.”
There is no question that educator’s techniques should be evaluated and discussed with the goal of improving student’s experiences and learning. However, contextualizing common practices such as “showing work” and obtaining “right” answers in a framework of racism is simply inappropriate. The assumption that teacher actions are undergirded by racist values and beliefs is destructive to students and relationships within the classroom.
This material put forth by the Oregon Department of Education is an attempt to strip liberties from students and teachers by reducing them to nothing more than the color of their skin and lowering the bar for academic achievement. “A hundred years ago civil rights leaders would unhesitatingly have sought to get black people the skills they needed to break in, not indignantly demand that the powers that be change what they think of standards,” as stated by John McWhorter
, linguist and associate professor at Columbia University.
Editor's note: The author of this article, Natalee Maxfield, is with Liberty in Education
|Post Date: 2021-02-20 18:12:50||Last Update: 2021-02-20 18:37:27|
HB 2002 prohibits firearms for parole and probation officers
Alongside far left policies already in play in Oregon, the super-majority Democrats of the Oregon legislature have proposed sweeping changes to the institutions of the Oregon Justice and Corrections departments. In 2020, observers in Oregon witnessed the Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt proclaim a commitment to not prosecute certain crimes in Oregon's most populous and troubled county. If some Democrats in Oregon have their way, this trend will certainly continue.
Now with HB 2002
, parole and probation officers would not be allowed to carry firearms while performing their official duties. The bill has been introduced by Representatives Janelle Bynum(D-Portland), Senator James Manning, Jr. (D-Eugene), Kayse Jama (D-Portland).
There are numerous other changes proposed in the bill, and is summarized as follows:
- Converts mandatory minimum sentences for specified felonies other than murder to presumptive sentences.
- Reduces presumptive sentences for certain crimes.
- Authorizes court to impose greater or lesser sentence according to sentencing guidelines of Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.
- Authorizes person receiving presumptive sentence to be eligible for certain programs and sentence reductions.
- Appropriates moneys from General Fund to Oregon Department of Administrative Services for
distribution to Northwest Health Foundation for deposit into Reimagine Safety Fund.
- Prohibits arrest without warrant for misdemeanor other than person Class A misdemeanor unless offense committed in presence of law enforcement officer.
- Requires law enforcement officers to issue citation in lieu of arrest for specified crimes.
- Prohibits traffic stop based solely on specified traffic violations.
- Prohibits parole and probation officers from carrying firearm while performing official duties in
- Requires certain continuing education for parole and probation officers.
- Expands earned reduction in term of probation or post-prison supervision.
Modifies general conditions of probation and post-prison supervision.
- Prohibits revocation of probation or post-prison supervision unless person willfully absconds or is convicted of new felony or person Class A misdemeanor.
- Prohibits supervision fees.
- Modifies Justice Reinvestment Program grant distribution.
- Directs Oregon Criminal Justice Commission to collect certain data on imposition of supervision conditions, persons on supervision and expenditures of Justice Reinvestment Program funds and biennially report on data to Legislative Assembly.
As the Oregon legislature too often does, if this bill is passed, it will be declared an emergency, and it will instantly be effective on passage.
|Post Date: 2021-02-20 16:02:29||Last Update: 2021-02-20 18:59:44|
He takes over a party focused on winning
State Senator Dallas Heard (R-Winston) was elected chair of the Oregon Republican Party by a vote of 74 to 52 at a biennial convention of the ORP in which elections of officers is held.
In his acceptance speech, Heard said, “Now the real work begins for me. And for you. Hold me accountable.” Heard, age 36, will be the face of a party that is seeking to attract younger voters.
Outgoing Chair Bill Currier graciously stepped down. "I wouldn't do anything differently."
Former State Senator Herman Baertschigger was elected vice-chair.
|Post Date: 2021-02-20 12:21:07||Last Update: 2021-02-20 14:42:47|
You might be a felon if you carry where you used to
Oregon's concealed handgun law contains a pre-emption against local jurisdictions from establishing their own rules for concealed carry by persons licensed to do so, but that pre-emption is on the block, and some places where you can now carry will be off limits.
