Free Market

TN Rep. Blackburn Fighting to Block FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules

0

 

On Friday the office of Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn issued the following press release regarding her renewed fight against FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules and introduction of H.R. 4070, the Internet Freedom Act.
 

Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chair Marsha Blackburn today renewed her fight to block the FCC’s efforts to implement new net neutrality rules. In response to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s announcement this week that the FCC would begin the process of rewriting the agency’s Net Neutrality rules, Blackburn has introduced H.R. 4070, the Internet Freedom Act of 2014.Congressman Blackburn’s legislation would block the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules from 2010 by stating they shall have no force or effect and prohibits the FCC from reissuing new Net Neutrality rules.
 
“In typical fashion, the Obama Administration is proving once again that they will stop at nothing to restrict our Internet freedom. Despite having their regulations rejected by a federal appeals court, Chairman Wheeler has decided to press forward with the effort to implement these overreaching rules.
 
“Net Neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet. Once the FCC has a foothold into managing how internet service providers run their networks they will essentially be deciding which content goes first, second, third, or not at all. It’s time for Congress to slam the FCC’s regulatory back-door shut, lock it, and return the keys to the free market. My legislation will put the brakes on net neutrality and protect our innovators from these job-killing regulations.”
 
Earlier this year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the FCC’s net neutrality rules, which were first proposed in 2010 by former Chairman Julius Genachowski. Congressman Blackburn has been leading the fight against the Obama Administration’s net neutrality rules and first introduced the Internet Freedom Act during the 112th Congress.

Also on Friday Rep. Blackburn appeared on Fox News to discuss the FCC’s efforts to control content over the broadcast airwaves and online, the First Amendment and Net Neutrality.

 

2-22-2014 1-24-50 PM

 

YouTube Preview Image

 

For updates on H.R. 4070 and other news you can follow Marsha Blackburn at blackburn.house.gov and on her Twitter and Facebook accounts.

 

Austrian Economics with Glenn Jacobs

0

 

Glenn Jacobs spoke to a group regarding Austian Economics several months back in the video shown below which I had intended to share.  Today I realize that despite the best of intentions and saving the video I had not yet posted the presentation by Glenn Jacobs, published by messengersforliberty, which I would encourage all to watch.  Should you have the opportunity to attend a meeting featuring Glenn Jacobs as speaker I would recommend attending, as you will find him to be a highly personable and intelligent individual, and that you will find your time very well spent.

 

Austrian Economics with Glenn Jacobs

 

2-9-2014 11-38-41 AM

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by messengersforliberty

This economic presentation with Glenn Jacobs, aka Kane, was documented on September 5, 2013.

“It really ticks me off when I hear leftists and statists talk about how the free market causes wealth inequality, the free market doesn’t. The free market though out history has allowed poor people to pull themselves up and has given people more socio economic ability to move up and down the socio economic ladder, up, than anything else in history.
Paul Krugman, who is a keynesian economist par excellence, just wants to inflate like crazy, but yet he writes a column for the New York Times and it’s called ‘Conscience of a Liberal’, because he loves poor people despite the fact that he’s the guy that’s killing them, but then he’ll look at someone like me and say you hate the poor. I don’t hate the poor, I hate the fact that they’re poor.”
—Glenn Jacobs

Follow Glenn Jacobs on Twitter: @JacobsReport

 

Mussolini’s Idea of the State and Its American Defenders

0

 

Source: https://mises.org

By

Mussolini’s Idea of the State and Its American Defenders

 

6645All social theory can be reduced to two categories: those that conceive of society as the result of peace, and those for which the indispensable ingredient is violence. This is the fundamental distinction between liberalism and fascism, a point I discuss further in a book I released earlier this year called Fascism vs. Capitalism.

There is some confusion surrounding terms here. When Ludwig von Mises published his book Liberalism in English translation, he changed the title to The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth. He did so because by the latter half of the twentieth century, the word “liberal” no longer carried the meaning it once had. It had come to mean centralization, the welfare state, and a substantial government presence in economic and social life.

