Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Darrell Cody

Agenda 21 - It's Collectivism Evil Out Of The United Nations.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Agenda 21 is an United Nations based plan that gives capacity to local governments to do what they want to people's property. Just like nationalization, communism, theft, etc..

It is something we must fight.

http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-versus-agenda-21-saving-u-just-050156332.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21#Opposition_in_the_United_States

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11592-alabama-adopts-first-official-state-ban-on-un-agenda-21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Agenda 21" ha!. When are they going to unleash the clone soldiers?

Its a non-binding resolution, so I am not entirely sure what the UN is doing that our law makers already want to do. I don't understand how the UN is even worth thinking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gives capacity?

Ok, name one thing that any US government, local, state or federal has the capacity to do after the adoption of this resolution, that it did not have the capacity to do before the adoption of this resolution. One.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hairnet, are you suggesting that non-binding resolutions, the people who support them, and the culture that surrounds them have no impact?

Basically.

If someone supports socialism in the united states they are not any better off than they were without the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is being missed by everyone but FeatherFall.

Just fight for individual rights, and fight anything that violates them! Sheesh! Didn't any of you read Anthem, about the world council and everything? The UN's Agenda 21 is a step, however big, or small or thematic in that direction. And that's always bad, really, really bad. *Glaringly obvious*.

Work with your local tea party to fight it: find it here: http://www.teapartypatriots.org/local/

Edited by Darrell Cody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is being missed by everyone but FeatherFall.

Just fight for individual rights, and fight anything that violates them! Sheesh! Didn't any of you read Anthem, about the world council and everything? The UN's Agenda 21 is a step, however big, or small or thematic in that direction. And that's always bad, really, really bad. *Glaringly obvious*.

Work with your local tea party to fight it: find it here: http://www.teapartypatriots.org/local/

You haven't defined what you want us to fight for (specifically for Agenda 21). You say for "individual rights," but you haven't given any example of how individual rights are violated any differently (or more) than they already have been.

I have heard about Agenda 21 -- I have heard people say that the government is going to come in and make housing public to try to give everyone a home and work towards a world government.

I have also tried reading some of the bill (which is from the 90s), but I haven't seen anything in it that seems different then what they already have been doing with their global initiatives.

Perhaps you could explain a little bit more about the bill and what is so different about it compared to what they already have been doing. I would like specific provisions in the bill to support the idea that this affects property rights.

Edited by Matt Giannelli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell, I'm not completely sure I do get the point. I recognize that Agenda 21 represents a culture of statist/Marxist/environmentalist cooperation, but beyond that I don't know what to say. I don't think the resolution is irrelevant (as Hairnet seems to think), because at the very least it set the bar for future "progress" for the green movement and represents the moment greens united globally. Sure, college students usually have to take sustainability classes, and the ICLEI is active in my own home state. But I don't know what fighting Agenda 21 will accomplish.

Alabama's law seems to be an exercise in redundancy. If a local government follows an ICLEI plan or hatches their own that is consistent with Agenda 21's ideals, then Alabama's state laws are already in effect, so due process was already guaranteed. I guess it raises awareness, but there are better ways to do that.

The first article to which you linked included two instances supporting the notion that people fighting the culture of Agenda 21 should probably avoid mentioning it. It has been stated that the resolution is non-binding. Fighting a toothless resolution is going to waste valuable time you have to expose the ideas that underlie it. My advice is to focus on specific local initiatives, explain why they are bad, and offer capitalist alternatives. Studying Agenda 21 (which I haven't read) seems like a neat history lesson in the green movement. It will help you better understand the ideology of ICLEI and the guys who write the latest college texts. But beyond that, it is a red herring. It would have been a good fight to take on 20 years ago, but the value in winning that fight has been lost.

Edit: On a second reading, Alabama's law explicitly blacklists organizations mentioned/linked to Agenda 21, including the ICLEI. So maybe it can do some good.

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the UN comes up with appropriate measures to go along with their hilariously named "Agendas" I don't think they are any different than any other international policy group. In this instance they are only acting as a policy group. They gave a set of benchmarks for accomplishing their goals.