A proposal put forth by Senators Ginny Burdick(D-Portland), James Manning Jr (D-Eugene), Rob Wagner (D-Lake Oswego), Representatives Rachel Prusak (D-West Linn), Lisa Reynolds (D-Portland) have introduced SB 554
authorizes city, county, metropolitan service district, port operating commercial airport, school district, college or university to adopt ordinance or policy limiting or precluding affirmative defense for possession of firearms in public buildings by concealed handgun licensees.
Additionally, Senator Burdick has introduced introduced SB 585
, which would explicitly allow local jurisdictions to create their own rules regarding the right of license holders to carry, potentially creating a patchwork of laws across the state.
describes the pre-emption
"Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.
Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void."
Oregon's Concealed Carry law
had its origins over 30 years ago. In 1989 a shooter in Stockton, California killed five children and wounded 29 others at a school, then killed himself with a pistol. In the wake of that shooting, Oregon House Speaker, Vera Katz, worked a compromise bill, HB 3470, which established some restrictions on gun ownership in exchange for a concealed carry law, and was signed into law by Governor Neil Goldschmidt.
is scheduled for a hearing
on Monday in the Senate Judiciary Committee. SB 585 was
scheduled, but has been pulled from the agenda.
|Post Date: 2021-02-20 09:50:10||Last Update: 2021-02-20 19:02:31|
Don’t let the bill collectors and your past financial history get you down
Need to cash a check? One State Representative, Zach Hudson (D-Troutdale) wants to make sure you don't have to pay a fee, even if you don't have an account or any business relationship with the bank or credit union. HB 2356
is seen by many as one of many that is sympathetic to persons with legal or criminal history in Oregon.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation -- better know by its acronym FDIC -- says that 4.2% of Oregonians were unbanked in 2017
Why are people unbanked? Analysts note several reasons
, among which are:
- Your past financial mistakes put you on a no-account list
- You don’t trust banks
- You’re worried about minimum balance requirements
- You’re aiming to avoid fees
- You’re trying to avoid debt collectors
- You’re young
This list, which doesn't include an inability to have a relationship with a bank due to being an illegal alien, seems to make a pretty clear case that it's not really the bank's fault that you're not in a position or don't desire to have a relationship with a bank. Incredibly, Representative Hudson doesn't have a problem with making the bank provide the service for free. Of course, nothing is free and the service will be paid for by existing customers.
Another side effect of the bill is that since state law can only govern state chartered banks and credit unions -- not federally chartered ones -- the law only applies to smaller, local banks and credit unions. They'll have to face the additional burden of servicing the unbanked, while their larger, federally chartered competition can still charge fees.
|Post Date: 2021-02-20 07:52:32||Last Update: 2021-02-21 19:10:00|
Tax season is quickly approaching
As state Democrats look for ways to prop up government growth during the government imposed COVID recession, Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR 4) has stepped up to support State Senator Dick Anderson (R-Lincoln City) in his quest to keep relief money from being taxed.
DeFazio is urging that Governor Kate Brown, Oregon State Senate President Peter Courtney, and Oregon House of Representatives Speaker Tina Kotek to ensure that COVID-19 Economic Impact Payments do not contribute to working-class Oregonians’ tax liabilities for 2020.
“It is unconscionable to ask the very families who have struggled the most during the COVID-19 crisis to include these payments in their tax liability,” said Rep. DeFazio. “These payments are a lifeline for Oregon’s working families, and while the ongoing pandemic has caused a budget shortfall for the state, the state should not ask these Oregonians to bear the brunt of that shortfall on their backs.”
Although Congress intended for EIPs to be tax-free, current Oregon state statute will result in hundreds of thousands of Oregonians being indirectly taxed at the state level. Data from the Oregon Legislative Revenue Office shows that EIPs included in the CARES Act that passed in March of 2020 will result in approximately 870,000 Oregonians seeing an increase in their state tax liability to the tune of more than $100 million.
Senator Anderson sent the following letter to Congressman DeFazio:
Thank you for your recent support of my efforts to ensure federal Economic Impact Payments are shielded from
state taxes. I currently have legislation being drafted that would keep this relief money in the pockets of working
As you have identified, this is an important step to fulfilling the intent of the federal legislation that helped
millions of Oregon families during the pandemic.
While our parties differ, we serve many of the same constituents. It is my hope that we can work together to get
this legislation passed this session for the good of our constituents, and Oregonians more broadly.