The liberalism I have in mind, of course, is not the modern liberalism of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but the classical liberalism of Thomas Jefferson and Frédéric Bastiat. Classical liberalism, by contrast, believed in free markets, free trade, toleration, and civil liberties.

It represented a movement toward a theory of society in which human cooperation emerged spontaneously and without coercion, by means of the natural processes of the market economy. It recognized that society seemed to manage itself without the involvement of extraneous forces like kings, aristocracies, or parliaments, and that the intervention of those forces was more likely aimed at the enrichment of a favored group or of the state itself than of at the well-being of society at large.

The price system, a spontaneous product of the free-market economy, helped entrepreneurs arrange the factors of production in such a way as to produce those outputs most highly valued by society, and to produce them in a way that was least costly in terms of opportunities foregone. Individuals specialized in those areas in which they had the greatest skill or knowledge, and the resulting division of labor meant a vastly greater output of consumer goods for everyone to enjoy. None of this required the intervention of the state.

For the classical liberal, the state was almost an afterthought. Some would have it provide a few basic services, while others conceived of it as nothing more than a night watchman. Beginning with Gustave de Molinari, the classical-liberal tradition even groped toward the possibility that the state was a dangerous, parasitical, and ultimately unnecessary monopoly.

And, of course, it was against a backdrop of peace that the classical liberal described the progress of mankind.

Fascists looked at society and the state quite differently. The prosaic bourgeois virtues of commerce, of producing, trading, and earning profit, are viewed with contempt next to the code of the warrior, which is what the fascist truly respects. Greatness comes not through the ordinary pursuits of the market or the obedience to the duties of one’s state in life, but through struggle.

It is Benito Mussolini’s famous remark — “Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state” — that truly sums up the essence of fascism. The good of the Nation, as defined by the fascist leader, surpasses all other concerns and allegiances. The fascist speaks of the Nation with a religious reverence. An Italian fascist youth movement in the 1920s composed the following creed:

I believe in Rome the Eternal, the mother of my country, and in Italy her eldest Daughter, who was born in her virginal bosom by the grace of God; who suffered through the barbarian invasions, was crucified and buried; who descended to the grave and was raised from the dead in the nineteenth century; who ascended into Heaven in her glory in 1918 and 1922; who is seated on the right hand of her mother Rome; and who for this reason shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the genius of Mussolini, in our Holy Father Fascism, in the communion of its martyrs, in the conversion of Italians, and in the resurrection of the Empire.

This devotion to the Nation is concentrated in allegiance to the charismatic leader. The untrammeled exercise of the leader’s will is a central ingredient in the realization of the Nation’s destiny. Moreover, the leader’s will must trump the array of activities that comprise the free market. The various companies, professions, unions, and government must work together with a conscious plan to ensure the best outcome for the Nation. This is why it is so preposterous to hear opponents of the market economy describe libertarians as “fascists.” No one could be more anti-fascist than a libertarian.

Political centralization was also central to fascism, for if the Nation is the embodiment of the people, and if it is through the Nation that every individual realizes his destiny, we cannot tolerate resistance by lesser jurisdictions within the Nation.

To say that there are fascist trends and features in the United States of today is not to say that this country is just like interwar Italy or Germany. There are some features of fascism as traditionally understood that can be found only faintly in American society today, and others than can be found not at all.

But it would be foolish to pretend that America is the very opposite of the fascist dystopias. Whether it’s the emphasis on centralization, the glorification of the police and the military, the yearning for a “third way” between capitalism and socialism, the elevation of “public service” above the services we freely provide one another on the market, the creepy and incessant references to “my president” or “our president,” or the depiction of the state as a quasi-divine instrument, the commonalities are neither trivial nor few.

Americans no doubt recoil from or laugh at that passage from the Italian fascists I shared with you a few moments ago. But few Americans are in a position to render such a judgment. Most have absorbed the idea that their government, far from a merely utilitarian contrivance established to provide them with some basic services, as many early Americans doubtless conceived of it, is a redemptive force in the world.

