Illegal immigrant ‘army’ arriving in UK every year

A new report reveals that the illegal immigrant population of the UK is rising by 70,000 each year – equivalent to the size of the British Army – and contributing to a steadily increasing total which has now reached more than a million.

More than 105,000 illegal immigrants turn up each year, with only about 35,000 leaving the country each year as our grossly overstretched border forces struggle to cope. This means a net annual increase of around 70,000.

Police forces have been heavily brainwashed by political correctness, and simultaneously suffer from inadequate training in how to enforce immigration law. Moreover the National Crime Agency reported in May this year that “corrupt public and private sector workers” were helping gangs to facilitate illegal immigration. Small seaports around our coastline are particularly vulnerable to exploitation by immigration racketeers.

Think tank Migration Watch urgently recommends that “funding for immigration enforcement should be boosted by around £100 million. There should also be a major boost in the amount of support and training provided to HO staff.” Migration Watch also warns that “attempts to ‘weaponise’ the Windrush issue in order to destroy sensible border controls should be firmly rejected”.

 

 

 

 

Former Trump adviser on European tour – plans to set up new European populist ‘Movement’

Leading figures in ‘The Movement’, an alliance of European populists – (left to right) former Trump adviser Steve Bannon; Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini; and Brussels-based Jewish lawyer Mischael Modrikamen

Steve Bannon, the controversial former adviser to President Trump and former executive chairman of Breitbart News, is touring European capitals this week and meeting a range of political leaders.

Bannon plans to develop a pan-European alliance of populist forces under the label ‘The Movement’. This was officially registered in January by a Belgian lawyer called Mischael Modrikamen, who is a well-known figure in the Jewish community in Brussels and leader of a tiny party called the People’s Party.

Modrikamen is a friend and ally of Nigel Farage, through whom he was introduced to Bannon.

The most important figures already signed up to ‘The Movement’ are Italian deputy prime minister and interior minister Matteo Salvini, leader of the anti-immigration Lega, and his ally Giorgia Meloni, leader of Fratelli d’Italia (‘Brothers of Italy’), the most significant of several groups that grew out of the former fascist party MSI.

Steve Bannon with Giorgia Meloni last weekend at the conference of her ‘post-fascist’ party Fratelli d’Italia

Bannon spoke at the Fratelli d’Italia conference in Rome last weekend. He told an enthusiastic crowd: “Trump and Brexit and [the Italian general election in] March 2018 are all inextricably linked: it’s a rejection of the way things are and it’s a way forward … it’s the little guy saying ‘we have a better idea’ … and the first thing is a rejection of what the elites have foisted on Western civilization.”

After Rome, Bannon went on to Prague where he met Czech President Milos Zeman, who comes from a very different political tradition to Bannon’s Italian hosts. While Salvini’s roots are in regional separatism and Meloni’s are in the postwar development of Italy’s fascist tradition, President Zeman is one of the last of the old Eastern European politicians rooted in a version of socialism. A Communist party member until 1970, Zeman created the Social Democratic Party and was a centre-left Prime Minister for several years, but more recently has moved towards a radically anti-immigration populism, winning re-election as President earlier this year.

Like Bannon’s other allies, Zeman is closer to Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin than to the liberal elites who control the European Union.

 

 

Labour promise post-Brexit immigration nightmare

Diane Abbott – seen here (right) with Jeremy Corbyn – today announced Labour’s post-Brexit immigration policy

Some H&D readers were always sceptical about Brexit, fearing that immigration policy would actually get worse after we left the European Union. UKIP spokesmen regularly argued that they would prefer immigrants from India (and by implication English-speaking countries in Africa) to those from Eastern Europe.

UKIP of course is now semi-extinct, so that party’s views on race and immigration are irrelevant, but there is a real possibility that post-Brexit Britain will have a Labour government. Today we found out what that might mean.

Diane Abbott – who has been such a disaster as Shadow Home Secretary that she was hidden away for most of the 2017 election campaign – today announced Labour’s immigration policy, and many H&D readers might now be thinking we would be better off in the EU than risking this open door disaster.

Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn were seen in the 1980s as the ‘loony left’, highlighted in this Tory election poster, but Tory failure now leaves these extremists on the brink of power.

Ms Abbott said that a Labour government would end any preferential system for Europeans:

“Sadly at the current time we have a class system for migrants.

“Commonwealth migrants and other non-EU migrants are treated in a way that is tantamount to making them second-class migrants.

“They struggle to bring partners or spouses here. They have to meet minimum income targets. They can lose their right to residency simply by travelling home for family reasons.

“It’s not fair, it’s not humane, it’s not reasonable.

“Labour will end the established system of first and second-class migrants. And we will do so, not by treating EU migrants as appallingly as Commonwealth and other non-EU migrants have been treated for a long time. We will end the first and second-class system by treating everyone fairly.”

We fear that Ms Abbott was not thinking of South African, Australian or other White Commonwealth migrants. We all know the type of people who will be queuing up to take advantage of a Corbyn-Abbott run Britain.

Big gains for Swedish anti-immigration party

Sweden Democrats’ leader Jimmie Åkesson casting his vote in today’s general election

As counting ends after today’s general election in Sweden, the anti-immigration party Sweden Democrats have made significant gains, polling 17.6% of the vote and probably holding the balance of power. It will be impossible for the centre-right ‘Moderates’ to form a government without the support of the Sweden Democrats, while the ruling Social Democrats have slipped to their worst result since 1908 and can now only govern with the support of the extreme left.

In reality the Sweden Democrats (led by a former Moderates activist Jimmie Åkesson) are today ideologically similar to the right-wing of our Conservative Party, though when it was founded in the late 1980s the origins of the party were among hardline racial nationalists, including former members of the Waffen-SS.

The biggest reason for the party’s recent success has been the shocking ethnic transformation of Sweden, which within living memory was an almost entirely White country. Since 2015 the left-wing government has allowed the entry of 163,000 immigrants – and remember that Sweden has less than one-sixth the population of the UK. Sweden has for the last few years had the highest per capita immigration rate of any European country.

It will be very interesting to see whether the Sweden Democrats are allowed any role in government, in what was arguably the most consistently left-wing 20th century democracy. And if they are excluded from government, will the anti-immigration rage of the Swedish people be further inflamed?

 

Left-wing trust accused of funding terror-linked ‘charity’

The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, funded by the famous Quaker chocolate family, is being investigated for donations to a charity in Northern Ireland which has been linked to dissident republican terrorism.

JRCT has given substantial grants over the years to the ‘anti-fascist’ organisations Searchlight and Hope not Hate. The latest controversy involves two sets of donations in Northern Ireland. Since 2014 the Trust has made regular grants to Teach na Failte, founded by the Irish Republican Socialist Party, political wing of the brutal terror gang Irish National Liberation Army (INLA). Teach na Failte even shares an office with the IRSP in Falls Road, Belfast. IRSP has close connections to the violent anti-fascist group ‘Red Action’, scrutinised last weekend by the Sunday Times.

In 2014 the Rowntree Trust gave Teach na Failte £149,915 followed by a further grant of £125,000 in 2017.

Other controversial donations by the Rowntree Trust involve a housing charity Conflict Resolution Services Ireland, whose Belfast offices have twice been raided by police investigating ties to the dissident republican terrorist group Oglaigh na hEireann, a splinter group from the Real IRA which was itself a breakaway from the IRA.

The chairman of trustees at CRSI, Gerry Ruddy, is on record describing the INLA’s murder of Conservative MP Airey Neave in 1979 as “a legitimate exercise”.

Gerry Ruddy, a leading official of the IRSP, political front for the INLA who murdered Airey Neave and many others, is chairman of the CRSI ‘charity’ trustees.

Earlier investigations of CRSI have suggested that (unlike Teach na Failte) it is not a straightforward front for hardline republicans linked to terrorism. CRSI’s situation is more complicated. There are allegations that it has worked to move people up the queue for local authority housing in Ulster in a racket helping to manufacture supposed ‘threats’ from paramilitaries (both republican and loyalist), and that not only the various IRA splinter groups but also drug dealers shamefully using the banner of the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) have been involved in this corrupt abuse of publicly funded housing.

According to the Belfast Telegraph, official investigations involve not only CRSI but a government-funded service called ‘Base 2’ which ostensibly helps families to be rehoused if they have been threatened. Working at the CRSI’s Belfast office is Sean O’Reilly, once given a 30-month jail sentence for his role in a botched ‘punishment shooting’ on behalf of a republican terror gang.

 

Corbyn and the uses of ‘anti-fascism’

The cover of Red Action’s journal boasts of RA/AFA leader Patrick Hayes terrorist role

Since the days of Cable Street in 1936 mainstream British journalists and historians have lionised militant (i.e. violent) ‘anti-fascism’. The true story of Cable Street was that an alliance of Jews and Communists fought police on the streets of East London to disrupt a lawful march by Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. The fighting was not between ‘anti-fascists’ and the BUF, but between the Judeo-Marxist alliance and the London police.

Half a century after Cable Street the increasingly terrorist tactics of ‘Anti-Fascist Action’ were largely ignored by the media, who preferred to conjure fables of supposed ‘neo-nazi’ terrorism by largely mythical groups such as ‘Combat 18’. The real C18 (as H&D knows only too well) contained several enthusiastic though misguided patriots, but was run for the benefit of the British secret state.

And on into the 21st century the new ‘Antifa’ street gangs (admittedly immature and far less effective than their 1990s counterparts) are given a free pass by journalists on both sides of the Atlantic, who prefer to focus on a new generation of mythical ‘far right terrorists’.

So H&D readers will have been surprised to see an article yesterday by the Sunday Times‘ star reporter Andrew Gilligan, belatedly drawing attention to the real terrorists of ‘Anti-Fascist Action’ and its core group ‘Red Action’.

AFA’s magazine Fighting Talk frequently advertised its violent tactics

None of the information will be news to our readers, since we have reported aspects of this story several times over the years. The best mainstream investigation remains a BBC programme broadcast almost five years ago.

Jeremy Corbyn was a particularly close friend of IRA / Sinn Fein during the 1980s, as was his then-ally Ken Livingstone. As we reported, Livingstone’s ties to the IRA almost led to his assassination by London-based Ulster Loyalists in 1993.

Red Action publications made no secret of the fact that they often met at Corbyn’s constituency office in Islington, and Corbyn himself (as Gilligan reports) addressed at least three Red Action meetings between 1985 and 1992, acting as an official of the Red Action dominated group Anti-Fascist Action.

A leader of AFA / Red Action – Patrick Hayes – and another member, Jan Taylor, were later given 30-year jail sentences for IRA terrorism: they had bombed the Harrods store in Central London and planned at least two other abortive bombings in the heart of the capital, targeting British civilians. Their ‘anti-fascist’ colleague Liam Heffernan was given 23 years for stealing explosives on behalf of an even more militant Irish terrorist group, the INLA, which for several years had particularly close ties to AFA / Red Action. (In 2013 The Times and other newspapers scurried to catch up with our exposé of INLA and ‘anti-fascist’ connections to a bizarre Marxist cult whose leaders were convicted for keeping women as ‘slaves’.)

(left to right) Ken Livingstone, Sinn Fein – IRA godfather Gerry Adams, and Jeremy Corbyn in London, 1983

A senior police officer told Gilligan that Corbyn’s connections to the group were investigated, and that although insufficient evidence was found for prosecution: “He knew they [Red Action] were open supporters of terrorism and he supported them. We had no evidence that he knew they were actually involved in terrorism themselves.”

All this dates back more than 25 years – and the British state itself is now in alliance with the very same IRA godfathers once linked to Corbyn! So why are veteran police officers and eminent journalists now dusting down files on cases and stories they failed to pursue in the 1990s?

The answer of course is that in Orwellian fashion there are ‘good’ anti-fascist terrorists and ‘bad’ ones. Broadly speaking, Jewish militancy on the streets of London is to be welcomed by the Murdoch press and their tame policemen. Irish republican violence on those same streets (while now mostly ignored as these “ex”-terrorists are fêted by government ministers and even royalty), remains a useful instrument for discrediting the real enemy.

And of course for British politicians and newspaper owners, the ‘real enemy’ means the enemy of their paymasters.

Make no mistake – Jeremy Corbyn is an enemy of British nationalists and a dedicated multiracialist. His arrival in Downing Street would be bad news for H&D readers. But it would be even worse news for the State of Israel and its proxies in London. Hence militant ‘anti-fascists’, having been foot-soldiers in the war against the ‘far right’, are now cast aside as collateral damage, just a few more insignificant casualties as the Zionist lobby concentrates its fire on the Labour leader.

Andrew Gilligan, author of yesterday’s Sunday Times exposé of ‘anti-fascist’ terrorism, seen (above right) accepting an award from former Prime Minister David Cameron

‘Antisemitism’ in wartime Britain: article suppressed by The Times

Cyril Radcliffe (later Lord Radcliffe), Director-General of Britain’s wartime Ministry of Information

In the early hours of this morning The Times published an online article under the headline ‘Antisemitism in Britain’, revealing the attitudes held by ordinary Britons towards Jews during the Second World War. This article quoted extensively from an official British document written in May 1943 by the Director-General of the British Government’s Ministry of Information, responsible both for some wartime propaganda and for monitoring the opinions of British civilians.

Within hours The Times suppressed their own article and the link now produces a one-line message: “This article has been removed”.

H&D does not know why The Times decided their readers should not be informed on this topic – but since we ourselves have obtained a copy of the once-secret wartime document, we now publish its contents. Even if The Times is afraid of the truth, we are not.

On 27th May 1943 Cyril Radcliffe KC (Director-General of the Ministry of Information) wrote to his Minister, Brendan Bracken. Radcliffe had spent the previous morning with his Regional Officers from every part of the UK discussing “the question of anti-Semitism”. He believed that they had given him a comprehensive picture of the scale of anti-Jewish feeling among the British public and that no other organisation would have been capable of giving “a better impressionistic view of the position than they were able to provide”.

Radcliffe’s letter to Minister of Information Brendan Bracken in May 1943 about “anti-Semitism” among British civilians during the Second World War

Only Northern Ireland and North East England seemed to show little anti-Semitism, according to Radcliffe: everywhere else in the UK there was “general agreement on the fact that from the beginning of the war there had been a considerable increase in anti-Semitic feeling”. This did not seem to have been incited by anti-Jewish organisations. According to the Ministry’s Regional Officers: “They seemed to regard it as quite beyond argument that the increase of anti-Semitic feeling was caused by serious errors of conduct on the part of Jews.”

This view of Jews had developed not only in cities with a long-established Jewish presence, such as Manchester and Leeds, but also in “areas which had known the Jews mainly as wartime evacuees from the cities”.

Radcliffe continued: “The main heads of complaint against them were undoubtedly an inordinate attention to the possibilities of the ‘black market’ and a lack of pleasant standards of conduct as evacuees. The chief enemy of the Jew appears to be in most areas the small trader who suffers peculiarly from the operations of Jews, whether they are in fact ‘black market’ operations or not. There was a general belief that Jews somehow or other get supplies and advantages which are not available to other people.”

One section of the letter is still censored, dealing with the proportion of Jews involved in black market criminal offences brought before the London courts.

Minister of Information Brendan Bracken (seen above right with his mentor Winston Churchill) was the recipient of a newly-revealed letter discussing propaganda strategies for dealing with ordinary Britons’ negative perceptions of Jews.

Radcliffe and his officers had discussed how official propaganda could best deal with British civilian “anti-Semitism”.

His advice was that rather than seeking to change people’s minds about Jewish behaviour and characteristics, propaganda should concentrate on hammering home the message that saying bad things about Jews was divisive and “peculiarly the badge of the Nazi”. This is strangely reminiscent of more recent propaganda that seeks to ignore specific facts about Jews or blacks, merely insisting that “the truth is no defence” in cases of “racial hatred”.

In 1943 there was of course not yet any question of criminalising “racist” or “anti-Semitic” opinions. This criminalisation of political incorrectness in Britain did not begin for another twenty years: wartime internment of British dissidents was restricted to active members of banned political groups such as Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union. Radcliffe and his officials preferred more subtly to persuade Britons to adopt the view that anti-Semitism was “a thing to be regretted, even if they thought that the Jews were to a large measure responsible”.

H&D would be very interested to learn who at The Times took the decision today to censor these wartime revelations, and why. Can the paper be shamed into reinstating their own story?

 

‘Antifascist’ confusion over bookshop attack – UKIP suspends three activists

Times of Israel columnist Sharon Klaff (second left) handing in a pro-Zionist petition at Downing St. On Saturday Ms Klaff was accused of being part of a gang attacking a Central London bookshop.

Britain’s largest leftwing bookshop was attacked by a dozen Zionist thugs on Saturday evening, leading the United Kingdom Independence Party to suspend three prominent activists allegedly involved.

Bookmarks (on Bloomsbury St in central London) is linked to the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Britain’s largest Trotskyist organisation. While several ‘socialist’ bookshops have also acted as headquarters for violent groups associated with IRA terrorism and ‘antifascist’ gangsterism, there is no such particular connection with Bookmarks. Unlike (for example) Red Action or AFA, the SWP and its various front organisations couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag.

The shop was therefore a soft target for the fake patriots of ‘Make Britain Great Again’, led by a Thatcherite Tory called Luke Nash-Jones, who was once President of the Conservative Association at Birkbeck College, London, but is now in UKIP.

MBGA is on the intellectually-challenged, ultra-Zionist wing of the ‘Alt Right’ – obsessed with Islam and natural cheerleaders for Donald Trump and EDL founder ‘Tommy Robinson’.

On Saturday evening a dozen MBGA activists made their way to Bloomsbury after a demonstration in support of online conspiracy theorist Alex Jones whose pages have recently been deleted by Facebook and other platforms following the usual ‘hate speech’ circus. For some reason Nash-Jones and his gang thought that throwing their weight around in a bookshop would help the ‘anti-censorship’ case. Even more bizarrely, they thought it was a good idea to post video of the attack on their own YouTube channel. (This was soon taken down when someone belatedly engaged their brain, but by then it had been copied by MBGA’s leftwing opponents.)

UKIP executive member Elizabeth Jones (seen above right with Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani) was suspended after an attack on Central London shop Bookmarks last Saturday.

Easily identified among the gang outside the bookshop was a member of UKIP’s national executive Elizabeth Jones, who was a candidate for the party leadership in 2016. Ms Jones stood for UKIP in Bermondsey & Old Southwark at last year’s general election, but today was suspended from the party alongside Nash-Jones and a third UKIP activist Martin Costello, who was parliamentary candidate for South Swindon last year. Mr Costello has also served as a special police constable in Wiltshire.

Ms Jones claimed only to have been outside the shop not part of the attack. Also identified by numerous ‘antifascists’ was South African born Zionist Sharon Klaff, who has a regular column on the Times of Israel website.

Had real British nationalists attacked leftwing premises in this way, there would have been ‘anti-terrorist’ police raids across the country within 24 hours. Not to mention had any of us dared to enter a Jewish bookshop and engage in such thuggery. London Forum organiser Jez Turner is presently serving a prison sentence for an entirely peaceful speech in Whitehall: what sentence would he have got for attacking a bookshop?

Sadly the price for Saturday’s attack is likely to be paid by sensible, peaceful British nationalists whose meetings will be attacked in ‘reprisals’: not from the women and pensioners whom Nash-Jones likes to confront, but by the militant ‘antifa’ squads who ironically were expelled from the SWP decades ago.

UPDATE: Sharon Klaff now denies that she was present during the bookshop attack, but the ‘antifascist’ website Hope not Hate claims she was there: whom should one believe given such an unpalatable choice?

UPDATE 2: Hope not Hate has now withdrawn its allegation against Sharon Klaff – smears, denials and counter-smears continue to circulate among embarrassed ‘antifascists’ and Zionists!

Sarah Archibald of Hope not Hate fingers Klaff for bookshop attack

 

Dog eat dog: Klaff threatens ‘antifascists’ with defamation action

 

Sharon Klaff, allegedly part of the Nash-Jones gang on Saturday, seen here (second right) with fellow ultra-Zionists Paul Besser (a Britain First activist); Ambrosine Shitrit; Gemma Sheridan and Jonathan Hoffman.

 

Call for Jewish Labour MPs to split from party after Corbyn ‘antisemitism’ row

 

In H&D Issue 84 we speculated as to how far the Jewish lobby in the UK would be prepared to push their disagreement with Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. Now we know.

Earlier this week the senior Labour backbencher Dame Margaret Hodge (née Oppenheimer), who is probably best known to H&D readers for defeating Nick Griffin in her Barking constituency at the 2010 General Election, confronted her party leader at the entrance to the House of Commons and called him an “antisemite” and a “racist”. Several press reports stated that Dame Margaret had added an Anglo-Saxon epithet.

A day later, Blairite backbencher John Woodcock resigned from the Labour Party: he will now sit as an independent MP.

Both Dame Margaret and Mr Woodcock were responding to the Labour leadership’s refusal to adopt the full “working definition” of “antisemitism” devised by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Quite rightly, Corbyn and his allies felt that the IHRA’s definition demonised a wide range of anti-Zionism as “antisemitism”.

Senior Labour backbencher Dame Margaret Hodge launched a four-letter tirade at her leader Jeremy Corbyn this week, accusing him of ‘antisemitism’

The IHRA is the new name for the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research set up in 1998 on the initiative of then Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson. This Task Force was behind the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, which issued infamous “Guidelines” for teachers in 2000, stating that schools had a responsibility to combat “Holocaust denial” and that in doing so: “Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers … or seek to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument.”

This anti-debate, anti-rational organisation now presumes to dictate not only to schools but to the leadership of political parties!

Today’s latest move is the boldest yet: the Jewish Chronicle has the chutzpah to demand in its front page article that Jewish Labour MPs should break away from the party en masse and create a separate parliamentary group.

Two of the Jewish Labour MPs whom the JC is asking to break away from the Party are Ruth Smeeth (above left) and Luciana Berger (above right)

H&D understands that (depending on one’s definition of Jewish) there are eight Jewish Labour MPs: Luciana Berger (Liverpool Wavertree); Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool Riverside); Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East); Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking); Ivan Lewis (Bury South); Ed Miliband (Doncaster North); Ruth Smeeth (Stoke North); Alex Sobel (Leeds North West). One or two of these would be most unlikely to associate with any breakaway, but it’s easy to imagine non-Jews such as Mr Woodcock, Mike Gapes, Wes Streeting and John Mann getting on board.

The JC are however playing a dangerous game in asking MPs to put their Jewish identity (or their non-Jewish Zionism) ahead of their other presumed political loyalties. If Corbyn were eventually to be succeeded by a Zionist, would we see calls for Muslim Labour MPs to stage a similar breakaway? (Incidentally there are now twelve Muslim Labour MPs – the first time in history that the Parliamentary Labour Party has had more Muslims than Jews – but only one of them has ever expressed seriously anti-Zionist views.)

Simon Heffer on ‘The English revolution’

Simon Heffer addressing the Traditional Britain Group

In this week’s New Statesman, Enoch Powell’s biographer Simon Heffer has an excellent article putting Brexit in the context of previous attempts by Tory elites to respond to ‘the condition of England’.

The ‘condition of England question’ was first formulated in 1839 by the great Victorian writer Thomas Carlyle (long out of fashion) whom Heffer rightly admires. Like the 19th century Whigs whom Carlyle criticised for their blindness towards the desperate state of the Victorian working class, David Cameron ignored a blatant malfunction of the political system that had promoted him.

As Heffer puts it: “The democratic malfunction that millions of voters felt between 1975 and 2016 was that however they voted they would not alter membership of the EU, and the EU had an increasing impact on their lives and economic prospects. If you school people in the notion that the establishment of their social order relies on their ability to vote and not on deference to a Carlylean aristocracy – a properly progressive argument – then denying them a choice on a fundamental issue for decades will, when the choice is finally presented, resemble the bursting of a dam. So it was two years ago.”

Might Heffer himself be starting to recognise that the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s (when combined with mass immigration) had a corrosive effect on society, and that free market ‘right-wingers’ (who are in fact Victorian-style liberals but misnamed ‘conservatives’ on both sides of the Atlantic) have been just as blinkered as the Whigs in their assumptions about benign historical ‘progress’?

Click here to read the full article.

 

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter