David Seymour thinks ACT is the environmental party

72 comments on “David Seymour thinks ACT is the environmental party ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Alastair 1

   27 February 2016 at 9:30 am

   For anyone who has not seen the link on reddit, here’s an archive copy of ACT’s climate plicy before it was taken down…

   Archive copy of ACT climate policy
   • mickysavage 1.1

     27 February 2016 at 12:15 pm

     Thanks Alastair. I can understand why they took it down …
   • mickysavage 1.2

     27 February 2016 at 12:43 pm

     Looks like it has only just been taken down too …

     http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77338800/ACT-deletes-climate-change-policy-from-their-website?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
2. te reo putake 2

   27 February 2016 at 9:47 am

   Good digging, MS. It looks like ACT’s environmental credentials are as substantial as, um, a hologram.
   • Lanthanide 2.1

     27 February 2016 at 12:44 pm

     Ah, but does it have the ‘hard light bee’ upgrade?
3. Stuart Munro 3

   27 February 2016 at 9:58 am

   It’s a much more promising vote winner than incest – most prospective ACT voters reproduce asexually by budding. But it lacks the essential element for breathing life into the party https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcJwt8XB4M …electric eels.
4. Chooky 4

   27 February 2016 at 10:05 am

   Weird…I thought ACT supported Monsanto?…and its affiliates acted as PR agents for other big American multinational companies…including those involved in GM agriculture, herbicides like glyphosate or Round Up and chemicals like 1080?

   …say it isnt so

   Is Act now supporting organic farming?

   Is Act now against the TPPA?
5. BM 5

   27 February 2016 at 10:23 am

   Act is after the urban house wife vote.
   • marty mars 5.1

     27 February 2016 at 10:39 am

     more likely just the idiot vote – no one who votes green will be sucked in by this blatant bullshit, they just aren’t that shallow and silly – some gnats will be though so I expect the gnat support to plummet lol
   • te reo putake 5.2

     27 February 2016 at 10:40 am

     Really? That’s a very specific demographic to be pinning a party’s hopes on. Is it just an Epsom thing?
     • marty mars 5.2.1

       27 February 2016 at 10:51 am

       I find it funny because I doubt bm even knows what that demographic is, let alone met some. Just a line on his briefing sheet…
     • BM 5.2.2

       27 February 2016 at 11:35 am

       This is just my guess, but there is apparently few women who’s husbands vote right and they vote green., who knows could be a few % points in it.
6. Andre 6

   27 February 2016 at 10:56 am

   Maybe Seymour wants to try the “repeat it often enough and people will believe it even though it’s obvious bullshit” tactic to peel off some blue-green votes. After all, it’s worked for National calling themselves centre-right.
   • Nic the NZer 6.1

     27 February 2016 at 11:12 am

     If ACT starts to get votes off National then its bye bye ACT. Thats what happened to the Conservatives last election (they decided to be independent but ultimately failed).
     • Stuart Munro 6.1.1

       27 February 2016 at 12:51 pm

       I don’t know that Colin’s given up yet – but he’s probably well rid of Stringer.
7. Alethios 7

   27 February 2016 at 11:17 am

   Bit riduculous, but probably a (small) step in the right direction for the body politic. ACT have clearly done their focus groups and polling, and found their previous position to be untenable.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     27 February 2016 at 12:21 pm

     So, they’ve doubled down on it by declaring that their previous position is actually green. This despite the fact that even regulated capitalism has done huge amounts of damage the world over private property is often the cause of substantial damage that the state then has to clean up. The Love Canal is a prime example.
     • greywarshark 7.1.1

       27 February 2016 at 10:42 pm

       @DracpTB
       Thanks for giving us that very authoritative summary of an environmental and governmental rort. As for blaming it on the business community it seems that the authorities in charge are equally to blame, from first allowing chemicals to be dumped in the Canal to then ignoring it instead of marking it as a dangerous area. The School Board could hardly have bought the land if so marked, they would never have got away with ignoring its true history and just viewing it as cheap land.

       Then the disgusting behaviour continues. And that crooked scientist at the end doing a reversion about toxicity. What a lot of shites getting far away from the propaganda about the wonders of modern western democracy. At Chernobyl the team that went forward to close down the reactor laid down their lives for the greater good. They knew they would die quite soon after but still went. Look at what happened at Niagara Falls also the lists of other sites in the USA, how can that capitalist country consider itself superior to communism when judged objectively.