John Winthrop appropriated a biblical image of the church when he spoke of his settlement of Puritans as resembling a “city on a hill.” By the time Ronald Reagan made that phrase a rhetorical commonplace in American politics, it had been fully secularized. Not the church but the American state would transform mankind as God’s instrument.

Americans, even (or perhaps especially) American Christians, are for that reason not scandalized at politicians’ appropriation of religious language to describe their government. It bothers them not at all to learn that the iconic Abraham Lincoln said “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” American government ideals, or that when George W. Bush said “the light shined in darkness and the darkness did not overcome it,” by “light” he meant American government ideals.

In US history, presidents who avoided war, or who viewed the presidential office modestly and without messianic overtones, are neglected or even denounced by our official historians. You can guess at the views and activities of the presidents favored by the opinion molders. “Beware any politician who is ‘beloved,’” historian Ralph Raico once warned.

The cult of personality surrounding the US president has only grown over the past century, culminating in the creepy videos of schoolchildren pledging allegiance to Barack Obama and the YouTube videos of Hollywood actors promising their eternal loyalty. But some of those who ridiculed these ridiculous displays had themselves been part of the cult of George W. Bush. During the Bush years, Christian neocons made a video about the president set to the tune of Johnny Cash’s classic “When the Man Comes Around.” That song had been written about Jesus Christ. Here are some of the words they set to a video about George W. Bush:

There’s a man goin’ ‘round takin’ names. An’ he decides who to free and who to blame. Everybody won’t be treated all the same. There’ll be a golden ladder reaching down. When the man comes around.

Till Armageddon, no Shalam, no Shalom. Then the father hen will call his chickens home. The wise men will bow down before the throne. And at his feet they’ll cast their golden crown. When the man comes around.

That man, remember, was George W. Bush.

Americans are taught that they owe their freedoms to their government’s military. Whether it’s a country music concert, a sporting event, or even a restaurant chain, Americans are subjected to a ceaseless stream of reminders of what they allegedly owe to this particular class of government employees. (Let’s not forget the popular bumper sticker: “Only two defining forces have ever died for you: Jesus the Christ and the American soldier.”) How exactly their freedoms were threatened in any of the military conflicts in question is one of those impertinent questions one does not ask in polite society.

The propaganda has worked, to some extent at least. When Edward Snowden revealed the extent to which their government was spying on and lying to them, many listeners of right-wing radio demanded not that these activities cease, but that the leaker himself be silenced. The man who had embarrassed their rulers should be tried for treason and executed. I have heard this phenomenon described as a case of society-wide Stockholm Syndrome, and I don’t think that’s far from the mark.

If some of the superstitions of fascism have made their way into American life, it could be because both fascism and whatever it is that America has become share a superstition in common — namely, the state itself. The state has been cloaked in all manner of flattering but obfuscating rhetoric. The state looks after the general welfare, provides economic stability, protects us from the bad guys, prevents inequality, and binds us together in a common cause greater than ourselves.

It’s time we viewed the state for what it really is: a mechanism by which rulers enrich themselves at the expense of the ruled. Everything else is a smokescreen.

 


About the Author

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

LewRockwell

 

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is chairman and CEO of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Fascism versus Capitalism. Send him mail. See Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.’s article archives

 

Image credit: https://mises.org

 

 

The Economics of the Police State | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

3

 

The Economics of the Police State | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

 

1-24-2014 6-51-39 PM

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by misesmedia

Published on Jan 22, 2014

Recorded at the Mises Circle Southwest Regional in Houston, 18 January 2014. Includes an introduction by Jeff Deist.

In the modern United States, federal laws are now so numerous and written so broadly and vaguely, that it is nearly impossible to make it through the day without breaking at least one of them. And through it all, an enormous government apparatus of prisons, prosecutors, police, and bureaucrats remains well-funded, powerful, and nearly impossible to oppose in court.