For a family of four, $300 can make a big difference for working families who are struggling to make ends meet.
Yet under the current law, these families will be sending that much of their stimulus check to the state
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
Tax season is quickly approaching and given procedural roadblocks that will keep this legislation from going to
effect before taxpayers must pay last year's taxes, I am including provisions in the law that would allow affected
Oregonians to either amend this year's taxes or file for a credit next year. Of course, any future payments should
also be exempt.
To that end, I would respectfully request that once the bill is assigned to a committee, that you would testify in
support of its passage. You were involved in the bipartisan crafting of the federal legislation that sent the much needed relief to Oregon families, and I believe your insights and support would be important to this effort.
Again, thank you for your support on this issue and for your service to our state.
I look forward to working together in bi-partisan ways to help Oregonians begin their long road to recovery from
The bi-partisan agreement on this indicates the value of this proposal. It remains to be seen if Oregon's legislative leaders will share this view.
|Post Date: 2021-02-19 18:20:50||Last Update: 2021-02-19 18:46:06|
Old Town Bar & Grill in Newberg
On February 10, 2021, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission issued an Order of Immediate License Suspension to the licensee of Old Town Bar & Grill in Newberg, Oregon for not following social distancing and face covering requirement mandates.
Old Town Bar & Grill, which holds a Full On-Premises sales license,is now not allowed to sell any alcoholic beverages.
During the month of January 2021, the OLCC received a wide range of complaints that Old Town Bar & Grill were allowing for the indoor consumption of food.
Further, it was alleged that the licensee was hosting live music events inside the premises, and not outside in the cold, as is so mandated.
OLCC enforcement staff contacted the operators of Old Town & Bar Grill about the complaints that it had received. During those conversations, it became apparent that the licensee had no intention of modifying the operation.
In response to this situation, OLCC compliance staff went to the location to monitor the activity and observed patrons consuming food and beverages inside, and not outside in the cold. There was little social distancing and many individuals not wearing face coverings.
These observations led to the Commission issue a Notice of Proposed License Suspension on January 27, 2021, for allowing indoor consumption of food and beverages, as Yamhill County was and continues to remain in the extreme risk category for Coronavirus.
Over the course of the next week, OLCC staff received additional complaints and were made aware of more live music events.
On February 3, 2021, OLCC compliance staff once again went to the location to find a live performance taking place and patrons consuming food and beverages with no social distancing or face coverings. These continued violations resulted in the Commission issuing an Order of Immediate Suspension on February 10, 2021.
|Post Date: 2021-02-19 18:07:03||Last Update: 2021-02-19 18:46:45|
Part time college faculty requests full time health care benefits
During the 2020 legislative session part-time higher education faculty members distributed flyers daily to legislators describing the hardships they faced as part-time faculty. Specifically, they focused on not having health insurance coverage enjoyed by full time faculty. This was not a new push as the discussion had been around the legislature since 2007, but they hoped 2020 would be the year to get the policy passed.
During the 2020 short session, HB 4146
was introduced and would have created a health insurance option administered by the Oregon Educators Benefit Board. During testimony on the bill it was estimated that there were 1,500 to 1,700 workers in this situation. One of those affected who submitted testimony was Betsy Dasenko, an Adjunct Instructor at Oregon State University, Western Oregon, and Linn Benton Community College. She testified that “When I work for 2 or more institutions, I do not receive health-insurance benefits or retirement benefits like other full-time faculty even when my FTE often is equivalent to or more than full time. I rotate between two different departments at OSU, one which refuses to give me more than .49 FTE so they can cut costs”.
The bill ultimately ended up in the Joint Ways and Means committee. There, several issues and concerns were raised. Senator Steiner-Hayward (D-Portland) shared that the Community Colleges and universities don’t disagree with the concept. They just do not want to pay for it out of their current funding allocations. They want the general fund to partially or wholly pay for the cost of the benefit. She noted “we offered to add the money to the Community College and University support funds, and they would be required to pay their fair share with the system already in place. They dismissed the suggestion”.
Senator Johnson (D-Scappoose) raised the question of fiduciary responsibility by stating “To make this open-ended responsibility of the general fund is fiscally irresponsible”. The estimated cost of the program was $13.0M for 2019-21 and $35.2M for 2021-23. Sen. Steiner-Hayward agreed stating “I believe that this is an open-ended mandate, the rollup in the future biennial is very large, and we are already facing a deficit”. The bill was voted down in committee.
