Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: North American Union

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Deutschland
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Gender
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    1,019
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    14
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    23
    Thanked in
    17 Posts

    North American Union

    THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION "MATRIX"

    PART 8



    By Steven Yates, June 5, 2006
    NewsWithViews.com



    "We've got trouble!" --Tank, The Matrix


    Back in 2004, I published The Real Matrix in seven parts (read them here). I had little idea how the process outlined there would accelerate in 2005 and 2006. Indeed, even those still “plugged in” ought to be wondering why the U.S. Senate just gave thumbs-up (62 yeas vs. 26 nays) to an immigration bill that most of the public does not want and would clearly be destructive of this country’s long-term best interests—educationally, culturally, and economically. Those of us out here in the Desert of the Real are aware that the Senate just took us one step closer to a North American Union. In fact, I do not believe the Senate’s action of May 25 can be understood apart from this larger scheme.


    In 2005:


    (1) March 14. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) issued a Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010. Three former high-ranking government officials from the U.S., Canada and Mexico claim this will address “shared security threats, challenges to competitiveness, and interest in broad-based development across the three countries.”


    (2) March 23. President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin, signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The Wall Street Journal, long an advocate of globalism, published “North America the Beautiful” (republished on the CFR website). “Deepening the integration of our three countries promises great benefits for our citizens,...” the WSJ opined. “Working groups” were formed, with the promise of progress reports in 90 days.


    (3) April 20. S.853, the North American Cooperative Security Act, was introduced in the Senate (the corresponding House bill, H.R. 2672, would be introduced on May 26). This bill proposes the deep integration of security strategies of U.S., Canada and Mexico and the formation of a common perimeter around all three, using the supposed threat of terrorism as a reason for close monitoring citizens of all three nations. (At present, this Act remains buried in committee but will doubtless surface in the next year or so.) This bill would call for “the development and expansion of public-private partnerships to secure the supply chain of goods coming into North America …”

    Public-private partnerships equals corporatism equals soft fascism (as I have argued elsewhere). It would call for “a common security perimeter by enhancing technical assistance for programs and systems to support advance reporting and risk management of cargo data, improved integrity measures through automated collection of fees, and advance technology to rapidly screen cargo.” None of these governments have control over their borders now. Are we really expected to believe they intend to monitor a perimeter that would be thousands of miles longer? The true purpose, to “promote the legitimate flow of both people and goods across international borders.”

    In other words—given that legitimate will mean whatever those with money and power want it to mean—open borders, with high-tech surveillance. Note that while doubtless there are people who will believe all these combined security measures look good—aren’t we supposed to protect ourselves from terrorists, after all?—none are possible without a radical internationalizing of the relevant laws and regulations and the formation of supranational globocracies to oversee their implementation. The new cadre of globocrats will answer to the super-elite, not to the U.S. Constitution or to American voters.


    (4) May 17. The CFR reported on a “Task Force Urges Measures to Strengthen North American Competitiveness, Expand Trade, Ensure Border Security.” The official CFR News Release stated, “We need a vision for North America to address the new challenges. The Task Force establishes a blueprint for a powerhouse North American trading area that allows for the seamless movement of goods, increased labor mobility, and energy security. We are asking the leaders of the United States, Mexico and Canada to be bold and adopt a vision of the future that is bigger than, and beyond, the immediate problems of the present… They could be the architects of a new community of North America, not mere custodians of the status quo.” Note that North America is being used here to name a supranational entity, not merely a continent.

    (5) May 27. The CFR released its book-length statement Building a North American Community: Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America. This statement included the following: “We think that there should be a North American border pass: a card that we can use to enter any of the three countries without going through the normal procedures for questioning either at airports or at the border with biometric identification…. We think that we should be on the fast track to complete labor mobility in North America…. And finally, in a military context, of course, we’re suggesting that the relationship can also be deepened; that NORAD needs to essentially expand beyond air defense and into other areas of defense…. It needs to be more clearly focused on the defense needs of North America.”

    (6) June 30. The Senate passed CAFTA-DR (NAFTA expanded to Central America and the Dominican Republic) by a vote of 54-45. The House would pass it 217-215—the closest vote on a trade deal ever, and with clear evidence of arm-twisting and deal-cutting that indicated how badly the power elite wanted this deal. Bush would sign it on August 2. CAFTA-DR is behind schedule in implementation because in nations like El Salvador this situation prevails: the local politicians and business elites want it while the common people don’t, and are fighting it.

    (7) July 27. The “working groups” established by the SPP checked in, with several proposals involving regional coordination and collaboration across national borders on a number of projects. More public-private partnerships had developed. The language again used North America as if it referred to a political entity instead of a continent.

    (8) February 21, 2006. Richard Haass, President of the CFR, openly published (in the Taiwan-based Taipei Times) a call to “alter” national sovereignty in a “globalized era.” Nations, argued Haass, “must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm.” The U.S. has already ceded some of its sovereignty through NAFTA and the WTO. It is nice of Haass to imply this.


    (9) March 29. President Bush met with Mexico’s President Vicente Fox and new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Cancun for their second North American Summit to further the SPP. More working groups, more public-private partnerships.


    (10) May 15. President Bush addressed the nation trying to sell his idea of a “temporary guest worker” program. He did not look at all comfortable speaking words we can be reasonably sure he doesn’t really believe: “the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation.” To be sure, no one—neither Bush nor anyone else associated with the super-elite—wanted illegal aliens to move to the front burner. The American people deserve some kudos for forcing their “leaders” to address this issue.


    (11) May 25. The Senate passed its amnesty-for-illegals bill. Now, of course, the ball bounces back to the House. The House earlier passed a bill that, while far from perfect, is not as offensive as what the Senate just passed.


    This journey through just some of the specifics of the past 17 months ought to bring some perspective to the current crisis, and shed light on the debate. The crisis is of super-elite manufacture. The debate will be meaningless unless it takes as its starting point the recognition of the super-elite goal to create a regional entity, the North American Union. (Whether it will be called that or not is anybody’s guess.) This would destroy the sovereignty of all three nations, and in particular, would end whatever is left of Constitutional government in these United States.


    Once unplugged from the Real Matrix we recognize, given these specifics (unreported in any mainstream media source) why Bush’s speech of May 15—at just 17 minutes, the shortest of his career—was as banal as banal gets. From the recognition of a hidden agenda at work, we see that Bush’s speech was contrived as an appearance of intent to do something to protect our Southern border, when in fact Bush wants to do nothing. Thus Bush makes observations like, “For decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders….” Well, duh!


    And: “Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems, yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life, but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law.”


    Uh-huh! Yes, they ‘put pressure’ on government schools. When kids can’t speak English, the result is classroom chaos. They ‘put pressure’ on hospitals by forcing them to close when the hospitals cannot afford the freebies. Yes, I suppose they ‘work hard [and] support their families’—by sending money back to Mexico. I don’t know about ‘practicing their faith’ and don’t know how Bush can know this, either. As for ‘leading responsible lives,’ what part of illegal does Bush not understand? “They are part of American life”? Many illegals’ first loyalty both is and will remain to Mexico. Fully 10 percent of Mexico’s work force now lives in the U.S. Many Mexicans have already declared California a ‘Hispanic state’ and have basically told the “gringos” living there, “if you don’t like it, leave!” Some illegals are followers of La Raza, the radical-left cult that wants to reclaim the entire American Southwest for Mexico and form a communist state called Aztlan. (The super-elite won’t let this happen, of course, but if enough Mexicans believe it will happen and act accordingly, their actions will continue weakening the cultural fabric of a unified U.S.. Hence La Raza serves a purpose; it is something the super-elite can use. Lenin’s term useful idiots applies.)


    I could deconstruct Bush’s speech paragraph by paragraph, but that would miss the point I cannot reiterate enough. Illegal aliens are colonizing America because the super-elite wants them here. Bush, a globalist (not a ‘conservative’), works for the super-elite, not for the American people (otherwise he would have been considered ‘not electable’ or some such). So whatever ‘proposals’ he offers, whether to safeguard our Southern border or to do anything else, are bound to be as contentless and full of doubletalk as what I’ve quoted above. Any attempt to put them into practice will be effectively gutted by excessive regulations and stipulations. For part 9 click Below.


