Connect with us

Culture and Religion

This is EXACTLY what socialism is: Part 2 of 2

Published

on

That is not real socialism!

Part 2: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[This is the second article in a two-part series examining the oft-repeated claim that what is occurring in Venezuela is “not real socialism.” The first part examined the first phase of socialism: the Proletarian Revolution. This part will examine the second phase of socialism: the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.]

 Karl Marx was known to often quote “Mephistopheles” from Goethe’s Faust.

Everything that exists deserves to perish.”

 Socialism is a macro-philosophy (lacking specifics, inadequate in guidelines). Since socialism lacks details, socialists have been able to swim around in perpetual fluidity, skirting any and all responsibility for peddling a mortiferous ideology. The excuse, But! That’s not real socialism! is thrown out a lot. Thus, it is important to measure how “socialist” a country is against the philosophy of Karl Marx, the communists’ god.

The following is a point by point, plank by plank, comparison of Marx’s theory of socialism, as shown through his writings, with both Lenin’s Soviet regime and the Chavez-Maduro Venezuelan regime.

As illustrated in the last article, Venezuela has been suffering under a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

This is exactly what socialism looks like: it is an ugly beast soaked in human blood and sadistic power plays

According to Marx, once the Proletariatian class has achieved power – the Dictatorship of the Proletariat – it “will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State.” This task, he explains, “cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads.” This is precisely the reason that socialism requires a dictator.

This fledgling stage of socialism, the period of transition from capitalism to pure communism, is of utmost importance. It is the explicit task of the communists in this fragile critical period to institute capitalism, Bourgeois crushing policies that, “by means of measure, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.” In other words, socialists must push forth policies that are economically insolvent and crippling. It is only through the complete destruction of the old that the new can emerge.

In the Communist Manifesto, the socialist bible, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels lay out 10 planks (10 processes/methods) through which the Proletarian Dictatorship will demolish every last trace of the capitalist system. Since socialism is not an exact science, each plank will be accomplished and carried forth at varying times, in varying ways and in varying degrees until, finally, a new world a born.

The below table illustrates the level and means of governmental adherence to the 10 planks for the Soviet Union (under Vladimir Lenin) and Venezuela (under Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro).

10 COMMUNIST PLANKS
PLANK 1: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       1917 Decree on Land: abolished private property and redistributed land among the peasantry; peasants seized the land that belonged to monasteries, churches, and nobility

·       1918 Fundamental Law on Land Socialization: “All private ownership of land, minerals, waters, forests, and natural resources within the boundaries of the Russian Federated Soviet Republic is abolished forever.” This included “All privately owned livestock, agricultural implements, and buildings of estates that are worked by hired labor shall be taken over by the land departments of the uezd, gubernia, regional, and federal Soviets without compensation.”

·       1922 Land Code: “The 1922 land code nationalized all land and prohibited its purchase, sale, bequest, and mortgage. Land in cities became state property together with all buildings. In the countryside land was divided among the peasant families. The use of hired labor was banned.”

·        2001: 49 laws passed that redistribute land and other wealth

·       2005: legislation is passed which mandated the break-up of estates and the subsequent redistribution of that land to the rural poor

·       Ownership records required: Private land owners must show a record of ownership, “a consistent chain of property title going back to 1848, if they are to enjoy full property rights – otherwise they face expropriation.”

·       Example: The El Maizal farm, seized in 2009, was then set up as an agricultural, peasant commune.

·       Private Citizens “can legally squat on and apply for a piece of anyone’s land who they suspect cannot prove definitive ownership..” This has led to some of Venezuela’s rural inhabitants forming unofficial coalitions for the extensive occupation of properties. As Foreign policy points out, “…the ensuing disorder and legal battle drains and resources and reduces productivity on an estate, which is then subsequently declared noncompliant with the productivity clause of the land law, and becomes eligible for redistribution to those who invaded the property.”

·       As of November of 2015, the government claims to have expropriated some four million hectares of private property.

PLANK 2: A heavy progressive income tax or graduated income tax
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       Following the Russian civil war and after decimating the economy to just 14% of what it had been only a few years earlier, peasants began to revolt. Lenin then reintroduced some capitalist aspects back into the internal Russian economy. He called this The New Plan. Instead of taxation via food confiscation (which created a famine), under the NEP the peasants paid in graduated taxes within the communal structure. The state remained the owner of the land. ·        Referred to as the “tax revolution” by various socialist propagandists, Venezuela has a progressive tax structure.
PLANK 3: Abolition of all rights of inheritance
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       1918: inheritance is abolished through the Decree Abolishing Inheritance ·        Venezuela has a progressive death tax (inheritance tax) that can be as high as 55%, effectively cutting some individual’s inheritance in half.

·       Land: Due to the land use laws, even long-time family land may not passed down to posterity. For others, their land may be seized after inheritance, even after the payment of death taxes on that property.

PLANK 4: Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       Kulaks: Peasants who seized the most productive lands were called Kulaks and were among the several groups of citizens deemed to be “unreliable elements,” and thus, were sent to Lenin’s concentration camps.

·       Class warfare was so ripe under Lenin, which then worsened under Stalin, that any peasants with one cow more than other peasants often came under mob attack.

·        2001: 49 laws passed that redistribute land and other wealth

·       Opposition land seizures: The National Guard is used to seize large swaths of private property of individuals opposed to the regime, often in the dead of night.

·       Example: “…the most high profile case was the occupation and seizure of land belonging to Manuel Rosales, a former governor and chief opposition candidate to Chavez in the 2006 presidential election.”

·       Choosing the winners and the losers: According to Foreign Policy, Chavez and Maduro have used vast information databases on individual citizens to punish dissent and to reward loyalty. “Pro-regime individuals (chavistas in local parlance) in states with pro-regime governors are substantially more likely to receive land grants from the National Land Institute than opposition or political unaffiliated individuals.”

·       Title withholding: Those who received land often do not receive land titles so that the regime can exercise leverage over such individuals during election times.

PLANK 5: Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       Supreme Economic Council: Banks were centralized and the Bolsheviks attempted to move the economy toward the abolishment of money by instituting a bartering system. ·        Dozens of banks have been taken over by the government, including the Spanish-owned Bank of Venezuela.
PLANK 6: Centralization of all means of communication and transport in the hands of the state
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       Lenin pushed forward the idea that the press, when in the hands of the enemy, is like a weapon and must be oppressed.

·       1918: “Bourgeois and even opposition socialist presses came under attack sporadically; papers were ordered to shut down, editors placed under arrest, and ‘detachments of sailors’ sent to printing offices that failed to comply.”

·       1918: All socialist and Bourgeois papers are shut down. The Bolsheviks now have a monopoly on communications.

·        2007: Important communications companies are nationalized.

·       2007: Public demonstrations ensue after the government refuses to renew the broadcasting license of a TV station, because it has criticized the regime.

·       2010: Six television channels are shut down by the government “for not adhering to the rules for transmitting government material.”

·       2012: Globovism, an opposition television station, pays a $2.1 million fine to avoid being shut down after their coverage of a prison riot.

·       2015: Public transportation fares are raised.

PLANK 7: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura  (1999-present)
·       Instituted collectivized farming

·       Peasants, land use, and production were controlled by the Commissariat of Agriculture.

·       Grain and other agriculture products were confiscated for redistribution by the Cheka.

·       The state became the owner of all things. It sought to be the producer and the distributor.

·       Extreme centralization occurred, especially during the civil war.

·        2001 land law “allows the government to confiscate privately owned land judged to be idle or unproductive.”

·       Instituted a new state-owned farming sector

·       Production rates: Even for the approximate 10% of land owners who are able to prove land ownership all the way back to 1848, expropriation may still take place should the government deem that land to be delinquent in meeting agricultural production level mandates.

·       Terms of Use: Those who receive land grants must adhere to production plans

·       2007: Important energy companies are nationalized.

·       2007: Government takes control of all Orinoco Delta petroleum explorations.

·       2007: The government expropriates the companies Exxon Mobile and Conoco-Phillips.

·       2008: The government nationalizes a large, Venezuelan subsidiary of a Mexican-owned cement company called Comex.

·       2008: Household fuel distributors and gasoline service stations are nationalized.

·       2012: Price controls are extended on more basic goods. Businesses are threatened with expropriate for price control noncompliance.

·       2014: A new mandatory fingerprinting system is put in place at supermarkets to ensure citizen purchasing limits.

·       The government now owns over 500 businesses (which are losing money).

PLANK 8: Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
·       October, 1918: Universal labor conscription

·       1918: Lenin established the first concentration camps. The camps were to serve two purposes. First purpose was forced labor. The second purpose was the imprisonment and subsequently, as Lenin himself stated, “…the cleansing of the Russian land of all harmful insects, of fleas – swindlers, of bugs – the rich, and so on and so forth.” A decree in 1919, mandated the establishment of at least one concentration camp in every provincial city in order to fully utilize prison labor for public works. These camps were the inspiration for Hitler’s concentration camps filled with Jews. Under Stalin, these camps would later come to be known as Gulags.

·        2016: The regime issued a decree mandating factories allow their workers to farm the land should the government so desire. Resolution No. 9855 mandates the formation of a “transitory labor regime.” The entire population is now a defector army waiting to be drafter to labor camps.

·       As hunger spread, the Venezuelan government encouraged city-dwellers to begin planting urban gardens.

PLANK 9: Gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by more equitable distribution of the populace over the country
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
PLANK 10: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
Soviet Russia – Lenin  (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
Public education had already been instituted prior. It is worth noting that both governments began imposing their own controls over education, including the implementation of propaganda in the curriculum.

Nine out of ten!

Venezuela has clearly demonstrated a strong level of adherence to and activity within nine out of the ten of the communist planks. The train wreck that we see when we turn on the news is capitalism being destroyed: it is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Socialism requires a dictator.

The impotent, vacuous claim that what is happening in Venezuela is not real socialism is blatantly false! This is socialism. This is the second phase, the phase of ruinous, devastating destruction of society. This is exactly what socialism looks like: it is an ugly beast soaked in human blood and sadistic power plays.

When asked to define his life’s mission, Karl Marx answered, “To dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” Is it any wonder socialism is the ideology of destruction, of murder, or famine, of misery, of slavery, of desperation, or death?

Venezuela is socialism. It is the latest chapter in a 100 year old story that always has the same ending.

Paige Rogers is a Christian artist and author, and a former professional practitioner in the field of Early Childhood Development. She is the creator of ThePaintingPastor.org, a blog offering Christian reflection, exhortation and discernment alongside various artistic techniques visually documented through Paige's unique artistic endeavors. A lover of learning, Paige is an avid enthusiast of history, civics, political geography and human nature, physical geography and the sciences. She is an incurably inquisitive and chronically creative “egghead.” Paige is a strong supporter of America's service members and veterans.

Culture and Religion

Is Mike Pence too political for church?

Published

on

There have been a lot of talk lately about Mike Pence speaking at the SBC. Many complained claiming it was divisive and political. Jonathan Leeman wrote an article for The Gospel Coalition criticizing the very idea of Mike Pence speaking. I will address this article in greater detail on the points that I agree and disagree with. But first, let me answer the very question I posed: Pence isn’t too political to address a congregation, but his speech was.

In short, Mike Pence’s address offered zero substantive theological content. It was merely about his privilege as serving as Vice President. While acknowledging this privilege merited a short section in the beginning, it needed no more continuation. Instead, Mike Pence droned on and on about his experiences and the administration’s accomplishments.

I think there’s only one way you can sum up this administration: It’s been 500 days of action, 500 days of accomplishment. It’s been 500 days of promises made and promises kept. 

Pence’s address followed a pattern of praising Trump with loosely intertwined references to God and praising his hosts as guest speakers often do. The intertwined religious language while praising the accomplishments, not of God, but of the President is the briefest summation of Pence’s speech to the SBC that can be offered. The only biblical passage cited was Psalm 126 in reference to a story that served as praise to the Trump administration. God wasn’t working though Trump in Pence’s speech. Instead, Trump was working. At the end of his speech, Pence did offer a superficial message about praying for America with a quoting scripture.

Mike Pence had an opportunity to address the leaders of many churches. He blew it. But would all politicians do the same?

Politicians Should Be in the Pew, Not the Pulpit?

Jonathan Leeman’s article for The Gospel Coalition draws this conclusion. He has five reasons for not allowing politicians to address a church event.

  1. No reason to give attention to a politician’s words over a plumber’s or an accountant’s, at least not in our assemblies or associations.
  2. Having a political leader address our churches or associations of churches tempts us to misconstrue our mission.
  3. Undermines our evangelistic and prophetic witness.
  4. Hurts the unity of Christ’s body

Reason one is most certainly true. However, I believe we ought to separate the person from the profession. On the basis of spiritual maturity and calling should a politician or any notable guest address an assembly. This first reason is the one I believe to have the most merit in regards to the situation at hand. Inviting a politician to address a Congregation is wrong if the only reason is that they are a politician. However, if the politician is a member of the church, what is wrong with having a fellow member speak?

Reasons two and three are certainly tied together in there logic. I believe these reasons hold merit for Pence’s sacrelidgious speech but are not inherently true of all politicians who accept such similar offers. Reasons two and three open a multitude of separate issues both independent and dependent on the circumstances. Meaning, yes this could happen, but the degree in which we can mitigate the temptation are limited for Satan is the tempter. In the case of Pence, reason three was definitely true. Many would see that the SBC tied itself to Trump. But that is not the fault of the SBC per se. But that is Pence’s fault for giving a campaign rally speech instead of a message. If Pence gave a theologically sound speech there should be little temptation to misconstrue the mission. The third reason is inevitable. Since the beginning, Christians witness has been undermined by the lies of Satan. The original Christians were thought to be cannibal and even atheists. We can’t always prevent these lies, but it would be good not to validate them which Pence did.

Now hurting the unity of the body of Christ is a weak point. Leeman’s fourth point is basically saying that Pence is too polarizing, because Trump is… Trump, on a National level to address a church. Pence is polarizing, but he was polarizing before Trump. The polarizing premise is true but, assuming Pence is indeed a follower off Christ, this would be the result of living a Christian life. Here’s another polarizing figure: Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop. Would polarity disqualify him from speaking? If we are to apply national likability to our church speakers, we’re going to end up with a lot of TV personalities who don’t comprehend dyophysitism.

Like Jack Philips, Pence has taken a lot of flak for being a devout Christian. Isn’t this the kind of person who may have a good message to the assembly? Seemingly so. Again Pence under-delivered. To be fair, Leeman clearly states he doesn’t blanket outlaw politicians from speaking.

I can envision a few circumstances where there is some measure of mission overlap that could justify it. Maybe a group of Christian college presidents asks the secretary of education to address them. Or a Christian conference on work asks a Christian congressman to talk about working as a Christian on the Hill, so that attendees can apply the principles to their own settings.

But while it’s not an outlaw, such an unwritten policy places constraints on the church that are not inherently necessary. Leeman supposes some similar justification was used when The Gospel Coalition had Ben Sasse speak. In 2017, Ben Sasse addressed The Gospel Coalition and gave a theological speech. He was noted for sounding more like a pastor than a politician.

To me only two things matter:

  1. Theological substance
  2. Correct theological substance

On these two requirements I think the body of Christ would remain unified with a clear picture of its mission.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video Double play: Busting the gun grabber’s musket myth.

Published

on

By

Gun confiscation bingo

Two videos that eviscerate the Liberty Grabbers ‘One shot’ musket myth.

It is a bedrock principle (if they have any) of the Liberty grabber Left that back during the ratification of the US Constitution the only weapons in existence were flintlock musket that took 5 minute to reload. Thus there wasn’t any school violence because it would have taken too long for the perpetrator to kill anyone.

As it typical of the lore of the national socialist Left, this is a lie of the first order. A previous video celebrated the “Assault Weapon” tricentennial, which was bit of the tongue in cheek variety since there were other repeating “Military Style” weapons in existence before this time period. These will be detailed in future articles. Meanwhile we present two videos that also bust the ‘Musket Myth’, one a short presentation from the Royal Armouries on the Jover and Belton “Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket”

Royal Armouries
Published on Aug 30, 2017
Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson, gives us a peek at the Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket, by Jover and Belton (1786)

This is a very relevant piece since the inventor Joseph Belton corresponded with the Continental Congress in 1777:

May it Please your Honours,
I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg’d, to be loaded and fire’d with cartridge as usual.

“It was demonstrated before noted scientists and military officers (including well known scientist David Rittenhouse and General Horatio Gates)”

This destroys the mythology that the founders had no knowledge of this type of repeating firearm technology that existed already.

The second is a humours dissertation on the subject from video raconteur Steven Crowder https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/

from a few years ago that also eviscerates this bit of Leftist mythology.

Published on Feb 10, 2015
People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn’t apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?

So why is this important?

Two primary reasons. One that these factual examples demonstrate that the founding fathers knew of these technological advances. Therefore, they destroy any Leftist pretences that the 2nd amendment be confined to muskets. Second that, school violence is something other than an issue of guns.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Gay Americans speak out in support of Christian Baker, against the gay lobby

Published

on

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

-Patrick Henry

As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Now, however, after years of radical LGBT activist domination over the nation’s dialogue surrounding civil rights, liberty-loving gay Americans are pushing back.

All wheels have begun to squeak.

Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled (7-2) in favor of Jack Phillips, a devout Christian and confectionary artist. In 2012, after declining to lend his artistry skills toward the custom adornment of a cake intended for the celebration of a same-sex wedding, Phillips was sued for discrimination and was later found guilty by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Although the Commission had deemed Phillips’s art – confectionary art is a subset of sugar art – as expression under the First Amendment, his religious views were publicly attacked by commissioners. It was this blatant governmental bias which persuaded the Supreme Court to reverse all previous rulings against Mr. Phillips.

Despite of the Supreme Court ruling’s narrow scope, by mid-day on Monday, freedom-loving gay Americans had begun to speak out in support of Jack Phillips’s Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, and celebrate the Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Phillips’s favor.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must… undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

-Thomas Paine

Pushing Back: Live on the Radio

Speaking with Rush Limbaugh on Monday, a Seattle woman who identified herself, saying, “I’m gay, I’m Hispanic, I’m female, I’m middle-aged, and I’m conservative,” stated:

I wanted to comment on the cake thing, on the Supreme Court judgment ruling on the cake matter. I wanted to say that I am so pleased to hear that, because I just don’t understand how people in this country can keep fighting against having their negative rights, against having what makes this country great, and against that which are the people that came to this country and come to this country, come here for. I just don’t get it… we are the country on this planet that stands for everyone to come and have liberty.

…[P]eople want to have freedom. But what they don’t understand is that freedom never needs to be defended. It’s liberty that needs to be defended. God gives us our freedom. God gives us the right to be free. We have to defend our liberty.

Another Limbaugh caller who identified himself as a wedded gay man, expressed disdain for the radical LGBT activists, describing them as “militant,” asserting:

…[I]t does not make our situation any easier when these militants are on the news because they do not represent me.

His {the husband’s] family didn’t show up at our wedding because they believe a marriage is between one man and one woman. And I don’t want to brand them a bigot or a homophobe for the rest of their lives when I could have an opportunity to have a relationship with them. I’d rather understand where they’re coming from and try to build off of what we have in common than brand them over a decision like a cake and then not have a relationship with the man I love’s family.

The caller continued his frank criticism, stating:

I think these militants make it worse, not better, and they don’t have me — in mind when they’re out there doing it… I just think they’re really loud and obnoxious, and so they get on the news.

They went on TV, and they said what their case was. They said it was never about the cake; it was about making them do what they wanted them to do. 

And I would rather go get a cake from somewhere else and not be on the news and have a chance at understanding where other people are coming from than force my will on them any more than I want them to force their will on me. I know a lot of people don’t accept gay marriage. However, it’s a lifestyle choice I made. They choose not to bake me a cake. I’ll get one somewhere else.

My sexuality makes up so small of who I am as a person; it really shouldn’t matter.

Pushing Back: Speaking Out on Twitter

Other non-totalitarian, liberty-loving gay Americans chose to push back by making their voices heard via social media.

Pushing Back: The New Squeaky Wheels

The phenomenon of gay Americans, fellow freedom-fighters, pushing back against the radical LGBT lobby isn’t unique to the Masterpiece Cakeshop court case. Since 2013, Chad Felix Greene- a wedded gay man – has “been writing in favor of religious freedom for those asked to participate in gay weddings.”

After Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, Mr. Greene stated:

LGBT’s hysterical denunciations and hair-on-fire rhetoric has not changed. Fortunately the argument has. We must continue fighting the rhetoric.

This case is not over.

Back in December of 2017, a gay duo – T.J. and Matt – made headlines for their open support of Jack Phillips and all who wish to exercise religious liberty and freedom of speech.  In a video for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the pair, standing outside the front entrance of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, explained:

We’re here to buy stuff from him and support him, because we don’t think any artist should be forced to create for something that violates their beliefs.

On Monday, echoing the same sentiment, Mr. Greene explained to his followers on Twitter:

The LGBT movement needs to understand that tolerance goes both ways. They have been behaving as though they are entitled to special treatment from everyone under the guise of ‘equality.’

We have equality. But we don’t have the right to demand others violate their beliefs for us.

The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages is what every part is entitled to and ought to enjoy.

-Benjamin Franklin

Reason to Hope

The trappings of authoritarian identify politics are being rejected and the walls are beginning to crumble. Liberty-loving Americans representing a plurality of circumstance and lifestyle, often hidden from the limelight of the media, are joining together in good will.

As a Christian and an artist, I count the mounting acts of ideological divergence – examples of bravery – from those in the gay community, as true blessings!

Alas! The Lord works in mysterious ways.

 

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.