Democratic Socialism

Democracy:  A system of “government” characterized by unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule.  Typically, this system includes destructive impulses turned into law, persecution of those the majority deems worthy of such treatment, and deciding who is entitled to what rights, and who loses their rights, to make the unwashed masses feel better about themselves.  It is also not uncommon for democracies to experience great violence, when a faction doesn’t get what they want, and decide to take it from those that do, by force, up to, and including, premeditated murder.  Another characteristic of democracy is that the desires of the people commonly supersede the word of law, in favor of whatever desires they have at the moment.  Democracy is a system that morally bankrupt – and outright amoral – people gravitate to, using it to empower themselves at the expense of others.  It is not uncommon for the mobs to use democracy and “vote” themselves the “right” to victimize those that are an even smaller minority, than themselves, or unable to defend themselves against the mob.

Socialism:  A system of characterized by unwashed masses of leftists taking it upon themselves to decide how much of the fruits of your own labor you should be allowed to keep, and how much they should just take away and give to somebody else they deem more worthy of the fruits of your labors.  The government is virtually all-powerful, and the people are virtually all powerless.

Democratic Socialism:  A system of “government” characterized by unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule.  Typically, this system includes destructive impulses turned into law, persecution of those the majority deems worthy of such treatment, and deciding who is entitled to what rights, and who loses their rights, to make the unwashed masses feel better about themselves.  It is also not uncommon for democracies to experience great violence, when a faction doesn’t get what they want, and decide to take it from those that do, by force, up to, and including, premeditated murder.  Another characteristic of democracy is that the desires of the people commonly supersede the word of law, in favor of whatever desires they have at the moment.  Combined with socialism, democracy transforms into a system of government characterized by unwashed masses of leftists taking it upon themselves to decide how much of the fruits of your own labor you should be allowed to keep, and how much they should just take away and give to somebody else they deem more worthy of the fruits of your labors.  When unwashed masses gain this kind of power, the result is the creation of “nanny states”:  nations filled with, and governed by, people that believe that their rights are a function of government, as opposed to Natural Law, and that they are entitled to everything that they have a desire for.  Things government should never be relied upon to provide, democratic socialist works to provide, even if it means virtually enslaving producers, by telling them that people are entitled to their goods and services.  To this end, unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule raise taxes higher and higher, especially targeting the biggest producers unfortunate enough to have to live in their society, as their biggest cash cows, from which they can wring the most resources.  The government is virtually all-powerful, composed of unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule and the people are virtually all powerless.  As is the penchant in democracies, socialist democracies are also very prone to taking advantage of the weak and powerless, even to the point of taking it upon themselves to legislate ways to legalize their mass murder, or outright extermination.

And there you have it.  Two systems of government the Framers did not like, smashed together, like a bad Reese’s Cup.

And this is what liberals think the country would be best run by.

 

Update:  Internet liberals took it upon themselves to criticize my page, and my disdain for socialism.  This is me fisking his long response that he tried to have me get into, on his own page.  I told him that if he had anything to say to me, next time, do it on my page, because I have no desire to go to  his.  I didn’t go to his page to challenge his viewpoint, he came to mine for that.  If you do that, you argue here, not elsewhere.  Anyhow, here’s the link to his blatherings that he believes I’m obligated to respond to, for context:

http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/democracy/

“Do we want to have a look at what an apparently hardcore defender of conservative values thinks of one of the US Constitution’s most important elements? For the record, if you think democracy is not enshrined in the Constitution, take a look here:

Here’s the key bit…

 

Section 2

1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

Like most apparent liberals, you choose to re-arrange language to suit your mood, at the moment. Nothing in the section you outlined even mentions the word “democracy”, and elections are not peculiar to democracies. Even communist governments have votes (but they’re just not for the people). Socialist governments, such as in the UK, have votes. Voting rights are not something that only exist in democracies. Apparently, you’re unfamiliar with basic history.

NUMBER:	1593
AUTHOR:	Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION:	“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION:	The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention. McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review,vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.
SUBJECTS:	Republic
WORKS:	Benjamin Franklin Collection

Hmmm.

For some reason, Franklin didn’t call the emerging government a “democracy”. Perhaps there is a difference? Again, in your mental dishonesty to twist arguments and gain 5 minutes of Internet fame, you avoid looking into such differences. Here, let me do the 30 seconds of footwork for you:

http://madisonproject.com/2013/09/we-the-people-a-constitutional-republic-not-a-democracy/

“You’ll see the word ‘election’ come up a few times too. I guess the principle of having the people choosing their representatives via a process of voting only applies when the people choose representatives that fit a specific niche. In other words, democracy only works if the ‘right’ candidate wins.”

It’s funny you should say that:

“democracy only works if the ‘right’ candidate wins”

because people that think like you (liberals) say exactly the same thing.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/306350-sudden-liberal-opposition-to-electoral-college-not

Well.

Isn’t that a coincidence? However, you can keep getting exercise walking the strawman, pretending elections are only aspects of democracies, and not republics and constitutional republics.

“Cast your minds back to a discussion I had on the subject of guns and Constitutional rights. It appears that the Constitution is to be used selectively – we can apparently ignore it when it comes to support for representative ideals.” Yep. And I just posted an article about how leftists are doing that very thing. However, this isn’t about guns, it’s about government types. Maybe you should try keeping on topic. If you want to talk about guns, that can be done in another thread.

The same person that I sparred with on that occasion is the person responsible for this article.

I quote:

Democracy:  A system of “government” characterized by unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule.  Typically, this system includes destructive impulses turned into law, persecution of those the majority deems worthy of such treatment, and deciding who is entitled to what rights, and who loses their rights, to make the unwashed masses feel better about themselves.  It is also not uncommon for democracies to experience great violence, when a faction doesn’t get what they want, and decide to take it from those that do, by force, up to, and including, premeditated murder.  Another characteristic of democracy is that the desires of the people commonly supersede the word of law, in favor of whatever desires they have at the moment.  Democracy is a system that morally bankrupt – and outright amoral – people gravitate to, using it to empower themselves at the expense of others.  It is not uncommon for the mobs to use democracy and “vote” themselves the “right” to victimize those that are an even smaller minority, than themselves, or unable to defend themselves against the mob.

No, actually the gamut, if there is one, is coming from you. Since you’re quite obviously ignorant of the mechanics of government, I’ll educate you: representative government is not endemic only to democracies, but also constitutional republics, like the United States of America. What you’re doing is throwing out yet another strawman, in publishing what is a clear lie, stating:

“It appears the opening gambit is to accuse anyone who favours a system of representative rule of being an ‘unwashed leftie’, which, quite aside from being quite the insult to anyone who identifies as left wing, rather ignores all the right wing individuals who consider democracy to be a cornerstone of freedom.”

You seem to have quite a but of lies in you, even to the point of making up quotes and arguments (I don’t seem to recall calling anyone an “unwashed leftie”. Maybe you should show that quote, like you show others. Is there some reason you didn’t? I’ll bet there is.) I don’t know what country you’re from, but I’m from the USA, and, in this country, the Left has absolutely no regard for representative government. (By the way, in this country, we have GOVERNMENT, in the forms of such politicians as Representatives and Senators, and even Governors. We don’t have RULERS. I have found, however, that leftists, like yourself, do tend to like being “ruled”, and have no head for government. More evidence you’re really not well versed in what you’re arguing.) If leftists in this country favored “representative” GOVERNMENT (not “rule”), they wouldn’t have done things like lock other representatives with dissenting opinions out of policy meetings, and passed laws that were clearly against the constitutional laws that are the “…cornerstone of freedom…” in this country. I don’t know about how people behave in your country, and, furthermore, don’t care. In this country, leftists are constantly proposing and passing laws that are in clear violation of the constitutional “…cornerstone of freedom…”, which shows that they have no regard for representative government (but want to RULE, as you would suggest, through your language). Actual right wing politicians are few and far between. Many, for whatever reason, believe the GOP is the home of the Right Wing (which is patently untrue, as I know from personal experience). I couldn’t name even one such individual, off the top of my head. People that push identity politics, unconstitutional legislation, etc., are not on the right side of the political spectrum, and, are probably just as confused as you are, when it comes to words like “democracy”, and what kind of government this country actually has, and has had for hundreds of years.

“Whilst Virus-X is keen to suggest that Trump is left wing (he even went as far as to assert Trump is a communist in one article of his), the fact remains that his support base is composed primarily of right wingers.”

Your rank dishonesty and ignorance increases with every paragraph. I’m not a coward, and I don’t have to “suggest” anything. I don’t have to twist language, like you do, and pretend words mean something they don’t, or that they don’t mean something that they actually do. I never ‘suggested’ Trump was a communist, and you know that you’re just lying. If you actually believed such a stupid thing (which is par for your course, really), you’d’ve posted that, like you try to post everything else you believe supports your narrative. Trump, himself, supports putting people with mental illness into the Uniformed Services, which can pose a threat to the lives of others. He is in support of murdering unborn children, and of private corporations that do such deeds, to the point of illegally and unconstitutionally taking taxpayer funds to finance such activities, and defending organizations that use those funds on television. He has proclaimed he has mysteriously reversed his previous stance on firearms, and yet, has taken no actions, nor suggested any to the Congress, to protect 2nd Amendment rights, just as he doesn’t protect the right to life, of the unborn. Among the many other things you’ve demonstrated a classical ignorance of, it’s the political spectrum, and if you’re European, you have a completely backwards view of it, from America. What you would consider right wing in Europe, isn’t in America, and what you would consider “Conservative” in Europe, isn’t in America, either. Trump’s supporters, at best, are Paleo-Conservatives, which aren’t Conservatives. Now, wallowing in ignorance as you are, you should go and look up what a Paleo Conservative is, before you go on.

“After all, Trump ran as a Republican, the GOP has traditionally been associated with the right of the US political system and Trump played to that audience. It is understandable that some on the right wish to distance themselves from Trump and the Republican Party he now leads, but it is dishonest to place the blame at the door of the left of the spectrum.”

So much garbage to unpack.

“After all, Trump ran as a Republican,” Meaningless. Your mental dishonesty prevents you from mentioning that Trump was a decades long, hard core liberal, and even stated as much, in an interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHAHKGP10yc

In 2004, which wasn’t that long ago, he said he identifies more as a member of the Slave Party:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/donald-trump-election-democrat/index.html

“…the GOP has traditionally been associated with the right of the US political system and Trump played to that audience.” More garbage. The only reason some people with Right Wing ideologies have moved towards the GOP is because the DNC is absolutely antithetical to them, and, as for the GOP, they haven’t been much better in their treatment of Conservatives. Ronald Reagan, for instance, was very much hated by many Republicans, unless they want to invoke his name to make themselves look like something they aren’t. Trump, himself, who was known to dislike Reagan, has done this more than once, and recently. Trump, himself, also said that the GOP is not a Conservative party, and that Conservatives should leave, if Conservatism is what they want.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/trump-republican-party-not-called-conservative-party/

Meerkat Musings’ own mental dishonesty wouldn’t let him state this, because it doesn’t go along with his narrative, and inhibits his ability to make baseless, false arguments.

“The bottom line is, Trump is an egomaniac, who will use and exploit whatever element of the spectrum he needs to further his own interests.”

One of the only things you’ve said that had any truth to it, in the midst of every other lie you’ve told, and I’ve never disputed that. Maybe if you’d’ve actually read the blog, you’d see that I am highly critical of Trump. I guess that, again, would take too much mental honesty, and it’s more convenient to you to insinuate that I’m a Trump supporter (and insinuate, because you don’t have the guts to come out and flat out tell the lie).

“He is not necessarily right wing, but not necessarily left wing either.”

He’s not “Right Wing”, at all, and he supports violating the Constitution for illegal, unethical purposes, so, yes, he’s a leftist. Probably like you are.

“I’ve digressed.”

Several times. Lied, too.

“Returning to the quote above, what can we take from it? Well, the idea of the majority persecuting more vulnerable groups is not native to democracy…”

And, you’re back to the lies and manufacturing. Democrats are the ones that believe the US is a democracy, and they are famous for persecuting “…more vulnerable groups…”. Ever heard of Plessy v Ferguson?

How about Segregation?

The Fugitive Slave Act?

The Black Codes?

Poll Taxes?

All the result of people that believe the USA is a democracy, like you. Democracy is a pox, as are people like you that seek to spread it. My great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather once wrote a letter to my great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother regarding this. 

“I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy.  Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either.  Remember, democracy never lasts long.  It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.  There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.  it is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy.  It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history.  Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.  When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation.  Individuals have conquered themselves.  Nations and large bodies of men, never.”  -John Adams, the Letters of John and Abigail Adams

“…and in fact, democracy tends to offer the best safeguards against the persecution of minorities.”

You mean like when the pushers of democracy voted against every piece of civil rights legislation this country had put forth? The democrat pushers of the DNC voted against the civil rights legislation, since 1866, to 1957 to 1964? Or when they – going back to

“democracy only works if the ‘right’ candidate wins”

decided they didn’t like democracy, and murdered the 1st president of an opposing political party, as well as created a racist terrorist organization that became a paramilitary wing of their party, and lasts to this very day? Or when those very same “democracy” lovers refused to have ethnic minorities in their political party? Or when those ethnic minorities they called “niggers” were going to be voting for them, for 200 years? Make yourself clear.

“Whilst democracies can experience violence, these events are nothing like the violence that erupted during the Arab Spring, or the era of religious persecution under monarchies during the Dark and Middle Ages.”

Again, you digress into bullshit. The Arab Spring involved nations under dictatorships, looking to move into uncertain political futures that may, or may not, have involved democracy. And America is in political turmoil, thanks to you “democracy” lovers, and your calls for war and murder in the streets. If you count socialist nations as democracies, Venezuela is also a good example of violence.

http://www.newsweek.com/antifa-civil-war-november-4-really-just-few-protests-against-trump-702150

And now you’re trying to talk about religion, to create another strawman argument, in your alleged arguments against my politics.

Nice try, but your digressions aren’t working.

“Here we had a set of very conservative, religiously motivated dictatorships, that sought to rule through fear and the idea of God-ordained leadership. This was not a good era for humanity.” More strawman arguments. Save it for someone discussing religion.

“Another concept is that the desires of the people somehow override the rule of law – well, in another forms of government (such as a theocracy or monarchy) the rule of law is heavily dependent upon interpretation of texts and the whim of the successor. Neither options are going to offer any meaningful protection under law for the vulnerable or minorities.”

Again, go back to the link: ANTIFA (who are actually violent fascist liberals) have advocated for overthrowing the government, and the last big liberal president – Obama – got in trouble with the Supreme Court for interpreting the Constitution the way he wanted to.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/26/obama-recess-appointments-illegal-unanimous-supreme-court-finds

Is there some reason you didn’t mention that, Meerkat Musings?

“It isn’t made clear by Virus-X who the ‘mobs’ are victimising,” To you, abortion isn’t victimizing anyone, so why would I expect you to be mentally honest enough to see who is victimized by violating the Constitution? ANTIFA has victimized people through violence, and the DNC has victimized people by violating the Constitution, and driving this country further into insolvency, creating a crushing tax burden, and destroying businesses, and the economy. When the economy is damaged, everyone suffers, but I guess you don’t care about that. After all, DEMOCRACY!

“…but to take an example that’s popular with the religious right, they have argued (all around the world) that the advent of LGBT rights is an affront to their freedom.”

Actually, while you sit up on your high horse of dishonesty, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhp_DDHe_X0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I

Hmm…

Are those people on your “...religious right...” (which you demonstratively know nothing about)?

In your world, it’s about what makes you feel good. In the world of Conservatism, the rights of one do not trump those of another. The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to make a ruling on the matter, and the rights of gays do not trump those of those that are not. When you put their wants above others, you’re manufacturing rights, and creating ‘protected classes’ of people, something the US does not need.

“It matters not that the religious right in the US greatly outnumbers the LGBT community,”

No, it doesn’t. What does matter is that democracy (that thing you love so much) specializes in the tyranny of the majority, and this is a case in point.

“it matters not that everyone is still free (under the Constitution no less) to practice their beliefs – apparently it is unfair that the religious right doesn’t get to force its beliefs upon a minority that doesn’t share them.”

Truth, to you, also doesn’t matter, very clearly. If a person’s religious conscience does not allow them to participate in ceremonies that they disagree with, you, and others say their opinions don’t matter, because DEMOCRACY! They have equal rights, because you ‘allow’ them to practice their religion, but they can’t live by their faiths, because you won’t allow them to, because the rights of the “…more vulnerable groups…” trump their own?

“I would be curious to know what alternative form of government Virus-X has in mind.”

A constitutional republic. Question answered.

“There’s another way of looking at socialism. It provides equality of opportunity and outcome and bases what a person receives from the system on what that person puts into the system. In other words, it (provided it functions properly) rewards hard work. Virus-X is following the classic trap of mixing up socialism with elements of communism – whilst the two ideas do share some values, they are certainly not one and the same.”

And there’s another way of looking at socialism: it’s a corrupt system in which the chosen few pick winners and losers. America already has equal opportunity. What socialism wants is EQUAL OUTCOME. Meerkat Musings, you lie when you say people “put” things into “the system”. Socialism TAKES from you, because it’s a system of government based solely on taking from one man, to give to another, or, as a man I’m sure you idolized said:

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.”

That’s socialism. And what is the goal of socialism?

“The goal of socialism is communism.”

Communism. You know. The thing you accused me of insinuating Trump was, in one of your many lies. Meerkat Musings, you accuse me of “…following the classic trap of mixing up socialism with elements of communism – whilst…” knowing nothing about either, and knowing nothing about American government, democracy, or what a constitutional republic is.

“Natural Law should be based on morals and ethics, but whose morals and ethics?”

And, again, falling back on your liberality, you want to reinterpret what Natural Law means, according to your wants and needs. Sorry, socialism isn’t going to get that for you, and Natural Law is clearly defined.

“This is the basic recipe for the political philosophy of liberalism—Locke’s philosophy. Locke speaks of a state of nature where men are free, equal, and independent. … The Founding Fathers, in the Declaration of Independence, speak of both naturalrights and natural laws. Locke does likewise.”

http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke

Don’t confuse the liberality of Locke with your socialist dogma driven ideology. They’re nothing alike. Again, though: less than 5 seconds of research, and you could’ve found what Natural Law was, or, if you were mentally honest, you could’ve asked what I meant, when I brought it up. However, you’re lazy and mentally dishonest, you and I both know that’s not going to happen.

“Whenever I have seen this expression used, it is almost invariably linked to religion. ‘Natural Law’ is the Word of God, for example (which ironically, makes it supernatural and not natural law).”

Asked and answered. You’re heading back into the fields to pick more straw for another strawman.

“It is a personal view of mine that if you possess the power to help someone, you help them.”

Another lie. YOU believe the GOVERNMENT should FORCE people to help others, out of a sense of false charity. That’s called SOCIALISM.

“If governments possess the means to help their people by providing health care services, they should.”

Not if they do not have the authority to. Let’s go back to your previous statement:

“democracy only works if the ‘right’ candidate wins”

If you’re being critical of the USA, you’re stating, quite clearly, that law, as laid out in the Constitution of the United States, should only be given lip service, until it becomes inconvenient, or when defying it will give you something that you want. The Constitution does not give the federal government in this nation the enumerated power to grant health care, nor interfere in such decisions. Another thing you need to look up is “enumerated powers”. Something else you’re woefully ignorant of, quite obviously.

“No one should end up bankrupt or having to choose between medical bills and food.”

True, but it’s not the job of the federal government, nor the enumerated responsibility of that government, to make sure people have the amount of money in their pockets that you think is adequate, nor to make them fiscally responsible with what they do with their money. Nor is it to PROVIDE money. I can tell you’ve never read the Constitution. As a probable foreigner, I’m not advocating that you do, but you’d sound less foolish and child-like when trying to debate constitutional matters.

“‘Natural Law’ (we could go as far as to apply true nature and survival of the fittest) leads only to the powerful dominating the weak, affording no protection or help for society’s most vulnerable.”

Another lie by Meerkat Musings. Must mean another minute has passed. If any philosophy has shown it’s all about dominating of the weak, it’s liberalism, which states, in this country, that people shouldn’t have the right to lethal self defense, and that unborn children aren’t to be considered Human, until it’s convenient to consider them as such. It’s resulted in more megadeaths, than the dropping of a nuclear weapon in a crowded city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

Communism has also shown itself to be about Darwinism, in it’s death toll. Take a look at the Soviets and the communist Chinese. Constitutional conservatism has never done such a thing, and Natural Law (that thing you don’t know about) also rails against it.

“It props up people like Donald Trump. Is that really what we want?”

You clearly don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground, with a stupid argument, like this.

You started this off with quoting the Constitution of the United States. One thing you didn’t mention is the fact that the word “democracy” is never mentioned anywhere in it, and yet, somehow, it supports your ignorant notion that the US is not a constitutional republic. Instead of taking a document you know nothing about out of context, maybe you should heed the words of the men that wrote it.

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” –Thomas Jefferson

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.” –Thomas Jefferson

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!” –Patrick Henry

“Democracy is the most vile form of government. … democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as the have been violent in their deaths.” –James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the U. S.

“We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

— Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) Lawyer, Secretary of the Treasury & Secretary of State

“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.” –Benjamin Rush (1745-1813) Founding Father& signer of the Declaration of Independence

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” – Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd President of the U. S.

“A democracy is a volcano, which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption, and carry desolation in their way.” – Fisher Ames (1758-1808) Founding Father and framer of the First Amendment to the Constitution

~ by Virus-X REPUBLIC COMMANDO on December 17, 2017.