    Click here for part -----> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,



    Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven18.htm

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Tripredacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Last Online
    2 Days Ago @ 09:42 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Germany, Poland, Italy
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Software Engineer
    Politics
    Fascism
    Religion
    I Am
    Posts
    331
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    26
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    64
    Thanked in
    44 Posts

    Re: The North American Union "Matrix"

    This seems to open the borders more than close them. This also seems to be a way to get the public to support a project, that has one name but does something totally different. I was wondering about the recent immigration issue with Mexico recently. I have been following the current and lead-to actions of this "NAFTA part 2" and wonder (still do) how this fits into things. If the "soverignty" of Mexico (as an example) is changed, so that this new North American Union makes Mexico an arm of the United States, this could possibly allow the absorbtion of that state.

    So what is the main goal of this? It obviously has no positive outcome for the US National. Is it to make it so that the US National has such hate for the people of Mexico that they will be driven out? But now not only driven out of the United States but Mexico as well?

    Or is this another way to put more economic control on the people? Request the use of more "invisible" money, putting more people in debts that they cannot possibly pay back, similar to how the WTO handles "third world" countries?

    Or even further to create a hatred for the system. So that people will say "anything but this" and then the system will be replaced with the "anything" that they do not want. A system of overt control instead of covert control?

    I still wonder about this, but shall sit back and see it unfold. The only sad thing is that things that are passed by Congress, like this and many other items, are not known by the public. They are not broadcast on US news. This item may well be mentioned, but all the little things that were passed prior to this is left out. So people will see 1 new thing, and know what this new thing's aim and abilities on draft are. Not what this one thing's abilities are with those prior things.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Tripredacus For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Online
    Monday, December 8th, 2008 @ 08:05 AM
    Ethnicity
    German & English
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Utah Utah
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Gender
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Biologist
    Politics
    Independent
    Posts
    291
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    11 states oppose North American Union

    Eagle Forum working with legislators to halt globalists' plans

    Eleven states are working on resolutions that would oppose not only the implementation but the idea of a "North American Union," or other plans that would lead to the integration of the United States into a larger structure.

    "Americans are rapidly learning the new vocabulary of the globalists," Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum told WND, "and they don't like it."

    While President Bush, many members of Congress, and Bush administration bureaucrats deny there are plans for a North American Union, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, those in state legislatures are taking no chances.

    Already, 11 states have introduced resolutions to oppose the SPP, the NAU, and even the idea of the amero, a proposed currency that could be used to replace the dollar.

    The resolutions also typically oppose the creation of North American Free Trade Act superhighways along the model of the Trans-Texas Corridor, the car-truck-train-pipeline corridor that is four football-fields wide and is being built parallel to Interstate 35 from Laredo, Texas to the border with Oklahoma, south of Oklahoma City.

    Schlafly told WND that those lawmakers, and their constituents, are reacting against a wide range of concepts and structures being generated by the increasing pace of the integration of North America they see under the Bush administration.

    "That's why state legislators are responding with resolutions criticizing a 'North American Community,' SPP, 'harmonization' of regulations, NAFTA superhighways, foreign-owned toll roads, totalization of Social Security, and speculation about the amero," Schlafly explained. "The groundswell is growing against measures that lead to 'economic integration' with other countries."

    Schlafly also has joined with Howard Philips of the Conservative Caucus to create an organization specifically opposing the NAU and NAFTA superhighways.

    "Phyllis Schlafly is doing a magnificent job leading the charge to oppose the North American integration at the state level," Phillips told WND. "Once again, we see the genius of Eagle Forum being able to communicate a message throughout America in terms that mobilize voters to take action."

    Robert Pastor is an American University professor who is using his book, "Toward a North American Community," to promote the development of a North American union as a regional government and the adoption of the amero as a common monetary currency to replace the dollar and the peso.

    The resolutions are typically worded to oppose, in addition to SPP and the NAU, the construction of NAFTA Superhighways and the creation of the Amero as a North American unitary currency.

    Anti-NAU resolutions have been introduced in the following state legislatures:


    Arizona: Senate Concurrent Memorial 1002 Click to check bill status.

    Georgia: Senate Resolution 124

    Illinois: House Joint Resolution 29 Click to check bill status.

    Missouri: Senate Concurrent Resolution 15 House Concurrent Resolution 33

    Montana: House Joint Resolution 25 Click to check bill status.