The story is not over yet, however. Once again the House Education Committee is taking up the issue with HB 3007
. The 2021 version is identical to the 2020 version and similar to when the discussion was held in 2020, the list of supporters is long, and opposition is quiet. Just like Sen. Steiner-Hayward stated in 2020, “there is no argument, this is the right thing to do”.
Representative Susan McClain (D-Forest Grove) is once again the Chief Sponsor of the bill. As she introduced the bill to the committee, she let them know that she had worked with many stakeholders before bringing the bill back to the legislature and had determined that this was the best solution to this problem.
In written testimony, Representative Paul Evans (D-Monmouth) shared that “The dirty little secret within higher education is that adjuncts are not only cheaper than permanent faculty but often more willing to stretch beyond the contractual minimums.” Louis DeSitter with the Oregon Education Association agreed and added that the use of part-time faculty has expanded greatly and today 69% of the higher education faculty are part-time.
However, as the bill is currently written, it still does not address the concerns expressed in 2020. Specifically, it is an open-ended mandate. The bill clearly states that the money is continuously appropriated. Meaning that the general fund must fill the fund with the money necessary to cover the expenses whether there are 1,500 people in the newly created benefit pool or 5,000. In addition, there is nothing to keep higher education institutions from moving more positions to part time to help them cut costs. This would then shift the healthcare costs over to the new OEBB system. Universities are always under pressure to cut costs and maintain current service levels even when the money is not distributed to them through traditional funding. This would possibly be one way for them to cut costs.
The bill does contain a bit of a safety net intended to prevent a mass movement to the new OEBB state funded option. It states that if, by policy of the institution or by collective bargaining agreement, the institution already offers health insurance benefits then it must use that agreement and not the OEBB program. However, most collective bargaining agreements are only in place for 3-5 years before they are renegotiated. The University of Oregon, for example, has a collective bargaining agreement in place through June 30, 2021 that states:
Bargaining unit faculty members employed at 0.50 FTE or greater are eligible, at their option, for medical, dental, and vision insurance. The University will continue employer premium contributions at the present 95% levels for medical, dental, and vision benefits chosen by bargaining unit faculty members.
As they begin negotiating the new collective bargaining agreement, cutting out the offering of healthcare coverage for those in the 0.50 FTE category and moving to a higher percentage of employment to qualify could be a bargaining option. It could also be acceptable to both negotiating teams as benefit costs would then shifts away from the university leaving greater funding for other negotiated areas such as pay, training, curriculum, etc. It would be an easy sell because those “left behind” would be covered under the OEBB plan.
Finally, in a session where one of the predominant themes is equity, it should be noted that in 2020 Senator Johnson raised the question that is still not unanswered in the new legislation. “Why should faculty get this benefit but other low pair part-time workers at multiple institutions not be included”. A question that may again be raised as the bill moves forward.
|Post Date: 2021-02-19 15:01:12||Last Update: 2021-02-19 15:18:52|
Officers used their patrol vehicles to box in the truck
A driver of a tow truck is under arrest after committing multiple hit and runs and attempted assaults with a vehicle, including one where someone fired a gun at him.
On Thursday, February 18, 2021 at 11:47a.m., East Precinct officers responded to a report of a disturbance in the 6200 block of Southeast 97th Avenue. As officers were enroute, they learned someone fired a gun at a suspect vehicle related to a crash incident nearby and that other reports of hit-and-runs to other vehicles were coming in. Officers made contact with the person who fired the shots and he was detained. No one was injured.
Officers were able to locate the hit-and-run suspect vehicle, a yellow tow truck, and attempt to stop it. However, the driver did not yield and drove off in a reckless manner. Officers did not pursue the suspect. Officers were later able to locate the tow truck at Southeast 92nd Avenue and Southeast Woodstock Boulevard. Officers used their patrol vehicles to box in the truck and prevent it from eluding again (photos). The driver initially refused to comply with officers asking him to get out of the driver's seat. He held a knife to his throat while taunting officers. Officers with the Enhanced Crisis Intervention Team were responding to assist, but on scene officers were able to convince him to put the knife down and surrender.
Officers connected the suspect to previous calls from yesterday and today where he violated a restraining order protecting a family member.
Dolphus M. Creer Jr, 30, of Portland, was booked into the Multnomah County Detention Center on charges of Attempted Assault in the First Degree (3 counts), Attempted Assault in the Second Degree (2 counts), and three counts of Violation of a Restraining Order.
Officers are now compiling multiple reports to determine what additional charges are appropriate, including the hit-and-run incidents. The shooting is also under investigation, but at this time the person who fired the shots has not been charged with a crime.
|Post Date: 2021-02-19 12:49:29||Last Update: 2021-02-19 13:02:10|
More regulation directed at social injustice
As part of the Oregon Legislature's emphasis on social justice issues for the 2021 session, Senator Sara Gelser (D-Corvallis) and Representative Courtney Neron (D-Wilsonville) have teamed up to introduce HB 2504
which "directs school districts to identify several disciplinary mediators and to train and compensate mediators, providing mediation when out-of-school suspension or expulsion is proposed or upon request for other disciplinary incidents."
The bill, which does not describe what the "Disciplinary Mediators" are supposed to do, says that each public school district:
Must identify at least one employee for every 250 students to act as a disciplinary mediator. The disciplinary mediator must be appropriately trained and provided additional compensation for being a mediator. Mediation must be provided when:
(A) The school district proposes to impose an out-of-school suspension or expulsion; or
(B) Requested by a student, parent or other employee of the school district for a disciplinary incident.
The bill doesn't stop there. It requires an annual evaluation, which will only put more expense and effort on the district.
Each school district shall conduct an annual evaluation on the use of discipline in each of the schools of the school district. The evaluation must include:
(a) A review of disciplinary incidents during the school year to determine if there is a racial disparity in the use of discipline. The determination shall be based on data, including the local characteristics of the school.
(b) The establishment of data-driven, locally-based goals to reduce any racial disparity in the use of discipline.
Certainly no one would disagree that school districts -- at least the administration -- is filled with persons woke enough to fairly administer discipline. Apparently, despite the wokeness -- the same wokeness that says that showing math work
is a sign of white supremacy -- school administrators are not able to fairly administer justice and need these regulations. This is just the latest attempt on the part of the party in power to regulate and legislate their way to social justice and fair racial policies.
The bill currently sits in the House Education Committee. It has not been scheduled for a hearing.
|Post Date: 2021-02-19 07:27:37||Last Update: 2021-02-18 21:30:50|
Kids have to agree to their own parenting plan.
In 1954, William Golding penned a novel called Lord of the Flies
about a group of school boys stranded on a desert island and their failure to govern themselves. Now 67 years later, State Representative Courtney Neron (D-Wilsonville) has introduced HB 2959
that indicates that maybe she didn't read the novel in her literature classes in high school. Her bill would require children age 14 and up to sign off on their own parenting plan.
There's a reason why we don't let 14-year-olds enter into contracts, marry, drive, and vote -- at least for now
. And one wonders what problem is being solved by this legislation. What happens if the kid refuses to sign on to any plan that doesn't include a monthly trip to Disneyland?
Current statute says that "It is the policy of this state to:
(1) Assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interests of the child;
(2) Encourage such parents to share in the rights and responsibilities of raising their children after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage;
(3) Encourage parents to develop their own parenting plan with the assistance of legal and mediation professionals, if necessary;
(4) Grant parents and courts the widest discretion in developing a parenting plan;
(5) Consider the best interests of the child and the safety of the parties in developing a parenting plan.
To these, Neron proposes adding one more. "Ensure that parenting plans involving children who are 14 years of age or older reflect
the child’s wishes;" and, more significantly, "If the child is 14 years of age or older, a parenting plan under this section may not
be entered into or ordered without the consent of the child."
It's certainly understandable that a parenting plan should try to get some buy-in from the impacted child, but giving the child veto power seems like a bridge too far. Some might think that HB 2959
is an unnecessary wedge between a parent and a child, enforced by a state with a less-than-perfect track record caring for kids.
The bill has been assigned to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Law. It has not been scheduled for a hearing.
|Post Date: 2021-02-19 07:18:05||Last Update: 2021-02-18 20:27:37|
Read More Articles