AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Also: no government and no law other than God's law existed in the times of Leviticus. What he wrote was the law, straight from God's mouth. When God mandated to give to the poor, that was not some vague hint that, you know, you might want to consider to maybe give something to charity. Privately. Nope. It was the law to give to the poor, at the expense of those who had more.

Leviticus 19,9-10: Redistribution of wealth, mandated by the law.

The Lord expects us to not withhold benevolence it is true. Every even somewhat orthodox Jew and every committed Christian believes that. What you are overlooking however is that the command was not to turn over to somebody else the ability to determine who should be able to harvest those edges or pick up the gleanings and distribute them. I suspect even the writers of Leviticus knew what a corrupting influence such a thing could be.

1 Reply

Fox's basic thesis here, since she trotted out the Leviticus BS, has been that individuals should care for the poor and not the government. In her post #3644120:

Fox wrote:

In the posted essay, Medved is pointing out that there is nothing in the Old or New Testament that suggests that it is the role of government to minister to the poor but rather, for very good reasons, that it is the duty of the individual. It is the duty of government to dispense unbiased justice which is not possible if the government assumes responsibility to dispense charity.

She took an opportunity to sideswipe atheists by asking how much atheist organizations give to the poor. That's a red herring, though. Leaving aside the undeniable fact that all atheists constitute a tiny fraction of the number of all people reporting a religious affiliation, the real question should be what exactly religious people contribute to charity, and whether or not it could reasonably be expected to deal with poverty. All of the atheists in the country could contribute every penny of their disposable income, to the point of crippling their personal domestic economies, and it would be a drop in the bucket. But the religious are certainly not going to fill the bucket, either.

In 1996, a Democratic President and a Republican Congress passed the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Since that bill passed, until two years ago, welfare rolls dropped by 60% and family income in families earning 125% of the poverty line or less increased by 35%. But it still ain't chicken feed. The total cost of Medicaid in the 1997 Federal budget was estimated in excess of $105,000,000,000 (that's 105 billion dollars for those who don't do the zeroes). Housing assistance was estimated in excess of $25,000,000,000. Food and nutrition assistance was estimated in excess of $37,000,000,000. Total Public Assistance programs was estimated in excess of $68,000,000,000. For anyone who finds math difficult, that's well in excess of $200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars). The source for this is the Government Printing Office, Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1997, pages 171-192 (which covers historical data from 1940 through the projections for Fiscal Year 2002). Let's hope this link works, but if not, it can be found by the same path i used via the Government Printing Office. Source at the Government Printing Office, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President of the United States. (That is a search result page, so it might not work for you. I'll test it after i make this post. If you do get to that page, look at the fourth result, "OUTLAYS FOR PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS BY CATEGORY AND MAJOR PROGRAM: 1940-2002," which you can view as a text document or a PDF document.)

So, that's in excess of $200 billion dollars in Federal direct payments and block grants (both categories are included in the totals given) for FY1997. This is interesting because, according to an article from The American Journal of Economics and Sociology published in July, 2004, Americans claimed almost $100 billion in charitable donations in 1997. (Source, page six of the article, which contains the tables at the end of the article.) That's considerably less than half, and the article i have cited and linked here is concerned with a distinction between religious charitable contributions and non-religious charitable contributions. Now, even if assuming for the sake of argument, as much as 90% of that charitable giving were by religious people, and leaving aside the fact that you can donate to the church building fund and claim it as a charitable contribution, that wouldn't add up to even half of the amount spent by the Federal government on "welfare" programs in Fiscal Year 1997. It would not cover one red cent of the money spent by county and municipal governments, who are not the direct recipients of Federal block grants, unless the states in which they are located are feeling generous. When i worked in the "charity industry" in Columbus, Ohio, in the late 1980s, a recipient of public assistance would get money from AFDC which represented Federal and state money, including food stamps, WIC, etc.; they were also eligible for assistance from Franklin County and the city of Columbus; they were also eligible for direct grants in aid from the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, which would pay almost their entire rent bill, except for about $80 per month.

Yet Fox would have you believe that the loving, giving Christians of this country could take up the slack of the well over $100 billion difference between the outlay of the Federal government and the total charitable contributions claimed by taxpayers, as well as making up state expenditures which don't come from Federal block grants, and the expenditures of county and municipal governments. At this point, i will point out that religious charitable contributions doesn't even come close to 90% of that less than $100 billion, and in fact, the article cited and linked lists religious charitable contributions for 1997 as being just over $465 million out of a total of just under $750 million of charitable contributions claimed. Even if you ignore that people can donate to the church building fund (which doesn't feed, house or clothe a single poor child) and claim a charitable contribution, those figures show that in 1997, religious charitable contributions amounted to about 20% of the amount expended by the Federal government on "welfare" payments in all categories. Once again, this doesn't include state payments which did not come from Federal block grants, and does not include payments by counties and municipalities.

In short, the claim by Fox that individuals should take care of the poor and not the goverment is tantamount to a 21st century cry of "Qu'ils mangent de la croute." (For the linguistically and historically challenged, that is usually translated--badly--as "Let them eat cake.") There is no way in Hell, or Heaven, for that matter, that we could rely upon frigid Christian charity to take care of the poor in this country, and i rather suspect that Fox and her ilk would be content to see them starve and wander homeless and naked--so long, of course, as don't wander into her neighborhood.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Nope. But Medved is probably more conservative than you are, and he is doing a better job of interpretation than you are for whatever that might mean.

I disagree. I claim that he is doing a worse job of interpretation. See how easy that is? Yet pointless.

I am truly stunned, that you would claim that the Judicial branch of government is not co-equal to the other two. Stunning. The Rule of Law is the foundation of our society and the basis of the freedoms we enjoy. To claim that the group tasked with interpreting and enforcing those laws is subordinate to the other branches is sort of laughable. It is not subordinate to the other branches. And the other two branches seem to agree with this; you will note a marked tendency on the part of the Exec and Legislative branches to respect the power of the Judicial branch.

The intention of the founding fathers is as easy to argue about - to interpret - as your claim that Medved is doing a better job interpreting scripture. It is not clear what the founding fathers meant and many issues could not have been foreseen by them at the time. The Judiciary branch plays a clear role in transmitting the wisdom of our founding document to the everyday lives of Americans. To you and others, however, this is 'judicial activism'; though I note you very and others rarely make that argument when the decision is one that favors Conservative causes.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

OK, as i suspected, the link to the search results page won't work. Try this page. When you get there, select Budget of the US FY1997, then type "welfare" in the search window. The information i have cited comes from the fourth search result, which i have cited above.

0 Replies

@A Lone Voice,

Hey man,

You should really look into this thing we call 'paragraphs.' It's when you put sentences together without spaces between! I know it's a relatively recent invention, and you may not have been fully taught how to make them before you dropped out of school, but I guarantee that it will improve the quality of your posting in every way.

Quote:

I'm much too busy, working and such, to spend anymore time with you if you are not going to respond in a logical manner.

No, you're not, or you wouldn't even bother writing back. I love when people say stuff like this.

Quote:

So anyway, last chance. Address the points and issues I raised, or I'm going to move on...

Oh no! Don't move on! Whatever will Deb do if that happens?

Rolling Eyes

Try not to be such a tool all the time.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

If the Justice Department is coequal with the other two branches of government, then why can't it make an executive order? Veto a bill? Deploy a company of the Army? Introduce legislation?

If Congress is coequal with Justice, why can't it simply take a vote to declare a law constitutional or unconstitutional? If there is equality than why don't Justices have to be elected or reappointed after they have served a term? Or why don't legislators or presidents have lifetime jobs?

Each has its own powers that cannot be usurped by the other powers, but each has an entirely different function. No one is equal with any other in what it is authorized to do.

Quote:

Main Entry: EQUAL
1 a (1): of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2): identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent b: like in quality, nature, or status c: like for each member of a group, class, or society

2: regarding or affecting all objects in the same way

To describe the branches of government as 'equal', you might as well describe the repair shop, business office, and sales department of an auto dealership as all equal. Equal in importance to the whole, perhaps. But equal in function and authority? No.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

What you are overlooking however is that the command was not to turn over to somebody else the ability to determine who should be able to harvest those edges or pick up the gleanings and distribute them. I suspect even the writers of Leviticus knew what a corrupting influence such a thing could be.

No, it's not up to somebody else to determine who should reap the corners of thy field, gather the gleanings of thy harvest or gather every grape of thy vineyard, because the LORD your God says that those belong to the poor and the stranger.

Of course, not having God telling us that the poor and the stranger should get a share of our income or what that share should look like, we usually rely on the government to fill that role.

I guess you have a better idea?

2 Replies

@old europe,

Yes. The farmer in Leviticus remained in charge and control of his field and he was who allowed or authorized the poor to harvest the perimeters and do the gleaning. No one else had authority to do that for him unless he assigned permission to someone to act on his behalf. That was much different than a governing authority forcibly confiscating that grain or whatever and choosing who they would then give it to.

Again, when the government depends on the poor or specially'victimized' groups to provide the votes to keep it in power, and is given authority to confiscate the property of others and give to such groups to win their favor, what incentive is there for government to help those groups to become prosperous and/or non victimized? And what justice is there for those who have their property confiscated?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

If the Justice Department is coequal with the other two branches of government, then why can't it make an executive order?

Probably because the Justice Department is not a branch of government, but part of the Executive branch.

Let's assume however that you mean the Judicial branch. It cannot do the things you list because of the concept of Separation of Powers. Remember that old thing? Yet; this does not mean that the Judicial branch is without it's own powerful abilities, including the ability to judge whether or not decisions made by the other branches are consistent with our Law.

Quote:

If Congress is coequal with Justice, why can't it simply take a vote to declare a law constitutional or unconstitutional?

Um. Really? It can. We call this Amending the Constitution. Two-thirds of both houses have to approve the change, which is then sent to the state legislatures for approval. See here -

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

I should not have to explain the basics of our governmental system to ya Fox, that's two errors so far this post.

Quote:

If there is equality than why don't Justices have to be elected or reappointed after they have served a term? Or why don't legislators or presidents have lifetime jobs?

Impartiality is far more important for Judges than any other group of our body politic. Lifetime terms for SC judges help remove any temptation to be swayed by bribes, etc...

Quote:

Each has its own powers that cannot be usurped by the other powers, but each has an entirely different function. No one is equal with any other in what it is authorized to do.

True, but that does not mean they are not co-equal branches of government, each with their own special powers in their own place. And history has shown that all three branches do a pretty good job utilizing their power to mold the future of our society.

Quote:

To describe the branches of government as 'equal', you might as well describe the repair shop, business office, and sales department of an auto dealership as all equal. Equal in importance to the whole, perhaps. But equal in function and authority? No.

Equal in function and authority? Yes, of course they are, even in your example! All three that you listed answer to the bosses of the dealership. The corollary to that is the body Politic of our nation, ie., the citizens. All of those parts of the business are necessary for the healthy business to survive; it is fair to say that the dealership needs sales, business office, and repair shop to maintain their integrity as a dealership. It is the exact same with our government; all three branches are equally subordinate to the American People, and none is subordinate to each other.

I think you are pretty wrong on this issue and should reconsider your argument; perhaps you could formulate it better.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@old europe,

Also, what about that story about the loaves and fishes? Wasn't it to feed the multitudes?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments. Once confirmed they are subordinate to nobody and can be removed only by dying, resigning, or through impeachment by the House of Representative and conviction by the Senate. It was the original Constitutional intent that the Court not be subject to influence or authority of Congress, the Executive Branch, or the people but rather be subject only to proper interpretaton of the letter of the law.

In the entire history of the court there has been one impeachment and no convictions.

The only authority Congress has over the Court is that it does have to confirm appointees and it can increase or decrease the size of the Court though it cannot decrease the size unless there are vacancies. It would be possible for Congress to manipulate the ideology of the Court by increasing or decreasing the size, however, which is another good argument for justices who focus on law rather than ideology to be appointment.

Consider the Court coequal with the other two branches of government if you wish. But that is not how I or anybody else defines equality. (P.S. the ONLY division of a dealership that is an absolutely necessity is the sales department. The other two divisions can be farmed out and some dealerships do when it is more profitable to do so. I can assure you they are not coequal in any sense. A service manager in no way has the authority or makes the money that the sales manager does.)

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments. Once confirmed they are subordinate to nobody and can be removed only by dying, resigning, or through impeachment by the House of Representative and conviction by the Senate. It was the original Constitutional intent that the Court not be subject to influence or authority of Congress, the Executive Branch, or the people but rather be subject only to proper interpretaton of the letter of the law.

In the entire history of the court there has been one impeachment and no convictions.

The only authority Congress has over the Court is that it does have to confirm appointees and it can increase or decrease the size of the Court though it cannot decrease the size unless there are vacancies. It would be possible for Congress to manipulate the ideology of the Court by increasing or decreasing the size, however, which is another good argument for justice who focus on law rather than ideology to be appointment.

None of this is relevant to what we have been talking about. You have avoided discussing the areas in which I showed you to be incorrect, and instead have substituted a few paragraphs discussing the history of the Supreme Court.

The SC is but one aspect of the Judicial Branch. I think it's pretty clear that you didn't consider Separation of Powers before making the post preceding this one, and also clear that you have not shown the Judicial Branch to be subordinate to the other two branches in any fashion; therefore, your original contention has been shown to be untrue.

Quote:

Consider the Court coequal with the other two branches of government if you wish. But that is not how I or anybody else defines equality.

Thanks, I will. But, on the contrary, that is how we define equality - equal in terms of power even if the powers themselves are not equal. Just as two people should be equal in terms of rights, even though the aspects of their lives are different.

Quote:

(P.S. the ONLY division of a dealership that is an absolutely necessity is the sales department. The other two divisions can be farmed out and some dealerships do when it is more profitable to do so. I can assure you they are not coequal in any sense. A service manager in no way has the authority or makes the money that the sales manager does.)

You are 100% incorrect. Laughably so. Tell me, who does the paperwork for the sales department? Who balances the books? Who pays vendors who stock the dealership with coffee in the breakroom? Who pays the janitor? Who ensures employees get paid? Who ensures taxes are paid? Not the sales department. Perhaps you could tell us who performs these business functions, Fox.

It is a dodge to say that 'farming out' can occur. It's the same thing as saying these departments are part of the business. It does not matter what business entity is running the department. The business cannot be run without people doing that work, and those farmed-out aspects STILL answer to the owners of the overall business.

And it wrecks the analogy, as our gov't obviously cannot farm out our governance to outside authorities - unless your opinion on the UN is far different than I suspect?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The only thing absolutely true is that you don't read carefully, but I have been guilty of misreading things from time to time too. It is probably true that you are grasping at straws to avoid admitting any point I've made. But your opinion is noted. I believe I have effectively rebutted each point so won't repeat the rebuttals. You most likely wouldn't agree the second time around either. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The only thing absolutely true is that you don't read carefully, but I have been guilty of misreading things from time to time too. It is probably true that you are grasping at straws to avoid admitting any point I've made. But your opinion is noted. I believe I have effectively rebutted each point so won't repeat the rebuttals. You most likely wouldn't agree the second time around either. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

First, I'd like you to admit your numerous errors which I corrected two posts ago, starting with the fact that the Justice Department is not a branch of government and continuing with your admission of understanding of the Leg's ability to declare things Constitutional.

It is difficult to me to see how you could drop those two points and still claim to have effectively rebutted every point I raised. You didn't address them at all; you ignored them. That's not an effective rebuttal. I've judged debate for years and you would have gotten dinged big time for dropping that stuff.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes. The farmer in Leviticus remained in charge and control of his field and he was who allowed or authorized the poor to harvest the perimeters and do the gleaning. No one else had authority to do that for him unless he assigned permission to someone to act on his behalf. That was much different than a governing authority forcibly confiscating that grain or whatever and choosing who they would then give it to.

Okay. How would you translate that into contemporary legislation? Everybody has to leave a certain percentage of the money he earns on his bank account and allow strangers and poor people to withdraw that money?

Seriously - if there's a mandate to give a certain percentage of money to the poor, what do you propose that would completely eliminate the government?

Foxfyre wrote:

Again, when the government depends on the poor or specially'victimized' groups to provide the votes to keep it in power, and is given authority to confiscate the property of others and give to such groups to win their favor, what incentive is there for government to help those groups to become prosperous and/or non victimized?

Ah. The government only creates a social safety net to keep the poor poor, because those people are a constituency that can be depended upon to vote again and again for the same politicians who didn't manage to get them into proper jobs and earn real money.

Rolling Eyes

Foxfyre wrote:

And what justice is there for those who have their property confiscated?

Hey, look, God prohibited gathering every grape of thy vineyard, too. What's the justice in that?

2 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:

And what justice is there for those who have their property confiscated?

Foxie still doesn't understand how our Constitution and government works. "For the general welfare" includes "all" Americans. The property of the wealthy are protected from invasion from other countries which cost this country untold trillions of dollars; they are the biggest beneficiaries of our military in protecting "their" property. Poor people who don't even own their own property still must pay taxes. Their one-sided vision of protecting the wealthy is not only ignorant but misdirected. They don't need the advocacy of Foxie et al, they can fend for themselves; they have the best tax accountants and attorneys.

It's never a matter of transferring wealth from the rich to the poor; it's about security for all citizens of this country. They seem oblivious to the obvious. Security is not about rich or poor, it's about security for everybody we call Americans.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Yes. The farmer in Leviticus remained in charge and control of his field and he was who allowed or authorized the poor to harvest the perimeters and do the gleaning. No one else had authority to do that for him unless he assigned permission to someone to act on his behalf. That was much different than a governing authority forcibly confiscating that grain or whatever and choosing who they would then give it to.

Okay. How would you translate that into contemporary legislation? Everybody has to leave a certain percentage of the money he earns on his bank account and allow strangers and poor people to withdraw that money?

If it is true charity nobody HAS to do anything which was my whole point. The fact that some people of faith believe there is an obligation to not withhold benevolence is an entirely different thing altogether. When I worked for the Episcopalians, the Diocese presented a budget to the people so that they would know exactly how the money would be spent, and the people contributed toward that budget as their consciences inspired them to do so. Nobody went out and demanded a check from anybody.

I was the person designated to distribute most of the monies allocated for the poor, and I helped work with other social services to set up a community clearing house so that social agencies could send the needy to a central location rather than have the scam artists working the whole system. That pretty well ensured that it was the truly needy and not the scam artists who got help. But again, all monies contributed to that process were voluntary. Nobody came around to collect an arbitrarily assigned sum from anybody.

Quote:

Seriously - if there's a mandate to give a certain percentage of money to the poor, what do you propose that would completely eliminate the government?

It would be reasonable if there was a huge need such as a Katrina or massive fires in California or famine in Africa etc., that the government advertise the need and solicit donations to help and then distribute the contributions that came in. I am guessing that the response would be huge, not a single person's property would be confiscated without his permission, and future generations would have to pay off no debt as a result.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Again, when the government depends on the poor or specially'victimized' groups to provide the votes to keep it in power, and is given authority to confiscate the property of others and give to such groups to win their favor, what incentive is there for government to help those groups to become prosperous and/or non victimized?

Ah. The government only creates a social safety net to keep the poor poor, because those people are a constituency that can be depended upon to vote again and again for the same politicians who didn't manage to get them into proper jobs and earn real money.

It certainly looks to me that there is little other explanation despite how many eye rolls you put in. Otherwise we wouldn't have decades of history of doing the same old things over and over and pacifying the people with the same old rhetoric when there are little or no results other than more poverty and/or more misery to show for the effort.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And what justice is there for those who have their property confiscated?

Hey, look, God prohibited gathering every grape of thy vineyard, too. What's the justice in that?

But God isn't collecting the grapes is he? He teaches the people what the right thing is to do and then leaves it to them to get it done. So where is the injustice in that?

So again, I ask you. How is it just to forcibly take from those who legally and ethically acquired it and give it to those who did not? Don't change the subject. Don't build a straw man argument. Don't divert with a non sequitur. Don't rewrite the question. Please just answer the question.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

It certainly looks to me that there is little other explanation despite how many eye rolls you put in. Otherwise we wouldn't have decades of history of doing the same old things over and over and pacifying the people with the same old rhetoric when there are little or no results other than more poverty and/or more misery to show for the effort.

Since you think that charity would work better without the government Fox, explain why poverty was 31.1% of the population prior to the government getting involved and is currently about half of what it was before?

You keep claiming "MORE poverty" in spite of the clear facts to the contrary.

When the facts don't fit your world view you just ignore them.

I posted a link to HOW poverty is calculated and you never did show us how it changed based on how it is calculated. Please do so or stop making your unsubstantiated claims about how poverty is worse today.

2 Replies

@parados,

I can easily explain it as Dr. Sowell did and as I responded when Cyclop asked the same question. Can you dispute Dr. Sowell's stated facts? He's done a lifetime of research on that stuff. Can you show any evidence that it was the war on poverty and not some other reason that has changed the statistics on poverty? Cyclop was honest enough to acknowledge that he didn't have such information and I respect that a lot. Do you? With more than six trillion dollars expended on the war on poverty so far, why is it that there is still any poverty at all?

0 Replies

http://s456.photobucket.com/albums/qq289/LindaBee_2008/th_TEAPARTY.jpg

NOTE: The Budget equals $11,300 for every American man, woman, and child.

Quote:

$3.4 Trillion Budget
Obama Proposes Saving $17 Billion by Cutting Programs (Update3)
By Roger Runningen and Brian Faler

May 7 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama urged Congress to cut almost $17 billion in programs, including tax breaks for oil and gas companies, while seeking an $81 billion increase for his domestic agenda.

In a 1,374-page document released today, Obama proposed abolishing preferential tax treatment for the two industries as part of a package of 121 federal programs the administration wants to eliminate or reduce.

Obama filled in the details of the budget outline the administration released Feb. 26 that has already been adopted by Congress. The new items are mainly areas where Obama is seeking cuts, which some lawmakers said weren’t enough to begin reducing a deficit that the Congressional Budget Office projects will reach $1.38 trillion in fiscal 2010, the second-highest ever.

“These savings, large and small, add up,” Obama said in remarks after the release of the budget documents. “And this is just one aspect of the budget reforms and savings we are seeking.” Obama repeated his pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term in 2012.

TARP Money

The budget maintains the $250 billion “placeholder” request made in February in case U.S. banks need a further cash infusion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, budget chief Peter Orszag said in a conference call with reporters. Overall, the budget seeks an $81 billion increase in spending, to $1.30 trillion for the domestic budget, the Congressional Budget Office said.

Unlike past years, the administration won’t release until May 11 its “analytical perspectives” or “historic tables” that help explain its spending decisions and put them in context.

Even with the proposed cuts amounting to only about one- half of 1 percent of the total budget, Obama is confronting resistance to them in Congress and from interest groups seeking to keep alive favored programs. Some of the proposed cuts, such as farm subsidies, already have been rejected by Congress. In 2008, then-President George W. Bush, working with a Democratic Congress, proposed ending or reducing 141 federal programs. Of those, 29 were terminated or trimmed for a savings of about $1.6 billion.

“None of this will be easy,” Obama said. “For every dollar we seek to save, there will be those who have an interest in seeing it spent.”

MORE HERE:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFoD4LsL9QPE&refer=worldwide

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know