 

Obamacare’s Many Negative Side-Effects Should Surprise No One

0

 

Source: https://mises.org

By

Obamacare’s Many Negative Side-Effects Should Surprise No One

 

6623Even left liberals are coming to realize that Obamacare is fatally flawed. Perhaps this is because fewer people will be insured at the end of the year, under Obamacare, than at the beginning of the year as insurers are forced to drop coverage. Stories of such cancellations to cancer-stricken children certainly don’t help matters. For a program whose expressed purpose is to bring insurance to more people, this irony seems even too much for the interventionists to stomach.

Obamacare’s negative effects, however, are simply a microcosm of government policy in general. Virtually all well-intended (assuming they are in fact well-intended) government policies bring negative unintended consequences that hurt the very people they intend to serve. The prevalence of this paradox, called iatrogenics (originally used in the medical context to refer to doctors’ actions that hurt patients), should give pause to those who favor government intervention to solve societal problems.

Take rent control policies, for example, intended to make housing more accessible to those with lower incomes. In reality these policies shrink the amount of available housing because potential landlords have less incentive to rent out, and developers have less incentive to build new, units. As a result, less housing is available for those with lower incomes. Just look at the apartment shortage in New York or San Francisco, the two cities with the most stringent rent-control policies, for proof.

This process of iatrogenics also exists in financial regulation. Polemicist Nassim Taleb has illustrated how increased financial regulation intended to prevent another financial crisis has actually made one more likely. Regulations entrust the fate of the financial system to a handful of big banks because they are the only ones who can afford to comply with them. This consolidation of power among the big banks makes the financial system riskier because if one of these few banks fails the damage will be much greater to the economy than from the failure of one small bank among many. “These attempts to eliminate the business cycle,” says Taleb, “lead to the mother of all fragilities.”

In terms of protecting society’s most economically disadvantaged, sociologist Charles Murray chronicles, most recently in his bestseller Coming Apart, how the federal government’s war on poverty paradoxically hurts the poor. He explains that though welfare benefits are well intentioned, what they in effect do is pay people to stay poor, hurting the very people they intend to help. These misaligned incentives are a leading reason why $15 trillion in welfare spending over the past 50 years has perversely resulted in a 50-year-high poverty rate of 15.1 percent.

Those currently advocating for a raise of the minimum wage should first examine its iatrogenic history of bringing about negative unintended consequences to the very low wage people it intends to help. Minimum wage increases actually hurt low wage earners because business owners lay off staff and cut back on hours to try to recoup their losses from such mandated wage increases. This leaves those with a tenuous grasp on the labor market in an even more precarious position. “Unfortunately, the real minimum wage is always zero, regardless of the laws,” says economist Thomas Sowell, “and that is the wage that many workers receive in the wake of the creation or escalation of a government-mandated minimum wage, because they either lose their jobs or fail to find jobs.”

Of course it’s not only left liberal policies that generate negative unintended consequences that hurt the very people they’re intended to help, but also conservative ones like the war on drugs and the war on terror.

The war on drugs intends to help drug-blighted communities by enacting and enforcing strict penalties on drug use. What it in effect does is hurt these communities by making criminals out of a significant portion of its inhabitants. Drug users now make up nearly 25 percent of federal and state prison inmates, many of whom go in for simple possessions and come out hardened criminals wreaking untold damage on their communities. Even those who do not run afoul with the law again face a lifetime of job and social struggles with a criminal record attached to their name.

The same iatrogenic story exists in the war on terror, which intends to keep us safe by waging a multipronged offensive against potential terrorists and the geographies they may inhabit. Unfortunately, as former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer has illustrated, some of these prongs, such as aggressive drone warfare and support for apostate regimes, actually fan the flames of US hatred making us less safe. “It’s American policy that enrages al-Qaeda,” says Scheuer, “not American culture and society.”

Government intervention, no matter what its form or intention, causes iatrogenics — unintended negative consequences that hurt the very people they’re intended to help. Nowhere is this better exemplified than with Obamacare, a policy intended to bring insurance to all that has in effect taken it away from many. Perhaps the growing coalition of people recognizing this paradox will take this revelation and apply it to other policy arenas as well. For the affected classes, we can only hope.

 


About the Author

Jordan Bruneau

Jordan Bruneau is a research analyst in Washington D.C. focusing on economic freedom and well-being issues. 