Agenda 21 should be like a dooms day device, zombies, robot armies, clone of hitler, clone of che', weather control device, giant robots piloted by 14 year old japanese highschool students, anything like that. Not a set of policy benchmarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell, I'm not completely sure I do get the point. I recognize that Agenda 21 represents a culture of statist/Marxist/environmentalist cooperation, but beyond that I don't know what to say. I don't think the resolution is irrelevant (as Hairnet seems to think), because at the very least it set the bar for future "progress" for the green movement and represents the moment greens united globally. Sure, college students usually have to take sustainability classes, and the ICLEI is active in my own home state. But I don't know what fighting Agenda 21 will accomplish.

Alabama's law seems to be an exercise in redundancy. If a local government follows an ICLEI plan or hatches their own that is consistent with Agenda 21's ideals, then Alabama's state laws are already in effect, so due process was already guaranteed. I guess it raises awareness, but there are better ways to do that.

The first article to which you linked included two instances supporting the notion that people fighting the culture of Agenda 21 should probably avoid mentioning it. It has been stated that the resolution is non-binding. Fighting a toothless resolution is going to waste valuable time you have to expose the ideas that underlie it. My advice is to focus on specific local initiatives, explain why they are bad, and offer capitalist alternatives. Studying Agenda 21 (which I haven't read) seems like a neat history lesson in the green movement. It will help you better understand the ideology of ICLEI and the guys who write the latest college texts. But beyond that, it is a red herring. It would have been a good fight to take on 20 years ago, but the value in winning that fight has been lost.

Edit: On a second reading, Alabama's law explicitly blacklists organizations mentioned/linked to Agenda 21, including the ICLEI. So maybe it can do some good.

Everybody:

Ayn Rand stated that Totalitarian states - run by people seeking POWER - rise on the claim of benefiting "the common good", which they never define, and consists in practice of harnessing the productive, looting the productive and murdering dissenters. Things people would never do for personal benefit, theft and murder they do to benefit - "the common good". It is a rubber phrase that can be taken to mean whatever the looter government power quester wants it to means. Observe "the common good" is the opposite motive here of "individual good", since active individuals get sacrificed, to benefit the power questers.

The issue and danger of Agenda 21 IS what is puzzling to you - it's vagueness. Like the phrase "the common good", it's danger, it's lethal effectiveness is it's ambiguity. It says it promotes the undefinable, the amorphous, the things that any local government official can state are benefited or harmed, according to THEIR determination. Who in heck can say what will "benefit future generations" (a "common good" concept)? It certainly, though, should not be a local government elected official Who knows what resources "ought to be conserved" (conserved for who? By who? Until when?). This law can be enforced to mean anything anyone can want it to mean - and that is the usual method of the people seeking power, to be used as a positive sounding justification for theft. Like the income tax and the Obamacare Mandate. All these things violate individual rights for "collective benefit". And it is done by using these types of vague, puzzling tactics, that are hard to comprehend, unless you identify the real motive: POWER. It is the power they are after now, that is all.

It is the vaguely defined and initial feeler of power questers, looking to see what they can get away with, and it is being done by power quester people at the UN to coordinate with power quester type people in local governments. They are slowly trying to see how much they can get away with, just like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Income Tax, Obamacare, government infringement on liberties by not law but "regulations" all started small and grew into the huge evil it is today.

You must catch on to their tactics. THIS IS their tactics. They have done nothing major or tangible yet. This is the first step to get to do so. Agenda 21.

BUT THEY WILL.

They start with the small and vague and harmless or fake positive sounding that gives you undefined power, and then spring something on people in small and larger steps backed up by it, until you have control. And while people (like some here, with all due respect) are scratching their heads wondering what is the motive of this, and what are they up to, you are not identifying the big thing they are up to: Agenda 21 gives people at the UN potential power at the local level!

THAT is what they are up to. As Ellsworth Toohey said "Don't try to analyze the incomprehensible. Just look at what it accomplishes."

Agenda 21 accomplishes United Nations influence over you at the local government level, which is the start step for a world government dictatorship. THAT is what they are up to. Sounds paranoid? Read the introduction to Anthem, and the whole book: "We have a local council, a national council, even a world council. If these do not hold total power over all our lives, is it from lack of intent?" - Ayn Rand. This kind of step is what Ayn Rand warned us about.

So what do you do about it?

Speak.

That is what you do.

Ring the alarm bells, tell people about it, and what they are up to, EXPLAIN it to others, as I am explaining it to you, so people don't sit there like victims waiting for victimization because the enemy is devious enough to use the same vague positive sounding tactics they usually use. "Common good", "Conservation", "Sustainable development", "benefit future generations". Tell your local tea party about it, discuss it with friends and family, get the word out. It's a power quester's evil methods!

Write an article for your local paper, blog about it, email this post to everyone you know. Do all that, do something, but fight!!!

And read this essay by Ayn Rand. And start getting savvy to the methods of our enemies:

"The Moral Basis of Individualism"

by Ayn Rand

Readers Digest, January 1944, pages 88 through 90

The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group -- whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called "the common good."

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing "the common good." Napoleon "served the common good" of France. Hitler is "serving the common good" of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by "altruists" who justify themselves by -- the common good.

No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.

This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a clear consistent faith.

We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the common good is served by the abolition of individual rights. General happiness cannot be created out of general suffering and self-immolation. The only happy society is one of happy individuals. One cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees.

The power of society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable rights of the individual.

The right of liberty means man's right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.

The right to the pursuit of happiness means man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement. Each individual is the sole and final judge in this choice. A man's happiness cannot be prescribed to him by another man or by any number of other men.

These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual possession of every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and requiring no other sanction. Such was the conception of the founders of our country, who placed individual rights above any and all collective claims. Society can only be a traffic policeman in the intercourse of men with one another.

From the beginning of history, two antagonists have stood face to face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the individualist. His basic need is independence -- in order to think and work. He neither needs nor seeks power over other men -- nor can he be made to work under any form of compulsion. Every type of good work -- from laying bricks to writing a symphony -- is done by the Active Man. Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man's independence and initiative determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man.

The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative.

When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the Passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human progress.

Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for the incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the Active. But the Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is destroyed, the destruction of the Passive Man follows automatically. So if pity is the humanitarians' first consideration, then in the name of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man free to function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help him in the long run.

The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the Active Man and the Passive, between the individual and the collective. The countries which have produced the happiest men, the highest standards of living and the greatest cultural advances have been the countries where the power of the collective -- of the government, of the state -- was limited and the individual was given freedom of independent action. As examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception of law based on a citizen's rights, over the collectivist barbarism of its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based on the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of the United States to a degree of achievement unequaled in history -- by grace of the individual freedom and independence which our Constitution gave each citizen against the collective.

While men are still pondering upon the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, every page of history cries to us that there is but one source of progress: Individual Man in independent action. Collectivism is the ancient principle of savagery. A savage's whole existence is ruled by the leaders of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

We are now facing a choice: to go forward or to go back.

Collectivism is not the "New Order of Tomorrow." It is the order of a very dark yesterday. But there is a New Order of Tomorrow. It belongs to Individual Man –– the only creator of any tomorrows humanity has ever been granted.

Edited by Darrell Cody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we have some specific provisions on how Agenda 21 "gives capacity to local governments to do what they want to people's property", please?

There are no specifics. Like the "Fair Share Law" in Atlas Shrugged, or the "Equalization Of Opportunity Act", the specifics will come when government officials *just do whatever they please*!!! That is the danger. Remember in Atlas Shrugged how Ayn Rans described the rubber words and half-expressed intentions, which Dagny felt like she could only see in her peripheral vision?

THAT is the tactic.

Vague laws, and then they do whatever they want later, for looting, claiming the rubber words justify it.

Do you get that now?

Don't look for facts from these people, they aren't going to say "we can take your property" all nice and Objectivist clearly stated. They lie, and are deceptive. They are VAGUE. Then, they pounce.

You have to recognize THAT fact and TACTIC.

And fight it, in advance, knowing that's what's coming.

Dealing with these people is LIKE THIS. You have to think.

Edited by Darrell Cody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell, I'm extending to you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you understand Agenda 21 is not law. Are there other laws or treaties or international agreements that you are concerned about? If so, what are they and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell, I'm extending to you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you understand Agenda 21 is not law. Are there other laws or treaties or international agreements that you are concerned about? If so, what are they and why?

Thank you for the good reasoning and common sense used there, FeatherFall, yes, indeed, I know Agenda 21 is not bonafide law, I was using the term 'law' in the most general term's sense, and to express that passing vague laws/regulations/rules/directives/articles/executive orders/agendas is the tactic used by these people to get their wrongs justified by loose wording of (general term) "nefarious non-objective law".

Agenda 21 is an example of that machinating behavior.

Thank you for asking that question about other laws, treaties, etc that are cause for concern; I have not had the opportunity to study other international laws or treaties or agreements; so, I can't say what others might be problems. Obamacare, compulsory income tax, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, should all be repealed because they all violate individual rights in their compulsion-based collectivist obvious ways. For more, read Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".

I can say however that America borrowing a penny from China is as ill an idea as an industrialist borrowing money from a mafia, and for the same reason. Same goes for Putin's Russia. But we owe both billions. Being a member of the UN with Russia, is, as Ayn Rand said, a crazy idea, like joining a community watch group with members from the local mafia. But we are doing that too.

All this absurd nonsense needs to end. If it's irrational, it can't cause good, and our policy of borrowing money from people and nations that have collectivist ideologies has caused enough trouble already:

Look at China's human rights abuses. And to quote Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton: "How do you get tough with your banker?"

Keep telling people to read Atlas Shrugged! Work with your local Tea Party, and the ARI, etc!

Find your Tea Party here:

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/local/

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the good reasoning and common sense used there, FeatherFall, yes, indeed, I know Agenda 21 is not bonafide law, I was using the term 'law' in the most general term's sense, and to express that passing vague laws/regulations/rules/directives/articles/executive orders/agendas is the tactic used by these people to get their wrongs justified by loose wording of (general term) "nefarious non-objective law".

Agenda 21 is more like a plan presented to countries from an environmental sustainability group. It isn't being used to justify a wrong, because a wrong has yet to be committed. Yeah, I don't like the wording much of the document itself, but there are bigger concerns than a non-binding voluntary UN agenda. If you want to fight something, go after actual environmentalists who want to create specific laws for sustainability. The UN is toothless and weak as it is. Oppose the philosophy, definitely, but don't devote your resources and time towards something that isn't even threatening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the good reasoning and common sense used there, FeatherFall, yes, indeed, I know Agenda 21 is not bonafide law, I was using the term 'law' in the most general term's sense

No, you are misusing the term law. And not by accident or mistake, either. You are misusing it on purpose, and by doing that you are being more vague than the people you are chiding for being vague.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell, I think that it's important to maintain the distinction between laws and policy statements. You said Agenda 21 isn't a bona fide law. But that statement implies that it's something like a law, when it's not really a law in any sense of the word. The effort and time you've spent on Agenda 21 could have been spent learning about and arguing against actual non-objective laws.

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds paranoid?

Yes. I tried to find more information about Agenda 21 without actually reading the whole thing, but the only information that's available is from total kooks. After skimming through a few chapters of the document, it does seem pretty bad.. and expensive, if everything were to be implemented! There are a lot of points 'suggestions' in Agenda 21 that are concerning:

From Ch 3: "Set up an effective primary health care and maternal health care system accessible to all," "Consider strengthening/developing legal frameworks for land management, access to land resources and land ownership - in particular, for women - and for the protection of tenants," "Implement mechanisms for popular participation - particularly by poor people, especially women - in local community groups, to promote sustainable development," "Implement, as a matter of urgency, in accordance with country-specific conditions and legal systems, measures to ensure that women and men have the same right to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and have access to the information, education and means..." "Consider making available lines of credit and other facilities for the informal sector and improved access to land for the landless poor... In many instances special considerations for women are required." "...has estimated the average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the activities of this programme to be about $30 billion"

From Ch 6: "...has estimated the average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the activities of this programme to be about $40 billion"

From Ch 7: "As a first step towards the goal of providing adequate shelter for all, all countries should take immediate measures to provide shelter to their homeless poor, while the international community and financial institutions should undertake actions to support the efforts of the developing countries to provide shelter to the poor" ... "...estimated the average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the activities of this programme to be about $75 billion"

From Ch 9: "Establish and/or strengthen regional agreements for transboundary air pollution control.." "promote cost-effective policies or programmes, including administrative, social and economic measures, in order to minimize industrial pollution and adverse impacts on the atmosphere;" "Promote efficient use of materials and resources, taking into account the life cycles of products, in order to realize the economic and environmental benefits of using resources more efficiently and producing fewer wastes;" "Support the promotion of less polluting and more efficient technologies and processes in industries, taking into account area-specific accessible potentials for energy, particularly safe and renewable sources of energy," "...has estimated the average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the activities of this programme to be about $20 billion"

From Ch 35: "A substantial increase by the year 2000 in the number of scientists - particularly women scientists - in those developing countries where their number is at present insufficient;" "Reducing significantly the exodus of scientists from developing countries and encouraging those who have left to return;" "Creating conditions (e.g., salaries, equipment, libraries) to ensure that the scientists will work effectively in their home countries;" "...has estimated the average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the activities of this programme to be about $750 million"

In a perfect world, no one would have to work, no one would have any debt, everyone would be able to afford housing and food and healthcare, waste would magically disappear, scientists would be super smart and plentiful, factories would output oxygen instead of co2, electric cars would be cheap and efficient, etc. That seems to be what Agenda 21 is trying to accomplish- creating a global liberal's utopia.

Edited by mdegges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the one thing I do not get about this whole thing. Why now? Agenda 21 has existed for 20 years. Governments at all levels have been signing up to it all along. Why is the Tea Party bringing this up now? Why all of us a sudden, is this an issue (not to say it isn't worth discussion but why not 20 years ago)? I have not heard of Agenda 21 until recent and primarily either through here, or my liberal friends posting anti-Tea Party stories on Facebook. Searching around the interent most of the Agenda 21 stuff I find is from a bunch of conspiracy theory nut bars, referring to UN's Globalist Agenda.

So why is the Tea Party picking this up as a cause, and why now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the one thing I do not get about this whole thing. Why now? Agenda 21 has existed for 20 years. Governments at all levels have been signing up to it all along. Why is the Tea Party bringing this up now? Why all of us a sudden, is this an issue (not to say it isn't worth discussion but why not 20 years ago)? I have not heard of Agenda 21 until recent and primarily either through here, or my liberal friends posting anti-Tea Party stories on Facebook. Searching around the interent most of the Agenda 21 stuff I find is from a bunch of conspiracy theory nut bars, referring to UN's Globalist Agenda.

So why is the Tea Party picking this up as a cause, and why now?

If you really want to get into it, google "transnational jurisprudence", and the name Harold Hongju Koh. While this debate isn't new, a lot of the conspiracy minded loons on the right have really jumped on this guy for being a supporter of using various foreign precedents and international legal tenets as arguments in American Court proceedings (he also wrote on the history of the practice, ever since the country was founded), back when he was nominated for a position at the State Department (and, if I remember correctly, his name also came up as a potential SCOTUS nominee).

Again: this is about American Courts doing what they have always been doing: considering arguments and legal concepts people who aren't in the United States came up with. That's all. It's unavoidable, judges and lawyers are going to learn about what's going on in the legal environments of other countries and at the UN. Some of the things they learn about will be good ideas, others bad. They should all be considered, and the good ones should be adopted or at least adapted.

No one is suggesting or trying to impose foreign laws on American citizens. But that is what the conspiracy nuts are making it out to be. And, because this is an election year, we have new members from both camps starting threads about the latest talking points on right wing and left wing websites. This thread, as you may have guessed, is borrowed from the Right side.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a used book a while back called, The United Nations Conspiracy. I thought it would be a fun read, and it was - but not for the reasons I had hoped. I was hoping for a fantastic dip into the mind of a paranoid writer, but what I got was just the information that he same clique that inhabits the UN inhabits the Council on Foreign Relations (along with the author's judgement).

Critics of the UN tend to use bombastic language that damages their credibility. Agenda 21 is worthy of criticism, so is the CFR and the UN in general. But that criticism isn't going to spread to mainstream circles until critics start being tactful. And I don't want to be confused, Darrell. I don't think you're being tactless. But I will say that a better case against Agenda 21 could be made by suggesting more effective action against the satallite organizations and policies that orbit Agenda 21's call to action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same clique that inhabits the UN can't inhabit the CFR, because the CFR only admits Americans.

The CFR has plenty of conservative members too. Rupert Murdoch and Bush Sr. are members, William Buckley Jr. and Alexander Haig used to be. Also, if there was any conspiracy going on, I trust Angelina Jolie, who's also a member, would let us know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×