       And I checked what was known about the crusading journalist Michael Harold Brown.
       He has written many books, what a wide ranging writer. He received Pulitzer award for his work. He also returned to his Catholic faith and Google entries are full of this which overwhelm his other contributions. This link covers his authorship.
       http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n79132156/
8. rhinocrates 8

   27 February 2016 at 11:20 am

   The rank and file behind the single-MP party will gather at Auckland’s exclusive Orakei Bay this weekend for their annual conference, which is expected to carry a heavy environmental theme.

   Where? I thought that cellphones had made phone booths obsolete.
   • Stuart Munro 8.1

     27 February 2016 at 2:07 pm

     Portaloos mate.
     • Sacha 8.1.1

       27 February 2016 at 2:11 pm

       snap
   • Sacha 8.2

     27 February 2016 at 2:10 pm

     Public loos at the beach might be appropriate venue. #exclusive
     • Stuart Munro 8.2.1

       27 February 2016 at 2:54 pm

       Where there’s muck there’s brass 😉
9. weka 9

   27 February 2016 at 11:26 am

   Biggest crowd funding in NZ history buys piece of iconic beachfront. A week later ACT claim to be for the environment. Can I just say focus group?

   The more cynical me sees National’s sticky little fingers creeping out from their privatisation agenda. They can’t promote the privatisation of DOC themselves so get ACT to do it. Not sure if I actually think that, because ACT are so inept that this move should generate much ridicule. Except MSM. And Dirty Politics. We probably shouldn’t laugh too hard.
10. te reo putake 10

    27 February 2016 at 11:26 am

    According to reporter Katie Bradford, ACT President John Thompson tells David Seymour at the conference opening:

    “I assure you you will not be on your own in Parliament after the next election”.

    Giovanni Tiso reckons that means they’re going to get him a puppy.
    • hoom 10.1

      27 February 2016 at 3:17 pm

      Or he just won’t be in parliament next election…
      • Sacha 10.1.1

        27 February 2016 at 9:53 pm

        I like your logic.
11. Robert Atack 11

    27 February 2016 at 11:47 am

    Act and the Greens are both for BAU, and kiwi Saver.
    At least Act tell the truth, they admit to being pro growth.
    The Greens with their ‘smart growth’ bullshit are way less honest.
    • Draco T Bastard 11.1

      27 February 2016 at 12:24 pm

      The Greens would do themselves and the world a favour if they stopped using the word ‘growth’ and used the word ‘develop’ instead.
      • Otipua08 11.1.1

        29 February 2016 at 12:08 am

        Yep! Exponential growth is what yeast do.
12. fender 12

    27 February 2016 at 12:45 pm

    Ha ha ha, Act deletes their climate change policy from their website.
    • weka 12.1

      27 February 2016 at 1:10 pm

      Oh dear.

      Seymour “The thing about websites is that you can always say that something was or wasn’t on a website at some point in the past,” he said.

      “It’s the easiest thing in the world to claim and impossible to prove.”

      If you put this URL into the internet archive, you can download ACT’s climate change policy.

      http://www.act.org.nz/files/plan/policy18.pdf

      https://archive.org/
      • fender 12.1.1

        27 February 2016 at 1:37 pm

        LOL, “impossible”

        Seems stupid Seymour had ALL his blood removed
        • weka 12.1.1.1

          27 February 2016 at 1:39 pm

          He looks happy on it.
          • fender 12.1.1.1.1

            27 February 2016 at 1:58 pm

            He does, despite being told he doesn’t qualify to donate his brain to science.
            • Lanthanide 12.1.1.1.1.1

              28 February 2016 at 9:02 am

              Surely brains from all parts of the intelligence spectrum are useful for scientific research? How else will we be able to root out the afflictions that cause people to deny reality?
      • Draco T Bastard 12.1.2

        27 February 2016 at 2:11 pm

        Seymour called later to confirm that the policy had been on the website’s server but not actively linked to for “a long time – at least two years.”

        He emphasised that his party was focusing on the 2017 election, not the past.