 

Image credit: https://mises.org

 

The Side Effects of Obamacare on Healthcare Providers with Dr. Keith Smith

2

 

The Side Effects of Obamacare on Healthcare Providers with Dr. Keith Smith

 

Next News Network (N3) video capture

Next News Network (N3) video capture

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by NextNewsNetwork

Amid a flurry of system failures, the President has taken to the road, to build support for his healthcare law. Each day, the Chief Executive will outline one success of the program, leading up to a December 23rd deadline to get coverage in January.

Many observers close to the debate over the law believe providing lower prices would have been better-provided by a free market system. Some healthcare providers are supplying services at lower prices by offering procedures in exchange for immediate payment.

One of these facilities is the Surgery Center of Oklahoma. This healthcare provider is collectively owned by approximately 40 local surgeons. Payment plans are not available through the center for outpatient surgery. But, they are a state-of-the art medical institution with infection rates much lower than the national average.

The medical director of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma is Doctor Keith Smith. He is a board-certified anesthesiologist with over two decades experience in private practice. He is also an author, who has written extensively on the effects of Obamacare.

Doctor Smith is our guest on the show today.

LIVE: http://NextNewsNetwork.com
Facebook: http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Twitter: http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
Sub: http://NNN.is/the_new_media
Meet the Next News Team: http://youtu.be/2QnNKwQ2WkY
Hashtag: #N3

 

Obamacare disaster exposes what happens when government is too big not to fail

0

 

Source: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

By

 

Obamacare disaster exposes what happens when government is too big not to fail

 

Obamacare-2-cc2

Obamacare is a crony capitalist vehicle, created in haste, against the will of the majority of Americans, put together by political hacks, enforced by the most hated agency of the United States government, which forced the cancellation of millions of health insurance policies, is “navigated” by people who could in theory be felons, which potentially exposes our personal information to all parts of government, which has made life harder and more expensive for millions, which constitutes a massive tax increase on the middle class, and is named for a man who lied repeatedly over 3 years to the people of the United States about whether they could keep their health insurance plans and doctors. The law stinks.

Obamacare should be repealed. It should be unwound. It, as I’ve said before, should be tossed into the dustbin of history and burned.

This is what happens when a program becomes too big not to fail. We’re looking at it. Obamacare was a huge power grab by the statist establishment. Nationalized healthcare is the holy grail of big government people because if the bureaucrats control your healthcare, ultimately they control you.

But the statists bit off more than they could chew. Obamacare is now dying and suddenly many people who didn’t really think about such things very much are coming to understand why it is that “big government” is a bad thing.

That the program was put together by people who I think it is now clear had no idea what was going on from the outset is amazing. Weren’t the Obamacare folks supposed to be competent? Wouldn’t a responsible leader have stopped or at least changed the direction of the snowball of dysfunction once it was realized that things were not going well, 2 years ago?

The average American is increasingly asking, “Why should I trust my health to these people? Many are also asking, people who didn’t ask it before, “Why should I trust my country to these people?”

In the wake of the of the government shutdown Rachael Maddow actually crowed about how with the end of the government “shutdown” so too had America’s traditional distrust of government ended. Big government is the way forward! Thank God we put Ted Cruz in his place. See I told you we’d beat those evil Tea Partiers. Hurrah for the state! Hurrah for Obamacare, Hurrah for Obama!

It was only a month ago that she was saying this. A month. The world has changed, and the worm has turned for the big government people.

What needs to happen now is that the free market people need to solve the problems in healthcare the American people have legitimate concerns about, specifically a catastrophic health event. This could be a diagnosis of cancer, of a developmental disability in a child, Parkinson’s, the maladies are myriad, and people are right to be concerned that they might find themselves losing everything in bankruptcy on top of a life changing or terminal illness diagnosis.

This fundamentally is the concern of most Americans. It’s not birth control. It’s not “wellness visits.” It’s not prenatal care. It is financial destruction because of sickness.

This is the political nugget. The big government people have sold the American people on the idea that the only way to address this problem is through a massive new government program, which is absolutely false. This problem can be solved through the market.

Bankruptcy due to illness may be the primary concern for everyday Americans, but it’s not for the statists. The big government folks DO want “free” birth control, and wellness visits, and prenatal care, and everything else. The specter of bankruptcy for a middle class family is a valuable tool to motivate people to the national healthcare cause, but its not the primary concern. The main concern is pulling more of the American economy into the sphere of the state.

Right now there is an incredible opportunity to show to the American people how free market solutions could address their primary health concern. A solution needs to be ready to go. Obamacare can’t just die. It needs to be buried by the free market.

Or burned in the dustbin of history. Either one is cool with me.

Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org


Nick Sorrentino
About Nick Sorrentino

Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.

 

 

The Economic Crisis On Our Doorstep

0

 

The Economic Crisis On Our Doorstep

 

11-11-2013 9-43-06 PM

 

YouTube Preview Image

 

Published by Libertarianism.org

About:

Dr. Ron Paul was formerly the U.S. Representative for Texas’s 14th congressional district. He has also been a three-time candidate for President of the United States; as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and 2012.

Paul speaks at a meeting of the Economic Club of Detroit in 1988. He warns of a coming economic crisis, which he claims is the end result of the government’s fiscal and monetary programs.

###

Again, Ron Paul had it right and told all willing to listen regarding the upcoming economic crisis.

 

 

The Real Reason Libertarians Aren’t Settling For Conservatism

1

 

Source: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

By

The Real Reason Libertarians Aren’t Settling For Conservatism

 

For_A_New_Liberty-cc

It is often assumed by many who do not know better that libertarians are just conservatives who like to smoke pot and really like guns. There is something to this simple minded assessment, but it is very simple minded. Libertarians are for liberty on both the social and the economic front. It is a forward looking ethos. It does not cling to tradition per se, but believes that solutions for society are best found using an uncoerced marketplace of ideas. Sometimes age old traditions are the best solution, sometimes they are not.

Fundamentally libertarians believe that they own their own lives. The government can not lay claim arbitrarily to one’s life or livelihood. A government must earn trust from its citizens in the same way we must earn trust from our neighbors and how companies earn the trust of their customers. The goal is to make society as voluntary as humanly possible.

Where liberals and conservatives see areas of society which demand coercion from the state, the draft, taxes, Obamacare, drug laws, etc, libertarians see none.

Libertarians are also fundamentally opposed to the mixing of state and business, which invariably ends in some form of crony capitalism (the friendliest form of fascism – which is not too friendly).

Libertarianism is the most important movement in American politics today. It might be the most important movement in the world. And we are still in very early days.

(From TownHall.com)
 
Let’s have a look at some numbers of the people who call themselves “libertarian.” A few weeks ago, a think tank called the Public Religion Research Institute released a big data report on those who describe themselves as “libertarian.” There are some big consistencies; for example, 96 percent oppose Obamacare. But what is most striking is that a majority (39 percent) consider themselves “moderates”—not conservatives or liberals.
 
To be sure, this report notes that most libertarians are registered Republicans (45 percent). However, more libertarians are independent (35 percent), third party (15 percent), or Democrats (five percent) when combined. It is a misinterpretation of libertarian values to assume that all would vastly prefer Republican candidates. If we were just looking at party affiliation, Republican libertarians do not represent even half of the libertarian demographic.

Click here for the article.

Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org


Nick Sorrentino
About Nick Sorrentino

Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.

 

Essential government US Postal worker or just a waste of tax dollars?

0

 

Essential government US Postal worker or just a waste of tax dollars?

I think we have all heard about people working for the government because they could not get a job in the real world.  This US Postal worker would be a classic example.

In all fairness, what is perceived as lazy, slow and having no respect for personal property or pride in their work may simply be a case of an individual highly allergic to beautiful weather.  Personally, I wouldn’t have this person deliver my pizza or my USPS mail.  Do you think a future job with FedEx or UPS is likely, probably not.

 

Video capture

Video capture

YouTube Preview Image

What are your thoughts?

Go to Top