Taking America Back One Bit At A Time – Part 4: The Taking of America Continued

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Parts 1, 2, and 3 of this series Taking America Back One Bit  At A Time can be found herehere, andhere.

The Taking of America continued

In Part 3, The Taking of America, we talked about how from day one there were those who wanted to manipulate our new government in wats that would benefit them financially; the practice of  cronyism began in earnest and powerful bankers also took advantage of the potential of America through their investments and very importantly they applied their influence to get our government to establish a national bank that they could control. We talked about how it took the bankers many years to finally get America to establish a central bank in 1913; the Federal Reserve. While these banking interest were reaping the rewards of their investments in America, they became very interested in what was going on in Russia with the Bolsheviks. They thought they saw a similar potential in this communist experiment in Russia as they did in the American experiment. They would help finance the Bolshevik revolution and they would invest in the new Russia.

To this humble observer, it appears that although the powerful banking interests made a lot of money from their investments in communist Russia, it did not turn out like they had hoped. They would not see the same benefits from state ownerdhip of the means of production that they did from America’s free market approach. However, they did see Marxism or, at least, socialism as a very useful tool for advancing their lust for wealth and power.

By coincidence or not, in the early 1900?s groups of true believers in the Marxist worker’s paradise looked upon the United States of America, the bastion of free market capitalism, and came to what would be very important conclusions that would be very important in the eventual demise of America. Groups like the Fabian Society and later the Frankfurt Schoolers and others would conclude two things. One, they would not defeat capitalism in America by force and two, they would not convince the American working class that they were being exploited by rich capitalists. The reason for the latter was that in spite of sweat shops, child labor, and women and blacks being treated like second and third class citizens the working class in American was seeing their standard of living improve rapidly due to the economic miracle that free market capitalism was enjoying in America. Therefore, they concluded that they would have to take the long view and take gown America bit by bit from within. To achieve their goals, they knew they would have to change the way Americans think and that meant they would have to dismantle the American culture. They set four principal goals for changing America’s culture: they would need to control the education of Americans, they would need to control the information that Americans received via media, they would need to control the culture through the entertainment industry, and they would need to break the influence of Christianity on America’s culture.  Parallel to all of this, they would need influence in the political arena. The message of compassion for the working class and the poor that they were selling would find eager buyers among America’s elite political class. They would have some very successes on the political front. Woodrow Wilson would be our first left leaning elitist president. Under the Wilson administration, the founding principles of America would be dramatically altered. Not only did the banking interest get their central bank, but the principle of state’s right took a nearly fatal blow when enough states ratify the 17th Amendment to electect Senators by popular vote instead of the states having the right to appoint their Senators. Also, under Wilson the federal government got the right to tax our income. The stage was set for our central government to grow in size and power. Our second left leaning elitest president was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who was the first to adopt the principle of never letting a crisis go to waste; Social Security was born out of the Great Depression. Eventually the socialist ideologues would take control of the Democratic Party. It may have been when Jimmy Carter was elected; a very ineffective president or certainly by the time Bill Clinton was elected who was very effective for them. Now we have the very left leaning Barack Obama who was just elected to a second term and we can’t deny how effective he has been to advancing the socialist agenda.

So, the question that is begging to be asked is how did some small groups of academic socialist thinkers have so much success? Was it because they were so dedicated to their near religious belief in their mission? Or, did they have a lot of financial help along the way? I certainly think they did. Have you ever asked yourself why huge foundations created from wealth amassed from the free market capitalist system; like the Rockerfeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Tides Foundation, and others support policies that are contrary to the way their founders amassed their fortunes? Why do  mega-rich people like David Rockerfeller, Maurice Strong, Warren Buffet, George Soros, and Bill Gates promote policies that would seem to be against everything their lives have been about? I think the answer is simple. These mega-rich and powerful people believe they became super rich and powerful because they are smarter and wiser than the rest of us lesser souls who inhabit this planet. And, because they believe they are smarter and wiser than everyone else, it is they who should decide how the world should work and what our minimal roles will be. This is where talk about one world order, one world government, and one world currency comes from.

So, here we are in December 2012. Barack Obama has just won a second term. We conservatives look forward with dread about what is to become of this country we love in the next few years and beyond. We believe that this last election was a fundamental game changer. We believe America has passed a tipping point and no matter what happens in the next few election cycles, America will continue to decline both economically and in its influence in the world (militarily) until the monetary house of cards that supports it collapses and leave us and most of the world in chaos. So, I regret to inform you, dear readers, that before we can get to the point of this frustrating;ly long around about way of the title of this seris of posts, we need to do one more thing. In Part 5, we will need to speculate about what we think is going to happen in the next four or five years and what we think mught happen in the next ten, fifteen, or twenty years. Then I promise you we will get into what we can be doing to help pave the way for an American Renaissance two or more generations down the road.

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

World Enemy No. 1: Maurice Strong?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

World Enemy No. 1 _ There is a lot of competition for that title. Some names that jump to mind are Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ban Ki-moon and, I’m sure you could add others  to the list. But, probably none have had more global impact of Maurice Strong. A self-proclaimed life long socialist, he is often refered to as the father of international environmentalism and the father of the global warming scare and the father of the UN’s Agenda 21 and its goal of “sustainable living”.

Let’s learn more about Maurice Strong. From this source we are told that he was born in a small town in Manitoba, Canada; a child of the Great Depression. In 1947, he took a job as a junior security officer at the UN offices in New York City. The following year, at the age of nineteen, Strong was hired as a trainee by a brokerage firm where he eventually became an oil specialist. He eventually took a job with Dome Petroleum and 1956 he set up his own firm, M.F. Strong Management.  By 1976 Strong was appointed to head Canada’s newly created national oil company, Petro-Canada and later he was named Chairman of  the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the holding company for some of Canada’s principal government-owned corporations.

So, how did this entrepeneur and businessman become a rabid environmentalist? From the same source linked above we learn:

In 1971, Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, entitled “Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet” [11] and co-authored byBarbara Ward and Rene Dubos.

From another source we are told :

… In 1972, Strong was the secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden. Later, he was executive director of the UN Environmental Program.

He has had other positions of influence at the United Nations, including “commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development, set up as an independent body by the United Nations in 1983? and senior adviser to secretary-general Kofi Annan.

Here are some quotes of Maurice Strong taken from Key.Wiki:

  • “[I am] a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology
  • “[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening theUnited Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.”
  • “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”
  • “Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”

Are you beginning to see why I see this man as so dangerous? Strong is now 82 years  of age and he is not done with us yet. This story from Fox News brings ys up to date.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Maurice Strong, the godfather of global environmentalism and organizer of the  United Nations’ 1992 Rio environmental Earth Summit, is making a quiet comeback  to the limelight on the eve of that meeting’s successor, the Rio + 20 summit on  “sustainable development,” which starts June 20 in Brazil.

[…]

His appearance at Rio + 20  is also the latest stage in a Long March  through controversy that has kept Strong, a native Canadian who is widely deemed  to be one of the key instigators of the global environmental movement, living a  low-profile life in China for the past half-decade.

[…]

Nonetheless, on Monday evening, Strong was introduced as a “very special guest  of honor” at a “Corporate Sustainability Forum” organized by the U.N. Global  Compact, a corporate group that has signed onto a variety of U.N. social and  development goals. In a brief address, Strong lauded the assembled executives as  “the most important meeting of Rio + 20,” and noted the number of corporate  representatives attending from “the country where I live, which is called  China.”

“If we are going to achieve the world we want, and not just the world we are  going to get if we stay on the same course, it’s got to be led by the business  community,” he said. “The real actors, the people who are going to make the  change are the people in this room.”

I have no doubt that the corporations attending the Rio +20 summit see ways to make a tonne of money at the expense of all mankind. Here is one more Strong quote from the Fox News story:

“Rio+20 must reinforce international efforts to reach agreement and renewal of  the Climate Change Convention and its implementation,” he declared.

Yes, I do think that Maurice Strong could be one of the world’s most dangreous men.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Covert Operations of the UN’s Agenda 21 and Their Agents for Sustainable Development

Share

What is Agenda 21 and what is Sustainable Development? If you don’t know, then welcome to the club. I was only recently made aware of what they are by Cheryl Pass of the My Tea Party Chronicle blog. Cheryl has written three recent articles on this subject that are, in my opinion, must reading.  One was written on March 5, 2011, one on March 6, 2011 and. the most recent article was written on March 8, 2011. Apart from being typically well written, there are numerous useful links, which give the reader a chance to  take a mind opening journey of what for most people is an unknown and un-heard of world of deceit and deception. For me it has become a long journey that I am purposely taking in small steps.

From Cheryl’s March 5 article we have this brief introduction to Agenda 21:

Briefly, Agenda 21, which debuted in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, is a United Nations action plan for worldwide environment and development. It is a comprehensive blueprint for actions to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by governments and organizations connected to the United Nations in every area where “humans affect the environment.” (Funny, I can’t think of a human life that does not have any affect on the environment, so that pretty much covers every living, breathing human being on the planet.) The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created Agenda 21 with someone called Maurice Strong as the primary author. (Please research Maurice Strong, also.) Because Agenda 21 is an anti-private property rights agenda and would likely bring about resistance from Constitutional. freedom-loving Americans, the initiatives now carry lots of utopian sounding names such as: Smart Growth, Sustainable Development, Lands Conservancies, Greenways, Livable Communities, etc.

From Wikipedia we have this description of Sustainable Development:

Sustainable development (SD) is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come (sometimes taught as ELF-Environment, Local people, Future). The term was used by the Brundtland Commission which coined what has become the most often-quoted definition of sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[1][2]

Sustainable development ties together concern for the carrying capacity ofnatural systems with the social challenges facing humanity. As early as the 1970s “sustainability” was employed to describe an economy “in equilibrium with basic ecological support systems.”[3] Ecologists have pointed to The Limits to Growth,[citation needed] and presented the alternative of a “steady state economy[4] in order to address environmental concerns.

The field of sustainable development can be conceptually broken into three constituent parts: environmentalsustainabilityeconomic sustainability andsociopolitical sustainability.

And from another source we have this on Sustainable Development:

Here’s what Maurice Strong, socialist, senior adviser to the Commission on Global Governance and driving force behind the concept of “sustainability”, said when introducing the term at the 1992 Rio Conference (Earth Summit II):  Industrialized countries [Americans] have “developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma.  It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption pattern of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning and suburban housing – are not sustainable.  A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”  Strong also explains in an essay that the concept of sovereignty has to yield in favor of the “new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.

So what is it that the UN and their environmental wackos want from countries like the United States? They want to drastically reduce the impact of the human race on the planet , specially in the developed countries and they want to make all people equal (wealth redistribution). I’m not kidding. Look a this article by Donna J. Holt at RightSideNews.Com.  Donna presents a detailed history of Sustainable development and Agenda 21 going back to 1974. But for now, just take a look at this map and what it implies:

Note: The ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty, Agenda 21, was never voted on by Senate after Dr. Michael Coffman presented this map of the proposed development of the “wildlands” under Agenda 21 in the United States.

 

The areas you see in red represents wilderness reserves which will be off-limits to humans. Areas in yellow represents highly regulated buffer zones where human existence will be greatly restricted. The areas in green represent zones for normal use of high density mixed use urban areas. This is where you’ll be allowed to live.

Six months after his inauguration, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #12852 which created the President’s Council On Sustainable Development on June 29 1993.

The Council’s Membership included:

• Twelve Cabinet-level Federal Officials
• Jonathan Lash, Pres. World Resources Institute
• John Adams, Ex. Dir. National Resources Defense Council
• Dianne Dillon-Ridgley, Pres. Zero Population
• Michelle Perrault, International V.P., Sierra Club
• John C. Sawhill, Pres. The Nature Conservancy
• Jay D. Hair, Pres. World Conservation Union (IUCN)
• Kenneth L. Lay, CEO, Enron Corporation
• William D. Ruckelshaus, Chm., Browning-Ferris Industries & former EPA Administrator

Their purpose was to translate the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government. They created the American version of Agenda 21 called “Sustainable America – A New Consensus”.

In Cheryl’s article of March 6, you’ll learn just what “A New Consensus” means. How environmental groups and NGOs are using Federal grants to convince local governments that there is a consensus in their community that support the recommended project where in fact there is no such consensus. Ever hear of The Delphi Technique? Check it out and learn how to defend you community against this cancer.

This post is already long and I’ve only been able to give you a broad brush picture of what Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is about. Please bear with me because I’m about to make it much longer by reprinting an entire article from the March 2010 Idaho Observer by Anne Wilder Chamberlain. I think if you will take the time to read this piece it will clarify what so many of our communities and for that matter are country are up against. Pay special attention to the missions of the various groups involved.  I’ll look forward to your thoughts on Sustainable Development. In the future I will make post on this issue of more reasonable length. This is an important issue and I think it deserves the attention of the blogosphere.

Smart Growth and Your Local University:“Building Sustainable Communities Initiative”

by Anne Wilder Chamberlain

The sleepy little (ex)-timber community of Priest River, Idaho, lies in the northern part of the Idaho Panhandle – a designated “red zone” in the Wildlands Project and in the very heart of the Y2Y corridor (see “Yukon to Yellowstone,” Jan. 2010 I.O.). This town of approximately 2000 has been devastated by governmental regulations on harvesting timber from its forest service land as well as the drop in the market due to the national housing collapse. Over 500 timber workers and support lost their jobs in the last year. So with a promise of $168,000 in U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Agriculture grants towards eco-development of the town, local government paid $10,900 to the University of Idaho Bioregional Planning Department – for the second time – to be the recipient of its Building Sustainable Communities Initiative (BCSI) “brainstorming sessions.” The meetings are facilitated by professionals to help in Priest River’s “visioning process.” However, so far the meetings have not included brainstorming sessions on how to create jobs.

The BCSI program is supported in part by the Idaho Department of Commerce, the Idaho Department of Labor, the Resilience Alliance, the American Planning Association (APA), and Second Nature.

APA states on its website that “among the highlights of the Obama administration’s FY 2011 budget request are: $4 billion for a new National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund; $527 million for new sustainable communities initiatives at the Department of Transportation; $150 million for HUD’s (Housing and Urban Development) sustainable communities grant program; $250 million for the new Choice Neighborhoods program at HUD; $10 million for smart growth technical assistance at EPA; $1 billion for the Housing Trust Fund; …and a near doubling of funding at HUD for research and technical assistance,” along with over $1.2 billion in other HUD and transportation grants funded by you, the taxpayer.

Second Nature’s mission is “to accelerate movement toward a sustainable future by serving and supporting senior college and university leaders in making…sustainable living the foundation of all learning” in higher education “by modeling ways to eliminate global warming emissions.”

It is funded by the Kresge Foundation, a $2.8 billion private foundation that in 2008 awarded 342 grants totaling $181 million “to influence the quality of life for future generations.”

Smart Growth and the Wildlands Project: Humans will be caged, while animals run free

The Wildlands Project is the plan to eliminate human presence on “at least 50 percent of the American landscape,” wrote Reed Noss, Science Editor for Wild Earth, the Wildlands Project publication.

On March 3, Obama identified 14 pieces of land for another federal unilateral land grab – more than 10 million acres in the Western U.S. – to place under the “protection” of the Department of the Interior. The federal government already owns approximately 650 million acres nationwide, including about 80% of Nevada and 63% of Utah. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) pointed out the loss from this land grab of jobs in ranching, forestry, mining, and energy development and the related loss of tax revenue needed for schools, firehouses etc., and proposed a constitutional amendment to block it (defeated 58 to 38).

Sustainable Development is the plan to accomplish global control, using land and resource restrictions as well as “social transformation through education”. The transfer of land from citizen control to government control makes it easy for government and its partners – Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), certain foundations, and certain corporations – to control what we have, what we do, and where we go. The transformation of free societies into collectivized ones ensures the presence of a ruling elite, which, by definition, excludes all but a very select few.

The land use element calls for the implementation of two action plans designed to eliminate private property: the Wildlands Project and Smart Growth. Upon implementation of these plans, all human activity is subject to control.

The Wildlands Project (see Dec 2009 I.O.) seeks to collectivize all natural resources – like water – and centralize all use decisions under government direction. Tools include the Endangered Species Act, various “conservation easements,” growth management plans, and direct land acquisitions.

The Wildlands Project is inextricably tied to its urban counterpart, Smart Growth. As human beings become barred from rural land (and lose their property due to foreclosure), human activity will be concentrated in urban areas. Through taxpayer-subsidized Smart Growth complexes, the infrastructure is being created for a post-private property era. Sometimes called “comprehensive planning,” Smart Growth is the centralized control of every aspect of urban life: energy and water use, population control, public health and diet, resources and recycling, “social justice” and education, toxic technology and waste management, transportation, and economic activity.

A typical day in the Orwellian society created by Smart Growth would consist of an individual waking up in his government-provided housing unit, eating a ration of government-subsidized foods purchased at a government-sanctioned grocery store, walking his children to the government-run child care center, and boarding government-subsidized public transit to go to his government job.

Smart Growth policies:

  • A transportation plan that reduces mobility and forces people to live near their work in heavily-regulated feudalistic “transit villages.”
  • Tax-subsidized, government-controlled, mixed-use developments called “human settlements,” like developments in Portland, Oregon where the lure of paying as little as $150 per year in taxes on properties valued at $1.5 million has led to high occupancy.
  • Settlements distinguished from one another by how useful the citizens are for society. The Smart Growth plan for Richland County, SC, distinguishes between “employment-based villages,” and “non-employment-based villages,” with special gated communities for the wealthy individuals overseeing the plan, and “non-employment” villages located in former slums.
  • Heavy restrictions on most development with the exception of that constructed and managed by government “partners” where extremely dense development is promoted.
  • Rations on public services such as health care, drinking water, and energy resources. According to the Global Water Supply and Assessment Report (2000), reasonable access to water in urban areas is defined as “the availability of 20 litres per capita per day at a distance no longer than 1,000 metres.”

The Talloires Conference

In 1990 representatives from universities around the world, including the University of Idaho, met in Talloires, France and signed the Talloires Declaration, a ten-point action plan for colleges and universities committed to promoting education for sustainability and environmental literacy.

The conference was organized and hosted by Tufts University President Jean Mayer and sponsored by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. After a keynote address by Maurice Strong, secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (June 1992), the universities developed their series of recommended actions. As university leaders, they were considered uniquely positioned as “universities educate most of the people who develop and manage society’s institutions.”

The Talloires Declaration “inspired other such official declarations” including the Kyoto Declaration of the International Association of Universities (11/93) and the Student Charter for a Sustainable Future (United Kingdom, 7/95).

As of January 2008, the Talloires Declaration has been signed by more than 360 university presidents and chancellors at institutions in over 40 countries across five continents.

Visioning and Stakeholder Councils In local communities, such as those in North Idaho, Sustainable Development is carried out using stakeholder councils: events organized to give community members a “stake” in the control over some local project. A typical meeting is run by a trained “facilitator,” whose job is, not to make sure all views are entered on the record, but rather, to guide the group to a predetermined consensus. The Agenda 21 advocates systematically promote their own ideas and marginalize any opposition, particularly that of individuals who advocate the freedom to use and enjoy private property. The facilitator will record “good” ideas and allow criticism for “bad” ones.The result of the stakeholder council is called a “consensus” or “vision statement”, and is typically approved by local governments without question, requiring citizens to submit to the questionable conclusions of a non-elected authority that is not accountable to the voters and may not even be from the region.“Visioning” events are generally initiated by local public officials, local or regional NGOs, or by the United Nations co-opted higher education system. It is important to remember that the same universities that are offering “sustainability” events have biotech labs that artificially manipulate seed for the financial benefit of large conscienceless corporations like Monsanto. Participating Departments of the Univ. of Idaho BCSI include the College of Agricultural & Life Sciences, of which the Univ. of Idaho Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering is a part. Biological (i.e. genetic) engineering manipulates seeds to withstand large amounts of highly toxic herbicides; to kill insects and change the bacteria in our gut; and to be unable to self-replicate, thereby destroying the sustainability of small communities and farmers worldwide.

Land rights

The good news is that the “visioning process” doesn’t always work. One Sustainable Development stakeholder meeting in Greenville, SC was adjourned with the admission by the facilitator that they had not reached the consensus needed to support the predetermined plan. It goes to show that if attendees are aware of UN methods and are definite in protecting their rights, these plans will fail.

[See how to break “The Delphi Technique”, Jan. 2010 I.O.]

Pete Simmons, property rights lawyer from the State of Washington went up against his county’s application of Washington State’s Growth Management Act (GMA), which “requires all cities and counties in the state to designate and protect wetlands…and other critical areas…, plan for urban growth, [and] …adopt comprehensive plans.” He succeeded by studying the State Constitution, which reads, “All political power is inherent in the people…the purpose of government is to protect and maintain individual rights.”

Today the Stevens County Comprehensive Plan holds “private property rights free from intermeddling by outside government and interest groups.”

Conclusion

Sustainable Development advocates are often unaware that the natural consequence of their environmental, social equity, and “new economy” movement is tyranny. If we understand the threat and face the challenge squarely, the deceptive fraud of Sustainable Development will come to light.

We must:

  • Respect each other; the road to liberty requires a conscious decision to defend our neighbor’s right to life, liberty and the use and enjoyment of his property.
  • Know the Declaration of Independence and our State Constitution – the principles of our Republic – and commit to securing the blessings of liberty for posterity.
  • Work to eliminate harmful indoctrination in schools by taking charge of our children’s education.
  • Advocate Freedom Locally: Hold elected officials accountable to the Constitution that is being undermined by federally coordinated grants; awaken genuine free-enterprise business people to the threat posed by United Nations-sponsored “Sustainability.”
  • Reject government-funded conservation agreements: i.e. federal, NGO, or foundation grants, and ‘comprehensive’, ‘community’, Smart Growth, or Wildlands planning.
  • Support the repeal of the Endangered Species Act
  • Expose NGOs that are working to undermine the American vision by promoting a global political agenda that is contrary to the ideas of liberty. The information regarding Agenda 21 and “Educating the Youth” are excerpted from Mike Shaw’s booklets, Understanding Sustainable Development Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, Global to Local Action Plans, available for $3.00 each from Freedom Advocates, P.O. Box 3330, Freedom, Calif. 95019 (831) 685-2232www.freedomadvocates.org

Original Post: Conservatives on Fire

Share