    Oregon: Senate Joint Memorial 5

    South Carolina: House Concurrent Resolution 3185 You also can find the bill here under "H 3185"

    South Dakota: Senate Concurrent Resolution 7 Click to check bill status

    Utah: House Joint Resolution 7 Click to check bill status.

    Virginia: Senate Joint Resolution 442

    Washington: Senate Joint Memorial 8004 House Joint Memorial 4018

    Source: WorldNetDaily

  5. #4

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    SineNomine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 9th, 2008 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Nord du pays
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    MYOB
    Posts
    2,131
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: 11 states oppose North American Union

    At least these individuals are taking a stand against this proposed nightmare that will mirror the EU in the Americas.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to SineNomine For This Useful Post:


  8. #6
    Account Disabled on Request

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 28th, 2009 @ 03:48 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Bruenn
    Location
    europe
    Gender
    Posts
    4,142
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    24
    Thanked in
    24 Posts

    Re: 11 states oppose North American Union

    Would such an idea provoke strong opposition from Democrats, Republicans, and voters?

    It would no doubt be sold as a trading bloc. But with the large Mexican presence in the US, I can see a pan-Americas identity being felt by at least Hispanics in the US.

    Because these unions tighten their grip v-e-r-y slowly, and the inertia of opposition, anything is possible. Just look at Britain in the EU. In 1973 who'd have thought European courts would one day over-rule UK courts on how criminals are treated? Yet that happens now.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to OneEnglishNorman For This Useful Post:


  10. #7
    Senior Member
    Drakkar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, March 12th, 2012 @ 01:42 AM
    Ethnicity
    American
    Ancestry
    Northwest Europe
    Subrace
    Dalo-Faelid w/ Bruenn
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Veneto, Italia
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    student
    Politics
    Representative Town Meeting
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    626
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: 11 states oppose North American Union

    Quote Originally Posted by OneEnglishNorman View Post
    Would such an idea provoke strong opposition from Democrats, Republicans, and voters?

    It would no doubt be sold as a trading bloc. But with the large Mexican presence in the US, I can see a pan-Americas identity being felt by at least Hispanics in the US.

    Because these unions tighten their grip v-e-r-y slowly, and the inertia of opposition, anything is possible. Just look at Britain in the EU. In 1973 who'd have thought European courts would one day over-rule UK courts on how criminals are treated? Yet that happens now.
    I don't see why anyone would not strongly oppose this unless they are some part of the deal. American ideals in general are not compatible with this. If it sees the light of day, it will reveal who is for the country or not.

  11. #8
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Online
    Monday, December 8th, 2008 @ 08:05 AM
    Ethnicity
    German & English
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Utah Utah
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Gender
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Biologist
    Politics
    Independent
    Posts
    291
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Idaho lawmakers want out of SPP [North American Union]

    Resolution urges Congress to use 'all efforts, energies and diligence'

    Posted: March 25, 2007
    1:00 a.m. Eastern
    By Bob Unruh

    Lawmakers in Idaho have approved a "joint memorial" that urges the U.S. Congress to use "all efforts, energies and diligence" to get the United States out of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a multinational plan that opponents believe is being used to blend the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

    As WND has reported previously, many other state legislatures have resolutions pending that condemn the idea of a "North American Union," but Idaho's is the first to pass such a measure.

    The "memorial," which is similar to a resolution, was written and adopted "to send the message to the Congress of the United States … that the First Regular Session of the Fifty-ninth Idaho Legislature … that the Congress of the United States, and particularly the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho, are hereby urged and petitioned to use all of their efforts to withdraw the United States from any further participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and any other bilateral or multilateral activity which seeks to advance, authorize, fund or in any way promote the creation of any structure to accomplish any form of North American Union."

    The SPP, according to its own description, "was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing."

    While federal officials, up to and including the White House, say that the plan doesn't and won't infringe on U.S. sovereignty, because it is just a dialogue among the nations, documents uncovered by WND show otherwise.

    A State Department cable released to WND shows Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez has been pressing to implement major trilateral initiatives to help "capture the vision of North American integration."

    The cable was among some 150 pages of State Department SPP documents recently released to WND under a Freedom of Information Act request.

    Howard Phillips, who has formed a coalition to block development of a "North American Union" and formation of NAFTA superhighways, told WND the document "makes clear that the agenda of SPP is to pursue major economic integration that redefines U.S. businesses into a 'North American' definition."

    "By leading with economics, SPP is crafting a North American regulatory structure that transforms U.S. regulations by 'harmonizing' them with Mexican and Canadian regulations, all without specific congressional approval," said Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus.

    The State Department communiqué, dated May 20, 2005, documents a March 13, 2005, meeting between Gutierrez, Mexican Secretary of Economy Fernando Canales and Canadian Privy Council Assistant Secretary Phil Ventura. The meeting was held just prior to the announcement of SPP at the trilateral summit with the country's three leaders in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005.

    The cable notes Gutierrez opened the discussion by stressing that the July 23, 2005, "Report to Leaders" needed "to show results" that would be "enduring and create an on-going process."

    Gutierrez suggested each working group should propose one "big ticket" issue, rather than the "50-60 smaller initiatives" that were then in the SPP "matrix," allowing the "SPP ministers" to capture the attention of the "SPP leaders" with major North American integration goals that were both tangible and important.

    Officials report that Idaho was one of 14 state legislatures where such resolutions have been introduced to oppose the SPP and North American Union. Only Idaho has completed the approval process, and in one other state, Utah, the Senate failed to vote on that state's encouragement to have the U.S. withdraw from the SPP.

    Other states where proposals are pending are Arizona (S.C.M. 1002), Illinois (H.J.R. 29), Georgia (S.R. 124), Missouri (S.C.R. 15 and H.C.R. 33), Montana (H.J.R. 25), Oklahoma (S.C.R. 10), Oregon (S.J.M. 5), South Carolina (S. 416 and H. 3185), South Dakota (S.C.R. 7), Tennessee (S.J.R. 88), Virginia (S.J.R. 442 and S.J.R. 387), and Washington (H.J.M. 4018 and S.J.M. 8004).

    The Idaho plan noted that "actions taken by the SPP to coordinate border security by eliminating obstacles to migration between Mexico and United States actually makes the United States-Mexico border less secure and more vulnerable to possible terrorist activities, and Mexico is the primary source of illegal immigrants, illegal drug entry and illegal human smuggling into the United States."

    The document also noted that the U.S. Department of Commerce confirms that U.S. trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly increased since the North American Free Trade Agreement was launched.

    "The stability and economic viability of the U.S. ports along the western coast will be seriously compromised by huge cargos off-loaded by cheaper labor costs from foreign traders into the ports of Mazatlan and Lazaro Cardenas."

    The vast increase in trucking that would trigger then would "threaten the American people and undermine the very charge given to our homeland security agency to defend our borders against these threats."

    "WHEREAS, we strongly object to any treaty or agreement, which threatens to violate national security, private property, United States commerce, constitutional rights and American sovereignty…"

    "Be it further resolved that we are asking our congressional delegation, our U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters and President Bush to reject appropriated federal fuel tax dollars for such SPP or NAFTA."

    Source: WorldNetDaily

  12. #9
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 30th, 2007 @ 09:32 PM
    Age
    37
    Posts
    181
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    North American Union


  13. #10
    Senior Member
    Papa Koos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, October 24th, 2009 @ 12:54 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    421
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    I've never seen the Empire's dark plans raise as much Texan ire as this has. We are acutely jealous of our heritage of having once been an independent republic. Such a move against the sovereignty of Texas has the potential to get quite nasty and terminally so.

    Texans are an indominable lot and I'm proud to have been adopted by them.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. North American Refugees
    By Caledonian in forum The Germanic New World
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Sunday, July 5th, 2020, 08:05 AM
  2. North American Runestones
    By Blutwölfin in forum Runes & Sinnbildkunde
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Wednesday, September 15th, 2010, 01:48 PM
  3. North American New Right list
    By Taras Bulba in forum The United States
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 08:30 PM
  4. Bilderberger & Bush's Plan for "North-African Union"
    By Gandalf in forum Strategic Intelligence
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 07:49 PM
  5. Classify this North American Male
    By Todesritter in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, January 3rd, 2005, 05:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •