Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dianahsieh

NYC Mosque: Respect Property Rights

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

If Iran invades and the government does nothing, what then? Do we have to wait until their soldiers trespass onto our property before we can fight back?

This is a ridiculous scenario on both accounts.

If imams with clear terrorist ties start building mosques unchallenged by the government, should we somehow intervene?

I have yet to see anyone argue against this.

The only thing anyone is asking for here is evidence, that is it. Nothing more and nothing less. I like that people continue to try and sideline the essential issue within the conversation however. If one is to bother to spend time doing this they should at least attempt to do it well, if that is even possible.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without government respecting property rights, no other rights are possible. It is only on the basis of property rights that the sphere and application of individual rights can be defined in any given social situation.

Rand wrote in the Textbook of Americanism:

Until there is concrete evidence of connection between the builders/owners/operators of the mosque with terrorist organizations - that kind of government intervention is a violation of property rights.

Face it, we all live in mixed economies and property rights have never been properly defended. Even without the Islamic intrusion western civilization was on a slow glide path to a new dark age. In principle, you already do not have rights recognized by the government. Especially in Canada with the speech codes and human rights kangaroo courts there.

Islam is a theocratic conspiracy to deprive everyone of their rights. The former World Trade Center towers is the site of a great victory in their struggle. The construction of a giant mosque nearby will be another victory. Good luck preserving your (ethical, inalienable) rights in the muslim influenced mixed economy of the future which you are aiding and abetting.

There is not something or someone above rights, but there is something prior to rights, ethical egoism. Don't quote Rand out of context to support an intrinsicist version of rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Islam is a theocratic conspiracy to deprive everyone of their rights.

Some of Islam

Yay, more evading the essential issue.

you already do not have rights recognized by the government

You cannot simply ignore the matter of degrees for the purpose of bolstering your position.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a ridiculous scenario on both accounts.

No, what is ridiculous is a hijacked commercial airliner being flown into a building in a major American city. Since that actually happened, nothing is ridiculous.

The only thing anyone is asking for here is evidence, that is it. Nothing more and nothing less. I like that people continue to try and sideline the essential issue within the conversation however. If one is to bother to spend time doing this they should at least attempt to do it well, if that is even possible.
You haven't been paying attention to the last ten years of evidence about the nature of Islam, why start now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, what is ridiculous is a hijacked commercial airliner being flown into a building in a major American city. Since that actually happened, nothing is ridiculous.

Iran invading us is not ridiculous? The suggestion that our American government would just sit on its ass up until the point when Iranian soldiers (bahahah)are knocking on our neighbors front doors is not ridiculous? The airliner being flown into a building in a major American city was not ridiculous. That is why we had scenarios for it. We have precidence for terrorist attacks on American soil. We have precedence for a thing called blow-back.

You haven't been paying attention to the last ten years of evidence about the nature of Islam, why start now?

You're right, fuck context completely. Fuck all of it. Lets just round up every brown assed American in the country, bring him into a dim lighted room, and make him tell us if he is a Muslim and make him tell us if he has had even the slightest inkling to interpret his book in a slightly radical way. The ones that say they did, lets just chop their heads off.

You are in the wrong country friend. In THIS country we need EVIDENCE before we can do shit to people. Rand must be seizurically convulsing in her grave. jesus.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Face it, we all live in mixed economies and property rights have never been properly defended. Even without the Islamic intrusion western civilization was on a slow glide path to a new dark age. In principle, you already do not have rights recognized by the government. Especially in Canada with the speech codes and human rights kangaroo courts there.

Islam is a theocratic conspiracy to deprive everyone of their rights. The former World Trade Center towers is the site of a great victory in their struggle. The construction of a giant mosque nearby will be another victory. Good luck preserving your (ethical, inalienable) rights in the muslim influenced mixed economy of the future which you are aiding and abetting.

There is not something or someone above rights, but there is something prior to rights, ethical egoism. Don't quote Rand out of context to support an intrinsicist version of rights.

I have not quoted Rand out of context.

I do personally know how it is like to live without freedom. I was raised in a communist Poland. It may seem afordable to spit on the freedom you still enjoy (and both US and Canada are still two of the most freest countries in the world) when you don't know what it is not to have freedom. When you give up individual rights in the process of defending the country - there is nothing worth defending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of retaliatory force requites absolute objective law and nothing less. Shut down the mosque and arrest the Imam with the correct, moral ruling by a judge in a court of law based on objective evidence, or anything else is pragmatism, and will result in enabling the government to act more arbitrarily against people it doesn't like. That is very, very dangerous. Any retaliation has to be based on affirming property rights, not on compromising them. Compromising rights to protect rights is nonsensical. The point of retaliatory action is to affirm and protect our rights.

Until there is evidence of a connection with the enemy other than simply being a cretin, we should ignore the mosque like we ignore any other worthless, mumbling fools in the street, until they pose the threat of force. If we did this, while taking a proper military action, like nuking Iran as we should have instead of Afghanistan/Iraq nation-building, then this can only send the signal that we take deadly serious our rights, including property rights, on principle, and that we do not tolerate the initiation of force. “Anyone who wants to live should leave us alone, and we will leave them alone. Anyone who doesn't will be eradicated,” would be the message.

One thing from Capitalism Forever, where he suggested that all Muslims be questioned of their support, I do agree with. In an Objectivist social order, there can be no right to move about, buy, sell, or rent from anyone who wishes to discriminate against Muslims. A civilized society should not tolerate those who are fundamentally opposed to its existence, so every Muslim should be questioned and physically removed or expelled from society if necessary, but not by government in any capacity, except supporting property rights. This can only affirm property rights, not break them.

But this is clearly less than an Objectivist society. Do any of you honestly think empowering any of these people in charge of our country is a good idea? Peikoff once said, in regards to foreign policy, they are “wholly detached from reality.” If they did go to war with Iran, you know they would screw it up and make things worse. You know if we give them the power to shut down the mosque, they will seize upon that consent and they would just love to be as totalitarian as they are able to get away with at any given moment. They are constantly testing the limits and expanding them as soon as they feel they can. I have to agree with Diana that empowering them to compromise private property rights is against my self-interest, and advocating for a rational foreign policy and egoistic, reason-based culture to objectively fight the threat of religion, including upholding private property as an indispensable brick to absolute freedom is much more practical and selfish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not quoted Rand out of context.

I do personally know how it is like to live without freedom. I was raised in a communist Poland. It may seem afordable to spit on the freedom you still enjoy (and both US and Canada are still two of the most freest countries in the world) when you don't know what it is not to have freedom. When you give up individual rights in the process of defending the country - there is nothing worth defending.

Your new country is not different from Poland. Quote from Anti-Islam movement reaches Poland

New Muslim migrants, like Samir Ismail, have very little in common with the Tatars, who have been well integrated into Polish life for centuries — they even had their own cavalry unit before the war. Ismail and other Muslims formed their own organization in 2003, designed to advocate for the interests of new immigrants, including the need to build themselves a place to worship.

From that time they have been trying to build a mosque in Warsaw with the help of Saudi sponsors. As the project has neared completion, it has begun to arouse the ire of some Polish nationalists, who fear that their country could soon have the same issues with Muslim minorities as countries in western Europe.

“We have the example of other countries where the idea of freedom of religion is abused,” said Slusarczyk.

But Poland’s laws do not allow for any religious discrimination.

“The decision permitting this investment has been taken long ago,” said Tomasz Andryszczyk, a spokesman for the Warsaw city government. “What are we supposed to do? It would be bad if this project ran into any troubles.”

Muslims will triple in Metro Vancouver by 2031 By DOUGLAS TODD 10 MAR 2010

Expect to see more minarets punctuating our West Coast skyline in decades to come. The elegant spires towering above mosques will become more common in Metro Vancouver as Islam strengthens its status as the second largest religion across Canada after Christianity.

Prediction: There will be muslim rioting in metro Vancouver before 2031.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prediction: There will be muslim rioting in metro Vancouver before 2031.

And you are welcome to beat the hell out of them with the riot police if they start endangering individuals or arrest them if they show evidential reason to believe that an individual or individuals within a group are likely to do so in that or another form, but only then. Holy hell this is like the Red Scare all over again.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your new country is not different from Poland.

This is absurd. Pick up "We the Living" for a refresher then come visit.

I wish I could drop you off in the middle of North Korea and make you stay there for a while without your credit card and a cell phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not something or someone above rights, but there is something prior to rights, ethical egoism. Don't quote Rand out of context to support an intrinsicist version of rights.

I believe this is the crux of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe this is the crux of the problem.
What is? You mean supporting individual rights while forgetting that upon which they depend? If so, that's really a strawman, both here and in Peikoff's podcast. I don't suggest some a willful attempt to raise a strawman, but itt indicates that the anti-mosque side is not really listening to the argument of the other side, and are therefore arguing past their point. Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is? You mean supporting individual rights while forgetting that upon which they depend? If so, that's really a strawman, both here and in Peikoff's podcast. I don't suggest some a willful attempt to raise a strawman, but itt indicates that the anti-mosque side is not really listening to the argument of the other side, and are therefore arguing past their point.

Exactly. I like Professor Peikoff. I agree with the majority of what he says in his podcasts. However there are times when I do not, as is the case for many people here that I have spoken to, most frequently on issues related to the subjects of 9/11, foreign policy, and so forth. The man does not sit on a golden throne and speak gilded words. He is an old and aging man that is as human as the rest of us. He will make mistakes, he will commit fallacies, he will misinterpret or lack knowledge in certain subjects, he will have biases and he will compartmentalize certain subjects.

For some reason some Objectivists (not necessarily here but I have seen them in plenty of other places) seem to believe that what he says goes and requires no further analysis. Peikoff obviously made a mistake here as Diana pointed out (although it honestly probably required further elaboration), which 2046 expounded again in the detailed manner necessary. Notice no one on the anti-evidence side has responded to his latest post. I honestly think half of the Objectivists (I am speaking in general here, extending off of this website to incidents like the Ed Cline comments thread) want to use philosophy to draw conclusions about Islam and its nature and how best to deal with it while resorting to either rationalism, evasion or they just have not read up much on the subject themselves and expect and assume that members of ARI know what they are talking about (I have read Elan Journo's Winning the Unwinnable War so I know the official ARI perspective well so don't say I didn't do my own homework).

This needs to stop. We cannot have an Objectivist policy on anything by throwing out objectivity, especially if it throws out important rights for specific groups like some people are suggesting. This isn't another version of the Red Scare and this isn't an Israel situation where we are under risk of imminent attack on all sides. This is just getting ridiculous and is making me feel like I am listening to the Republicans in the 2008 debates again or worse.

This way of dealing with the threat (in the domestic realm) is asinine and removed from reality and many a Counter-Terrorism expert will tell you that, many an expert on Totalitarian Islam will tell you that, and many an expert on the Middle East and Islam in general will tell you that, no less a swathe of Objectivists that see the fundamental error being made here, including an ARI member. You can point out the appeal to authority all you want but the facts still stand that you are taking the words of someone with a Philosophy Phd over hordes of people with Phd's in the things some of the people in this philosophy desperately need to learn about before making such ridiculous and broad statements as I have seen both here on these forums at times, in the chatroom at some times, and off this site on other communication mediums. You guys can go about your little Objectivist (if it can even be considered in that realm) crusade but I will not be a part of it, not when it is detached from reality and rationality, such as seems to be the growing concern regarding this Islam issue.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For some reason some Objectivists (not necessarily here but I have seen them in plenty of other places) seem to believe that what he says goes and requires no further analysis.
It'd be rare to find anyone who says this is what they do. Regardless of how strongly one might suspect this of someone, and as good as it may feel to vent, an accusation like will usually side-track the discussion. Comments about age etc., are in the same category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suggest some a willful attempt to raise a strawman, but itt indicates that the anti-mosque side is not really listening to the argument of the other side, and are therefore arguing past their point.

I think you're right. It's been 90 posts now and I still haven't had anyone take me up on explaining how these people are involved in the war effort against the US. Instead, all I've heard is that no explanaition is necessary. I'd have thought that by now somebody would have taken a crack at it.

Edit: I'll tentatively conclude that the people arguing against the mosque simply don't have a case (hint: this is yet another invitation to present one).

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is? You mean supporting individual rights while forgetting that upon which they depend? If so, that's really a strawman, both here and in Peikoff's podcast. I don't suggest some a willful attempt to raise a strawman, but itt indicates that the anti-mosque side is not really listening to the argument of the other side, and are therefore arguing past their point.

Yes, that is what I'm talking about, and as Grames pointed out, some sort of intrinsicist formulation of rights is being upheld. Those that keep insisting on this being a "legal" issue are rejecting the moral conception of rights--they are not forgetting, but choosing to consider it a non-topic--and seem to be upholding the idea of libertarianism rather than a philosophy of rational self-interest. Additionally, I can't help but agree with Grames' statement that some are taking a rationalist approach: They recognize the culture war and threat posed, yet insist on a paralytic position of inaction because there hasn't been a declaration of war--that our policy isn't perfect, so nothing will do. I cannot conceive such a position as being nothing other than idealism.

Furthermore, I have to disagree with your assessment that the other side hasn't been listened to. I didn't even have a clue about this issue until it was posted on the forum, and then I went to NoodleFood to check it out. In going back and forth between both sites, I think I've seen just about every argument proposed for and against the mosque. After Diana replied to the podcast, I even participated in the comment section of that blog, and had seen some of the best arguments against Diana's position posted there. As a matter of fact, I believe that Diana's argument and the logic she uses therein have been applied and taken to their logical extent, which is inaction in the face of a threat by our enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just showed us that we have not been listened to through your RussK.

You are ignoring the evidence part of Diana's argument. She is not saying we should be inactive in the face of a threat by our enemy, she is asking for evidence that they are the enemy.

You are also ignoring all the points made by 2046.

I agree with much that he says, including his view of the threat posed by totalitarian Islam. However, I cannot regard this mosque as an objective threat to the rights of others without concrete evidence of ties to terrorism.-Diana Hsieh
Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is what I'm talking about, and as Grames pointed out, some sort of intrinsicist formulation of rights is being upheld. Those that keep insisting on this being a "legal" issue are rejecting the moral conception of rights--they are not forgetting, but choosing to consider it a non-topic--and seem to be upholding the idea of libertarianism rather than a philosophy of rational self-interest. Additionally, I can't help but agree with Grames' statement that some are taking a rationalist approach: They recognize the culture war and threat posed, yet insist on a paralytic position of inaction because there hasn't been a declaration of war--that our policy isn't perfect, so nothing will do. I cannot conceive such a position as being nothing other than idealism.

Furthermore, I have to disagree with your assessment that the other side hasn't been listened to. I didn't even have a clue about this issue until it was posted on the forum, and then I went to NoodleFood to check it out. In going back and forth between both sites, I think I've seen just about every argument proposed for and against the mosque. After Diana replied to the podcast, I even participated in the comment section of that blog, and had seen some of the best arguments against Diana's position posted there. As a matter of fact, I believe that Diana's argument and the logic she uses therein have been applied and taken to their logical extent, which is inaction in the face of a threat by our enemy.

Opposition to a particular action is not equivalent to advocacy of inaction.

What you and others are missing is the understanding of just how dangerous it is to let go of the proper due process. Absence of those objective controls on government's use of force leads to tyranny. This is a bad solution to a legitimate problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are ignoring the evidence part of Diana's argument. She is not saying we should be inactive in the face of a threat by our enemy, she is asking for evidence that they are the enemy.

The closest I have seen anyone come to providing such evidence is the information posted regarding the Imam's views on Sharia Law. Obviously, the imposition of Sharia law would be horrible and an incredibly destructive force when it comes to individual rights. However, in a free society during peacetime, people should be allowed to discuss Sharia and even advocate for it the same way Nazis and Klansmen should be allowed to discuss and advocate for their twisted ideologies. Again in peacetime, it is the responsibility of free men to argue against such ideas and demonstrate that they are evil.

During war, this issue becomes less clear. Would it have made sense for the US government to allow representatives of the Nazi Party to hold rallies in the US in 1942? I keep going back and forth on this issue because I agree that there must be evidence of a connection between this Mosque and our enemies. However, in wartime I'm willing to set the bar pretty low when it comes to requiring evidence of collusion with Muslim fundamentalists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes,... some sort of intrinsicist formulation of rights is being upheld.

Let's do it this way. Let's start with a principle on which we can agree:

Proposition: someone plotting against our safety may not legitimately demand property rights from us.

Then, there is the concrete: i.e., whether the folks building this mosque cannot legitimately claim property rights.

I do not have an opinion on this concrete, except in the sense that I have not looked into this to see if these people might be plotting against the US. So, I'm open to be convinced.

If you agree with proposition above, I'd be interested as to how you apply it to that concrete.

In particular, would you agree with any of the following ever-narrower propositions:

  • "anyone calling themselves a muslim cannot legitimately claim property rights"
  • "anyone helping construct a muslim mosque cannot legitimately claim property rights"
  • "anyone helping construct a muslim mosque in Manhattan cannot legitimately claim property rights"
  • "anyone helping construct a muslim mosque within a few feet from 'ground-zero' cannot legitimately claim property rights"
  • "anyone helping construct a muslim mosque using foreign funds, within a few feet from 'ground-zero' cannot legitimately claim property rights"

If none of these are satisfactory, how would you narrow the broad principle? Or, do you think the government should be allowed to deny property rights if they say that someone is plotting against the US, without giving any further reason whatsoever, or without showing some narrower, more specific circumstances?

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can city councils across the US restrict Wal-Marts from opening but allow a Mosque next to Ground Zero? Given that there is no right of existence of these approval councils, but knowing they exist already and probably won't change, shouldn't we work within their framework and have the mosque denied? I mean, we advocate changing the public school system to teach the right ideas and have the right kind of curriculum even though it is a government controlled entity, because we shouldn't just sit back and swallow bad ideas. Who knows what kind of actions would have actually taken in a free market where there would be property covenants and whatnot. It seems to make sense that if these approval councils are going to exist then we ought to make the best of them, no?

And what's with this money hungry fool Kukiko Mitani who would take cash from these Muslims so that they could build a mosque there? Why isn't she receiving angry letters for selling out the entire country.

Data on the owners here, including information which seems to show they will not have enough money for the project they are proposing. They certainly got a good deal on the property though--have your intellectual brothers blow up the downtown area and then buy it for cheap at one tenth the price!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that there is no right of existence of these approval councils, but knowing they exist already and probably won't change, shouldn't we work within their framework and have the mosque denied?
I assume you're saying they should use their "zoning" laws to disallow this? Would you be okay with allowing it if it is a certain distance away (say some miles) from 'ground zero'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people discussing this in this thread really still not aware that there has been another Mosque not all that much farther from the 9/11 site that has been there for years? Regardless, proximity is not the issue here.

Also:

and its leading imam, who conducts sensitivity training sessions for the FBI, has reportedly blamed Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians.

he conducts sensitivity training?

Imam Rauf, born in Egypt, has written three books: "What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West," "Islam: A Sacred Law" and "Islam: A Search for Meaning."

WND reported in 2003 when, at least four times that year, the FBI's New York field office held all-day sensitivity training sessions, not far from Ground Zero, featuring Rauf.

Speaking for about two hours each session, "he gave an overview of Islamic culture and some of the differences between what fundamentalist terrorist groups say are the teachings of the Quran and what he believes, as a student of religion, the Quran actually says," said special agent James Margolin, spokesman for the FBI New York office.

Rauf was invited to speak in Sydney, Australia, by Premier Bob Carr in 2004. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, he said the U.S. and the West must acknowledge the harm they've done to Muslims before terrorism can end.

He said the West must understand the terrorists' point of view – and he blamed Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians.

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets," he said.

According to the report, Rauf said there would be little progress until the U.S. acknowledged backing dictators and the U.S. president gave an "America Culpa" speech to the Muslim world.

On June 4, 2009, President Obama gave a speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, in which he stated:

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

Rauf praised Obama for "embracing Islam in the peacemaking process" in his speech to the Muslim world. He wrote in the Washington Post:

The historic significance of President Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo cannot be overstated. Never before has an American president spoken to the global Muslim community. His speech marked a major shift in American foreign policy. … In just a few sentences he demolished the phony theory of the 'Clash of Civilizations,' which insists that Islam and the West must always be in conflict. Instead, he declared the United States is not at war with Islam and outlined a plan for how the conflict can be resolved. … He captured the attention of Muslims because, unlike most politicians, he was willing to critique both his own country and Muslims where they fell short of their ideals.

In an interview with Beliefnet on Islam and America, a reporter asked Rauf, "Some Islamic charities are being investigated for terrorist ties. Have you seen what you consider to be reputable Islamic charities being financially damaged?"

"We believe that a certain portion of every charity has been legitimate," he responded. "To say that you have connections with terrorism is a very gray area. It's like the accusation that Saddam Hussein had links to Osama bin Laden. Well, America had links to Osama bin Laden – does that mean that America is a terrorist country or has ties to terrorism?"

In 2004, Rauf participated in a 30-second advertisement, broadcast on Arabic television, in which he apologized for alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

The Times reported Rauf said he believes "Islamic terrorists do not come from another moral universe – that they arise from oppressive societies that he feels Washington had a hand in creating."

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=119328

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that there is no right of existence of these approval councils, but knowing they exist already and probably won't change, shouldn't we work within their framework and have the mosque denied?

So you want to stop building of a Mosque near Ground Zero because that is going to make America to appear weak but you think sending a message to the enemies using zoning laws would show strength?

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The construction of this large mosque on this location is continuation of the terroristic threats and acts against the World Trade Center Towers themselves, which was itself symbolically an attack on all of non-Islamic civilization. There is no such thing as a right to threaten. When the damned thing starts blasting the call to prayer over an external loudspeaker system 5 times a day the threat will no longer be avoidable by simply turning away or choosing not to go in or near it.

Related podcast: Why is it acceptable to put an advertisement up on personal property, but not pornography?

Synopsis of Answer: Sometimes even pornography can be acceptable, sometimes not. Fear of the threat can be objectively established.

Certainly in sight of the still empty craters of the Twin Towers the sense of threat is objective.

Edited by Grames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...