        LOL

        Typical RWNJ – got caught lying and thus tried to shift the blame and the goal posts.
13. weka 13

    27 February 2016 at 1:13 pm

    Seeing as how ACT have misplaced their policy, here’s a copy (the formatting is shit, so I’ll do an edit tidy up). Micky, sorry about the length, but I suspect it won’t stay visible at the Internet Archive.

    ACT Climate Change Policy

    Goal

    That no New Zealand government will ever impose needless and unjustified taxation or regulation on its citizens in a misguided attempt to reduce global warming or become a world leader in carbon neutrality.

    Background
    ●TheLabourGovernmentisdeterminedthatNewZealandwillleadtheworldintheracetocarbon neutrality even though nothing New Zealand could do, including disappearing off the face of the planet, would have any impact on global climate.

    ● New Zealand is not warming. There is no warming trend since 1970 and the slight warming trend since 1950 is not statistically significant.

    ● Ifitweretowarmmoderately,wewouldlikelybenefitintermsofland-basedproduction,human health and reduced heating bills. Arguments that we would lose from sea-level rise or more extreme events are unproven conjectures.

    ● PoliciestoreduceemissionsinNewZealandcouldnotconceivablyreduceglobalwarming,evenif warming were globally harmful.

    ● TheGovernmentratifiedtheKyotoProtocolinadvanceofAustraliaforshort-termpoliticalgain without the benefit of any supporting analysis from Treasury. New Zealand can expect to pay billions of dollars to foreign governments like Russia, for carbon credits to offset their emissions.

    ● Nowthegovernmentwantstoforceusalltopaymoreforfuelandelectricitybeyond2012.

    ● Treasury’sanalysisoftheEmissionsTradingSchememadenocasethatitsbenefitswould exceed the costs. The scheme lends itself to corrupt allocations of permits and seedy MMP negotiations were necessary to ram it through parliament.

    ● ItisrecklesstodistorttheNewZealandeconomyinthecauseofanineffectualProtocolthat expires in 2012 and won’t be rolled forward because its 1990 targets are unacceptable to China and the United States.

    ●TheNZInstituteofEconomicResearchstatesintheir2008study“TheImpactoftheProposed Emissions Trading Scheme” that:
     Dairy land values will fall by 40%
     Beef and sheep land values will fall by 23%  Annual household incomes will fall by $3,000  The average hourly rate will fall by $2.30
     Annually 22,000 new jobs will be lost

    ●OnlyACTopposesLabourinseekingtoforceNewZealanderstopaymuchmoreforenergyand electricity.

    ●ACTbelievesthatNewZealandcanplayaresponsibleroleintheinternationalcommunitywhile keeping its powder dry. In particular, it should not move faster than Australia or the United States.

    http://www.act.org.nz

    Authorised by Nick Kearney, 137 Beach Haven Rd, Auckland.

    Principles

    Freedom – People should be free to live and work how they choose, including making their own decisions as to what light bulbs to use, unless there is clear scientific evidence that their actions are damaging the environment, or unless they are harming others.

    Put New Zealanders needs first – Until there is clear scientific evidence that we should do otherwise, energy policy should be primarily concerned with affordability and stability of supply.

    Proceed with caution – The precautionary principle works both ways. „Green Business‟ opportunities which address non-existent problems and needs are not “business opportunities” but a massive risk and likely to destroy wealth on a massive scale

    Do not make needless rods for our own backs – The government is globally unique including methane gas (produced by ruminants) in calculating our Kyoto commitments. This is extreme, contrary to all other member countries and should be amended

    Distinguish between real pollutants and carbon dioxide – carbon dioxide is a vital and necessary greenhouse gas crucial for plant growth and human survival

    Make decisions based on sound science – not on blind belief or ideology which is increasingly divorced from reason

    A commonsense approach to Climate Change would recognise that:
    ● There is no point destroying our economy in pursuit of „carbon neutrality‟ if carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not driving global warming.
    ● Any carbon trading scheme is prone to fraud – and indeed invites fraud
    Policy Detail
    ● ACT will repeal the Emissions Trading Scheme and withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol
    ● Major investments in infrastructure will not depend on the anti-global warming hypothesis for
    their economic viability. (Hydro power and geothermal power stands on its own feet.)
    ● Reform the Resource Management Act and Local Government Act to be neutral on climate change and „sustainability‟ (often a code word for anti-global warming).
    ● Reform Transport legislation to make transport serve efficiency and mobility rather than „sustainability‟ unless a real issue of sustainability can be identified
    ● Ensure that government agencies and advisors acknowledge any conflicts of interest.
    If you believe that New Zealanders should not be taxed on the basis of unproven global warming theories, then give ACT your Party vote, for better informed policy on climate change.

    http://www.act.org.nz

    Authorised by Nick Kearney, 137 Beach Haven Rd, Auckland.
    • Incognito 13.1

      27 February 2016 at 1:42 pm

      These are impeccable credentials as an environmental party. Trump would vote for them.
    • Psycho Milt 13.2

      27 February 2016 at 1:52 pm

      I’ve no argument with this bit: “The [Emissions Trading] scheme lends itself to corrupt allocations of permits and seedy MMP negotiations were necessary to ram it through parliament.” I’m thinking of the current government’s one, but it would apply to any emissions trading scheme – our government’s claim to be meeting its emissions control commitments by handing cash to dodgy Russian and Ukrainian outfits is a case in point.
      • Lanthanide 13.2.1

        28 February 2016 at 9:04 am

        Act’s policy *should* be to replace it with a simple carbon tax, and make it a simple market signal for user pays.
    • pat 13.3

      28 February 2016 at 9:09 am

      thats about as close as you can get to being a denier without actually saying “read my lips, there is no such thing as climate change”
    • Nick K 13.4

      28 February 2016 at 10:03 pm

      That’s me authorising that statement and I haven’t been the party secretary for six years!
      • miravox 13.4.1

        28 February 2016 at 10:17 pm

        Haha – 6 years and the ACT environmental policy hasn’t changed.

        Exhibit Number One for how much the environment means to that party.

        (else they thought this one was perfect…. see above sentence)
        • Nick K 13.4.1.1

          29 February 2016 at 2:33 pm

          I’m saying it’s at least six years old and completely unreliable and out-of-date.
14. gsays 14

    27 February 2016 at 1:41 pm

    This perhaps belongs in open mike.
    Hi all, firstly I an extremely grateful for the standard and deeply appreciative of the work the authors do. Also enjoy reading comments from most of the community.
    It is appointment reading almost every day.

    Now the sticking point- while what seymour(or any Tory) spouts is of small interest (hum your enemies tune etc), I am keener to read about what plans/vision/aspiration are formulating on the left of the spectrum.

    I realise I am due an uppercut for this, however..
    • Ben 14.1

      28 February 2016 at 9:42 am

      Are you new here? The Left don’t have any coherent policy (except for spending all their pennies on free education – in 2025, if they win 3 elections in a row…) and simply remain focussed on the negative politics of attacking everyone else’s policies.

      I believe that people have cottoned on to the fact that the Greens are green in name only, and certainly not the party they were 10 years ago. Shaw has further confused/diluted their cause as he is trying to come across as business friendly. If Green support erodes into next year, it will be interesting to see how Little handles the internal pressure for Labour to distance themselves from the Greens again.

      It doesn’t help the Green’s cause when the latest expenses show that in October, November and December the average Green MP spent $7992 on air travel — the highest average amongst political parties. Must have been an increase in larping meets late last year. They try to explain it away by stating they will plant more trees, but explaining is losing.
15. McFlock 15

    27 February 2016 at 2:01 pm

    ACT will rescind the RMA. It will be replaced by the restoration of a greater role for common law actions and remedies.

    lol
    So their environmental policy is to remove regulation and leave it to individuals to sue corporations that put tonnes of cowshit in the local water supply?

    That’s gotta work, because the 19th Century was awesome for the environment. /sarc

    Crime, economics, environment, social welfare… seriously, does Act have any policy that wasn’t written 150 years ago?
    • Draco T Bastard 15.1

      27 February 2016 at 2:14 pm

      Give them time and they’ll go pre Magna Carta on us.
      • Stuart Munro 15.1.1

        27 February 2016 at 10:24 pm

        Hooten thinks he’s channelling Lee Kuan Yu.

        Lee rebuilt a pretty flattened Singapore – he improved incomes and living standards and so he had some assent. But he was a despot – he ruled by fear.

        Gnact have not improved incomes or living standards. They do not have assent. And New Zealanders are not afraid of them either.
        • Sacha 15.1.1.1

          27 February 2016 at 10:49 pm

          “Gnact have not improved incomes or living standards.”

          For their targeted beneficiaries, they most certainly have. And persuaded many more that it benefits them. No point in denying the underlying reality we seek to change.
          • Stuart Munro 15.1.1.1.1

            27 February 2016 at 11:30 pm

            Perhaps we move in different circles, my cohort are all losing ground – I think Lee would scold these pretenders fiercely – and home ownership would be one of the sticks he’d beat them with. There is a theory about island and continental behaviour – goes to manners & solidarity – Lee never forgot he was on an island.
16. Philj 16

    27 February 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Read about the green ACT party and laughed. Is he saying the government can’t be responsible to look after the environment? The corporates can do a proper job of running things. Maybe that’s what the TPP is all about. Less government, more multinational.
    • pat 16.1

      28 February 2016 at 10:36 pm

      we know its farcical, but suspect there is a young cohort in the electorate who would vote Act but for their environmental policy (or lack of)….you can be sure it has been canvassed
17. greywarshark 17

    27 February 2016 at 3:03 pm

    It’s time for a rebirthday party. ACT is going to blow helium into the fashionable green balloons of the day whose time has come, and will rise again and ascend into the political heavens. They think!

    I do like your image. Very ap(c)t.
18. Smilin 18

    27 February 2016 at 6:45 pm

    if McGillicuddy Serious was back as a force we might get rid of some of the idiocy that we have to endure from Key and Act and all the others who think its alright to laugh the country into the ground by wasting money talkin BS and calling it being a representative of the voter
19. Tautuhi 19

    27 February 2016 at 8:13 pm

    Just Making up bullwacky to try and win votes?
20. Rodel 20

    27 February 2016 at 10:51 pm

    Saw act’s David wotsisname? on TV with his brilliant repartee.
    vis.”The greens have got the sizzle but we’ve got the sausage.”
    and a few other forgettable witticisms .(cue: obsequious applause by all 30 act members at the conference)
    Dear Jeeesus the sheer brilliance of this one of my ‘leaders’ fills me with so much pride.
    Honestly he’s transparently stupider than Hide and Brash together (and probably Trump ).
21. Xanthe 21

    28 February 2016 at 8:26 am

    His central point that the greens arnt an environmental party and are simply filling that space is correct. They piss me off for the same reason. It is a dishonest position that contributes to the lack of voter engagement
22. upnorth 22

    28 February 2016 at 9:02 am

    I like Seymour and I think ACT have to show more substance on green credentials if this is what they truly believe but Seymour has done something right.

    He has called out the Greens on their failure to actually achieve anything and they don’t practise what they preach – e.g. air miles.

    I think it is important that Green MP’s are all List MP’s and why we have a stubborn 7-8% of voters who will vote Green which I have no problem with, those voters should be actually asking the Greens what have they actually achieved.

    ACT will now set the motions in play and I can see the Greens lose 2-3%

    ACT will pick up maybe to 3% possibly 5% off National and NZF vote because Winston will call it a day one day – so if you have a bit of a think about it you could say the centre right parties in NZ could be well over 50%.

    This leave me with this nagging thought – I am clear in my mind Labour policies in November are going to be laughable at best and poorly thought through and it is very possible that Labour could plunge to 25% and Greens 5-7% if ACT gets their message across properly.

    Centre Left could struggle to get to 35%

    If the Greens who are in a vulnerable position at the moment and their leaders lack lustre what would happened if Greens missed the threshold of 5%

    It is very possible for a third party – remember NZF suffered this.

    I have grave fears for the centre left and left leaning thinkers in this country.

    Corban in UK only won an internal party vote – he is yet to go to the polls – it will be a rude awakening when Labor get smashed and NZ Labour will find out quickly that hard left policies scares the living daylights out on NZ’ers.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1

      28 February 2016 at 9:25 am

      🙄

      Thanks for your concern. It’s so obviously offered sincerely, in good faith. It’s so unfair that people think you’re malicious and full of hate.
    • Chooky 22.2

      28 February 2016 at 10:22 am

      ACT is the absolute antithesis of all that environmentalists and genuine Greenies stand for

      …ACT is a hard right wing USA corporate sponsored political party and affiliated PR machine who wield far more influence in New Zealand politics than they have numbers of supporters on the ground.

      ACT is the USA corporate think tank of the Nactional Party eg Charter Schools

      It is an absolute farce that ACT is now trying to rebrand as Green
    • Morrissey 22.3

      28 February 2016 at 12:27 pm

      What did you think of ACT’s pro-incest leader Jamie “The Thinker” Whyte?
    • Luo Ge 22.4

      28 February 2016 at 12:46 pm

      Dream on, mate.

      ACT policies are destructive, and will never be widely accepted in this country. Hard right policies scare the living daylights out of people in NZ.
      • Otipua08 22.4.1

        29 February 2016 at 12:23 am

        Don’t be so sure. NZ has shifted well to the right of where it was positioned 40 years ago. Key is working hard to make the default political position hard right. Labour is basically impotent! Popular media is saturated with Keys appearances. His appeal to the masses as an ordinary, sport loving, beer at the barby, fun loving dude, while behind the scenes, dismantling NZ socially and environmentally, while rebuilding it as NZ Inc ™, South Pacific branch of US of A Inc.
23. Matthew Whitehead 23

    28 February 2016 at 10:34 am

    I think in some ways the best thing to take from this is that David Seymour/Act think that supporting recycling makes them the environmental equivalent of the Green Party, who won’t stop talking about swimmable water, and thought that Labour’s ETS was almost not worth voting for it was so weak.
24. Bearded Git 24

    28 February 2016 at 12:46 pm

    Hate to say it but I support Seymour’s ideas on sanctuaries, talked about at the end of the video.

    But I disagree that we need to sell Landcorp (or anything else) to fund the sanctuaries. (This is ACT’s real objective not the sanctuaries which are a smokescreen.) Maybe we should take $100m per year out of the defence budget to fund them.
    • maui 24.1

      28 February 2016 at 11:39 pm

      From what I’ve seen, Seymour talking about throwing money at community conservation groups seems a bit silly. The ability to trap pests and grow native plants is a fairly inexpensive exercise for groups, and groups are usually of a small size anyway looking after small areas, in a lot of cases why would they need large amounts of money? If we’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars to spend, then large scale projects are in order, and he’d be talking about huge 1080 operations or fenced sanctuaries (which are very expensive to construct and maintain I might add). In that case why not instead just fund DoC properly so they have the feet on the ground like they used to and so they can fund projects like 1080 in the Northland forests that have been and continue to be devastated by possums. In the old days before DoC (and things weren’t so driven by money), the Forest Service seemed to be well funded and resourced. That’s what we need to get back to. If they can’t find the money, what about taxing corporations some more, they’re the culprits destroying our environment on a large scale.
25. Lloyd 25

    28 February 2016 at 10:47 pm

    If ACT is going to replace the RMA with “market forces”, then they should explain that to the green-leaf suburbs voters. Any person with a few brain cells will realise that market forces will mean that the average Remuera property owner will make more money erecting a 15 story tower block than they will from erecting the three story town house the neighbours are concerned about at the moment…….
26. Tautuhi 26

    29 February 2016 at 4:42 am

    ACT should be pushing for the legalisation of marijuana then they are bound to pick up the Green Vote, the sandal wearing,dope smoking Greens will switch sides no problem?
27. One Anonymous Bloke 27

    29 February 2016 at 8:39 am

    Once upon a time, in a land far far away from David Seymour…

    I think I will be the only person speaking in this debate who has any qualifications in environmental science.

    It is not that that should count, but I think that it is significant for what I am about to say—that is, that the entire climate change – global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together…

    Rorting hypocrite Rodney Hide, ACT party slush-fund leader, Speech to Parliament; Tuesday, September 2 2008
28. Mike C 28

    1 March 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Well let’s face it … even if Hell froze over … Labour wouldn’t want to hook up with the Greens. LOL.

    At least Seymour is trying to create a Blue Green scenario … which is more than what Little etc are trying to do.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS