All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
37:47
The Destruction of the American Family - Peter Schiff Radio Show August 19th, 2014
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Make no friends in the pits and you take no prisoners.
One minute you're up half a million in soybeans and the next, boom.
Your kids don't go to college and they've repossessed your Bentley.
Are you with me?
The revolution starts now.
We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.
Turn those machines back on!
You are about to enter the Peter Schiff Show.
If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to.
This is the last stand on Earth.
The Peter Schiff Show is on.
Call in now.
855-4-SCHIFF.
That's 855-472-4433.
I don't know when they decided that they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.
Your money.
Your stories.
Your freedom.
The Peter Schiff Show.
Good morning, brothers and sisters!
Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio, sitting in for Peter Schiff.
I hope you are having a phantasmagorical morning.
I'm not sure what that means, but I believe it involves kaleidoscopes and hallucinogens.
So, we're going to talk today about the family.
The bedrock, the keystone to the arch of civilization, the institution that has been relentlessly under attack from progressive socialists, cultural Marxists, and all other assortment of human toxins.
The family, the family, the family.
Something which not hugely talked about sometimes in freedom-loving slash libertarian circles, but which I think is An essential component to fixing the world, to making the world a better place.
I'm very happily married, have been for 11 years, and I have a daughter who's five and a half.
I've been a stay-at-home dad with her.
Because I believe that if I follow in John Lennon's footsteps sooner or later, a pro-capitalist imagined song is going to just pour out of me, perhaps even on the air.
Well, I will tell you when you need to brace yourself for my singing.
Not yet, but perhaps soon.
So the family is a complete mess at the moment.
And we're just going to focus on America here at the moment.
It's slightly better, though not a huge amount better, in Europe.
But let's just focus on America.
And I would argue that the most foundational mess that the family is in is fatherlessness.
Fatherlessness.
After basically a generation and a half of relentless anti-father propaganda coming out of the cultural left, right?
The hollywooders, the sitcom writers, the cultural left.
We now have a generation of women who think that other than donating eight minutes per minute snooze, they can do it all by themselves because they are the sisterhood, the powerful, the independent.
They don't need no man!
Well, okay, so they need a couple of cops to go and collect all the money that they need from the state.
That's for sure.
They need some more cops in the IRS to go and pick up all their free health care from Obamacare.
They need that.
I guess they need some more cops to pick up the money from people to pay for their free education for their children.
They need some more cops to go and pick up the money to pay for their subsidized housing and all the other things that they receive.
But other than that, other than all those men going to get them resources, they don't need no stinking men.
And it's been a long time since we've seen a really positive and necessary father role model in the media.
Because the Cosby show, way back in the day, Family Ties, well, Family Ties, the kids were usually smarter then.
The parents.
See, the media, definitely over the last generation, has been focused on the children, because the children manipulate the parents into buying the stuff.
So they focus on the children, which means they appeal to the vanity of the children, not to the necessary moral lessons the parents want.
Which is why, in Disney movies and Disney sitcoms and all that, the kids are always smarter and wiser than the parents.
Sort of reminds me of when Peter Schiff was out interviewing the Occupy Wall Streeters.
I don't think Peter knew what the word meme meant.
And one of the protesters rolled his eyes.
Oh, Peter, how could you not know what the word meme means?
Okay, so on one hand, we have a highly successful entrepreneur who has worked his butt off to build a huge business and to be on the media and to be a successful and passionate and powerful advocate for freedom.
On the other hand, we have a guy living in a tent in a park who knows what the word meme means and is somehow proud of that.
A friend of mine when I was in college knew in 27 languages the phrase, Bring me a beer, my friend will pay.
I don't think that made him smarter than me.
He probably even knew what the word meme meant.
So let's look at some statistics.
And I really do want to get your thoughts on this.
I mean, did you grow up without a father?
I did.
855-472-4433, I really want to get you in on the conversation about this.
What was your dad like?
Was he there?
What is the attitude of the women in your life around the necessity of fathers?
Because they're always portrayed as bumbling idiots.
You know, I have two kids, but three children because my husband is just a... I mean, all this sort of vanity stuff where husbands are bumbling fools who avoid contact by hiding out in the garage and so on.
They're probably just hiding the contempt that society has for fathers as a whole.
So, in the US, these statistics are fairly recent, but they range a little bit.
43% of US children live without their father.
Shocking.
Wretched.
Unprecedented.
90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father.
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
Eighty-five percent of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
Ninety percent of adolescent repeat arsonists live only with their mothers.
We used to know this.
The skeleton in the Bates Motel was not of a father.
Seventy-one percent of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
Seventy-five percent of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.
Seventy percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions have no father.
Eighty-five percent of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
Eighty-five percent of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
Fatherless boys and girls are twice as likely to drop out of high school, twice as likely to end up in jail, four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.
Children with fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school.
Children with fathers who are involved, 70% less likely to drop out of school.
Children with fathers who are involved are more likely to get A's in school, more likely to enjoy school and engage in extracurricular activities.
The number of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centres could come from fatherless homes ten times the average.
A study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency.
Adolescents, particularly boys in single-parent families, were at higher risk of status, property, and person delinquencies.
Students attending schools with a high proportion of children of single parents were also at risk.
Even if you are an intact two-parent family, if your kids are in a school where there's a lot of fatherless children, their problematic behaviors will spread to your children as well.
A study of almost 14,000 women in prison showed that more than half grew up without their father.
42% grew up in a single mother household and 16% lived with neither parent.
So there is an epidemic of fatherlessness across the great nation of America.
Why?
Why is it happening and why do the children turn out so badly?
What are your thoughts?
855-472-4433.
We will be right back after the break.
I'm looking forward to you joining the conversations.
Stefan Molyneux for Peter Schiff.
You're now enrolling in the Peter Schiff School of Advanced Economics.
Twice the education of a Harvard MBA.
For one one hundred sixty-eight thousandth the cost.
Good morning, everybody.
It's the Van Molen, you from the world's biggest philosophy show, Free Domain Radio, sitting in for Peter Schiff.
I hope you're having a wonderful morning.
We're talking about fatherlessness and the curse and the plague that it brings to society as a whole.
But there are people who pay the bills.
I'm not one of them.
You, the listeners, are, in fact, the people who pay the bills.
So let's turn the conversation over to you, Evan.
I think you are on the line.
If you'd like to bring comments, questions, issues, problems, perhaps even interpretive mime dance to the conversation, that would be fantastic.
Sure.
Well, I just want to say that it's a real pleasure to be talking to you, Stefan, and thank you very much for taking my call.
Thank you.
So, yeah, I originally had written down a question about money and Bitcoin for you, but I certainly don't want to get off topic, so I just really wanted to say thank you for all the work you've done on peaceful parenting.
I think it really is the most important issue we could be talking about, those people who promote liberty and freedom, and I just feel like I'm really sorry to hear about all the backlash you've had from libertarians on this issue.
Because it just makes so much sense to apply NAPD in a way that is something that's in our control.
Like you say, it's the most prevalent way we can exercise it in our life is to not spank our children.
And I just really wanted to say thank you for all that.
Well, and just for the new listeners, what this basically means is As a philosopher, I work from first principles, and the non-initiation of force, right?
You can't initiate force against another person.
You can use force in self-defense, in an extremity, and so on, is a principle.
The non-aggression principle of respect for persons and property is foundational to, I think, all ethical philosophy.
There's not a huge amount of philosophical principles that say, you know, wake up, have a cup of joe, strangle a hobo.
Oh, wait, I'm about to start rapping?
No.
No, I'm sorry.
I'm hearing from my producer that that is absolutely not allowed.
He's claiming FCC regulations, but I think it's just talent levels that deny that.
So the non-aggression principle says don't initiate force against others.
And as a philosopher, I obviously work with the principles, most of which I've inherited, a few of which I've tried to refine and expand.
And then what you do is you say, well, okay, so what's the most prevalent form of aggression in the world?
If you are a nutritionist who wants to help people, go to where the unhealthy people are, right?
I mean, oncologists see cancer patients, dentists see people who want to get their teeth cleaned or fixed.
And so if violations of the non-aggression principle are immoral, which I accept that they are, then you look for where are most of these violations occurring?
What is the most common violation of the non-aggression principle?
Well, it's hitting children.
It's yelling at children.
It's aggressing against children.
It's neglecting children, which produces equally negative effects in their personalities as being hit.
And so I have worked for many years, I guess seven or eight years now, attempting to bring this message, I think with a good degree of success.
I think based upon sort of napkin, back of the napkin calculations, hundreds of thousands of children are not being hit as a result of the work that I've done, which is not a bad way to spend your time on the planet above ground.
So, I have made the case repeatedly, philosophically and personally.
I've had probably a half-dozen number of experts on my show talking about the science behind it.
Spanking is very bad for children.
It reduces IQ, interferes with social development, causes problems with peer relationships, obviously causes problems with parents, particularly when the children become teenagers and the power balance shifts.
Because if the parent has been hitting the children, the parent has said, might makes right, basically.
And then when the power dynamic shifts, When the children become teenagers, they tend to act out and become rebellious.
And there's been some pushback, for sure, from the libertarian community.
I mean, they want to talk about the Fed, which we can't do anything about.
I mean, to me, if you come up with a substantial philosophy, which then people can't really act on, I think you're sort of missing the point.
Here's a great diet for Klingons.
Do you know any Klingons?
No, but you study this diet anyway, even though you're never going to be able to implement it, because the diet is not for you.
Well, the diet of reducing violence, the goal of reducing violence is something that is actionable by most people in the world.
We all either have kids or know people who have kids or know kids or have some relationship with someone who is a parent and uh... we can of course uh... focus on convincing them to follow virtue and not initiate the use of force against their children and uh... there's lots of reasons to believe that this is the single biggest issue which Freedom lovers can take on to build a more peaceful world.
We are not able to influence foreign policy.
We can't change the currency printing habits of the Fed or the actual Federal Reserve itself.
We can't influence Congress directly.
But we can talk to the people around us and encourage them to follow the virtue of the non-aggression principle in their own lives.
And that mostly means parenting.
I don't know anyone who hits They're a spouse, but there are a lot of people who do hit children, and we can do a lot to change that.
So I just wanted to sort of put that in context for other people.
I myself have never hit my daughter.
I have never raised my voice against my daughter, and she is a real delight.
She is very empathetic.
She's very curious.
She's very sensitive, and we have very, very few conflicts.
And So I'm glad it worked.
I've been talking about it long before I became a parent and it turned out that she was turning into some narcissistic monster.
That would be, I guess, a whole lot of apologies I would have to make, but it's not the case.
Sorry, Evan, just to jump back to you in case you're still there.
Do you have kids yourself?
I don't.
I'm engaged and I plan to have children with my wife, my future wife.
one day, and honestly, you've had a tremendously positive impact on my life, and I definitely wouldn't have been a peaceful parent if it were not for your show.
My childhood was pretty rough, but I just really wanted to tell all the Peter Schiff listeners that, I mean, I heard of you through the Peter Schiff show, and now I go to Freedom Inn Radio every day for the past few years, and their work is just amazing.
And I was hoping maybe you can talk more about the dangers of step-parents, and also circumcision as well, because those two issues, again, they're pretty personal to me.
I just feel like those are, like, Like, step-parents can be definitely more likely to abuse than the biological parents.
And also, I think just circumcision, people don't really understand how negative the effects of circumcision can be.
And maybe you could just break that down for the Petership listeners, and I just really wanted to say thank you again.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate your kind words, and congratulations on your engagement, and congratulations to your future kids, who are going to grow up in a peaceful environment.
You know, there's a wonderful thing that happens when you eschew or reject the use of force.
You know, as a libertarian, and I've been a libertarian-slash-objectivist-slash-voluntarist for, oh my goodness, over thirty years, Um, you know, obviously I'm only 30, so I was convinced in the womb.
But, um, there's wonderful things that happen when you give up on aggression.
Wonderful things that occur.
We'll talk about those right after the break.
Stefan Molyneux for Peter Schiff.
We'll be back in a sec.
Good morning everybody, Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
I hope you're doing well.
727-4433, The Peter Schiff Show.
Good morning, everybody.
Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
I hope you're doing well.
We are chatting about peace and freedom within the family and the degree to which I think we as a community of souls committed to non-aggression, to the non-initiation of force, the degree to which we can talk about it within the family.
And we started talking about fatherlessness.
So now, naturally, the next topic is going to be rodents.
I mean, do I even need to explain it?
I guess I do, because that's a bit of a left turn at Albuquerque.
So, some research has recently been done following mice who are raised without fathers.
Why are we talking about mice?
Because when we fix the mice, people, we fix the world!
No, we don't have to do that.
Because they obviously can't experiment on human kids that way.
All those gosh-darned ethics committees.
You can't experiment on kids.
But they have tried raising mice without fathers.
And the brains of the mice who are raised without fathers develop differently.
And the main MPECs appear to be in the prefrontal cortex, as the part of the brain which controls social and cognitive ability.
So, the study published in the journal Cerebral Cortex, which is a fine neuroscience journal and also a medium to good name for a punk band, found that those mice raised without a father displayed signs of abnormal social interactions and were far more aggressive than mice raised with both parents.
The difference was far more pronounced in daughters than in sons.
And females raised without fathers also had a greater sensitivity to the stimulant drug amphetamine.
The head of the research said, quote, the behavioral deficits we observed are consistent with human studies of children raised without a father.
These children have been shown to have an increased risk for deviant behavior and in particular girls have been shown to be at risk for substance abuse.
In other words, a predilection for a drug use as a teenage girl would be a form of self-medication for the hole in your heart roughly the size of your heart left by an absent father.
He goes on to say, this suggests that these mice are a good model for understanding how these effects arise in humans.
The report said the behavior of the mice was consistent with studies in children raised without a father, highlighting an increased risk for deviant behavior and criminal activity, substance abuse, impoverished educational performance, and mental illness.
It added, our results emphasize the importance of the father during critical neurodevelopmental periods and that father absence induces impairments in social behavior that persist to adulthood.
Dr. Gobi said that the results suggested both parents are vital for children's mental health development and hoped the findings would spur researchers to look more deeply into the role of fathers.
Some of the poorest parts of the country, this is in the UK, are becoming men deserts because there are so few visible male role models for children.
In the UK, more than a million British children live without a father and have no adult male role model.
Those two are together as the double whammy.
A figure that's rising by 20,000 children a year.
In the manor castle ward of Sheffield, a very poor part of England, 75% of households are headed by a single parent, most commonly a woman.
This is something that has actually been known since Roman times.
The dissolution of the family was a big problem in ancient Rome as well, as no-fault divorce and alimony and all that kind of stuff swelled, and with the rise of single-mother households comes significant and, if this brain science is right, possibly permanent Social problems.
One of the most amazing things about human beings is our capacity to epigenetically develop, to adapt to an environment dynamically.
You know, like snails are snails, right?
But human beings can be different species depending upon the cues that the fetus receives and the infant receives from the environment.
If the mother is stressed, then the fetus develops for a combative world.
Now, a mother who is facing birth without a father, without a partner to raise the child with, is stressed by definition, if she's got half a brain.
And the stress hormones go into the fetus's developmental system and cue it up for, you are going to enter into a resource-scarce win-lose world.
A mother who is in a happy, comfortable, loving relationship
with the father of her child is giving all the happy joy joy hormones and brain juices to the fetus saying hey you gonna be born into a resource rich win-win negotiation based peaceful world and the child develops in that direction we create different species depending on the infants and the fetuses early developmental experiences you can grow uh... hyper aggressive
Win-lose, highly competitive child, simply through stress and aggression.
It produces a different brain.
Can that brain change later on in life?
My understanding is that it can't.
Neuroplasticity, or the capacity of the brain to reform itself, is a lifelong capacity.
However, there are developmental windows that, if missed, provide significant challenges later on in life.
The development of mirror neurons, or our capacity to feel what other people feel.
The difference if you see, you know, those videos where guys take shots to the groin from balls or bats.
Whether you wince or whether you laugh has a lot to do with the development of mirror neurons, which is our capacity to put ourselves in other people's shoes, literally, and feel what they feel.
There's a developmental window, as far as I understand, for those, and if you miss it, it's a real challenge.
You can change the brain from here to eternity, but the part of you that wants to change the brain for the better can be the first part that is broken.
Yeah, I mean, it doesn't matter how light or heavy the box is, with two broken arms you ain't lifting anything.
So the decisions that we make about how children are conceived, how children are born, and what kind of environment they grow up in, are decisions that are made to fundamentally shape what the future of society looks like.
Now, the problem with democracy is people are voted in and out two years, four years, and some, of course, a majority of people in Congress are repeat offenders, so to speak.
But democracy has a very short window.
Get votes now!
To hell with the future!
This is the whole problem of national debt, right?
Buy votes now, pass the buck, kick the can.
Defer the day of reckoning.
And a woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock, she needs resources now, and she'll vote for a politician who gives her resources now.
The fact that in fifteen to twenty years that kid has a far higher chance of being a criminal, a drug addict, a fathering, or Being father or getting pregnant out of wedlock?
Well, what on earth would a politician who wants to win the election in three months from now, what would he fundamentally care as an economic incentive based life form, as we all are to some degree, what on earth would he care about the single mom criminal factory conveyor belt that dumps kids out long after he's retired?
There's a fundamental mismatch of incentives in all democratic societies.
There's an old argument from Hans Hoppe who says that at least when you had a monarch, the monarch wanted to retain the value of the kingdom to provide to his child, so he wasn't going to run up too much debt.
I'm not saying that monarchy is better, I'm just saying that comparing those incentives which are multi-generational to retain the value of the kingdom, compare that to the average piranha-on-a-cow predation that occurs from your average Democratic politician, and you can see why.
For instance, in New York City, more than half of the children born are born to unmarried moms.
There is statistically no single predictor, no single greater predictor of a negative outcome for a child than being born to a single mom.
And I'm saying single mom, I'm aware that there's a tiny percentage of single dads out there.
But given that women basically get custody 90 to 95 percent of the time, it's slightly lower but basically men only get custody if women don't contest at all.
We're just going to talk about single moms.
There is no statistically more significant negative outcome for a child than being born to a single mom.
It's a more powerful predictor of a negative outcome than race, gender, Socioeconomic status, class, employment of parents, non-employment of parents, neighborhood, environment, school, you name it, there is no single worse outcome predictor for children than being born to a single mom.
And this is not talked about a lot.
We all want children to be treated better.
The last caller was talking about growing up with a step-parent.
Let's look at some of the facts about that, shall we?
So this is in England, right?
So, using the baseline of one, this is the prevalence of serious child abuse.
Using a baseline of one.
Biological parents married, you've got one.
Mother married to stepfather, six.
Six times more Serious child abuse.
Biological mother alone, 14.
14 times more violent child abuse.
Significant and severe child abuse.
Biological parents cohabiting but not married, 20 times.
20 times.
Biological father alone, 20 times.
Biological mother cohabiting, in other words, some man who is a step...
Boyfriend or stepdaddy?
No, unmarried.
So just cohabiting with a guy?
33 times more likely for there to be severe child abuse.
33 times more likely.
The safest place for children is in a biological married parent family environment.
That is the safest place for children.
And if we care about the safety of children, and all decent human beings of course should have this as a very high priority, We should really, really focus on that.
In England, a child whose biological mother cohabits was 73 times more likely to suffer fatal abuse than a child with married parents.
And again, it's dose-dependent, right?
As the biological connections to a child diminish, childhood danger increases exponentially.
Looking forward to your calls about these issues.
855-472-4433.
We will be right back after the break.
Good morning, everybody.
Hope you're doing well.
Stefan Molyneux sitting in for Peter Schiff.
We are talking about safety, security, and peace in the home.
I would argue is the foundation for stability, security, and peace in the world.
Marriage has received a pretty bum rap in the media, in general, for about the last 30 or 40 years.
I mean, I remember when I was a kid, I mean, seeing shows like Father Knows Best and My Three Sons, Leave It to Beaver and so on.
Okay, they were reruns.
I'm not quite that old.
Hey, what?
Speak up, sonny!
Fathers were portrayed as the stable bedrock, as important importers of wisdom and all that for their kids.
And the role of the father was hugely respected in society as a whole.
That really kind of began to change around the late sixties.
When a lot of Marxism crept in through feminism and through other movements, the sort of free love movement, the pro-drug movement, and suddenly it was no longer father knows best, but father is the white male oppressive patriarch who has kept his hobnailed
Steel cap boot on the neck of women and children throughout history and suddenly liberation for women was getting away from men.
And so for generation and a half, it depends how you count generations, generation and a half or so, you could maybe say two, depending on average age of women having kids, women have sought, in general, freedom from the patriarchy.
However, marriage is an institution that developed over many thousands or tens of thousands of years.
Almost every option, I'm sure, has been tried, if my penthouse letters remind me correctly.
Almost every option has been tried throughout human history.
You know, short-term cohabitation resulting in kids, polyamory, polygamy, almost everything has been tried.
And society generally, in a state of freedom, gravitates back to Two-parent, biological offspring, stable pair bonding, and so on.
It's not a patriarchy.
It's not.
And it certainly is true that women had fewer economic rights in history, but men also had responsibility for their wives' debts.
If the wife got into debt, it was the man who would go to debtor's prison.
And, as you remember, What was it?
I think at the turn of the last century, like 1900, average life expectancy was like 40 to 50 years.
Now, a lot of that was infant mortality and so on.
But women would get pregnant, usually in their late teens, and they would stay pregnant and breastfeeding for 10 to 15 years.
Because a lot of kids did die, of course.
And so, what was really the point of equal rights when they basically were home being pregnant, giving birth, or breastfeeding, or raising young children, which is a very concentrated, full-time job.
I mean, I only have one!
Granted, she has the energy of a double-espressoed ferret snorting cocaine, but it is a full-time, hyper-concentrated job.
And of course, if it was a patriarchy, then men would just trade in their wives when their wives were no longer fertile.
And most scientific resources would be devoted to cloning Al McPherson.
But no, I mean, the whole point of the pair bonding is that the man brings resources to the woman who's disabled through childbirth and breastfeeding and raising small children.
And then when she is no longer fertile, he must remain committed to her until death do they part.
She gives him the eggs, which are higher value than the sperm, and he gives her economic resources even after her eggs are no longer viable.
That's just the deal.
And that's the way that it evolved.
And it is what is best for kids.
And, and, and, which you won't hear a lot of in the media, it is what is best for women.
So this is a ten-year study, analysis of ten years worth of findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey.
which the US Department of Justice has conducted since 1973.
Mothers who are or who have ever been married are far less likely to suffer from violent crime than are mothers who never marry.
Married women with children suffer far less abuse than single mothers.
In fact, the rate of spousal, boyfriend, or domestic partner abuse is twice as high among mothers who have never been married as it is among mothers who have ever married, including those separated or divorced.
Twice as high!
You know, if something cuts cancer risk three percent, everyone is all over it.
You know, the media, don't do this or do that, you know.
But here's something which cuts violence against women and children by fifty percent.
Married women with children are far less likely to suffer from violent crime in general, or at the hands of intimate acquaintances or strangers.
So here's something which reduces violence against women fifty percent.
Well, how often do you hear feminists saying, listen, sister, to stay safe, you've got to get married to a good man.
That is going to be the safest place in the world for you.
And there is no safer place for women than being married to a man.
Certainly no place.
There's no safer place for children than for their mother to be married to the biological father.
So as far as in child murder, fatal child abuse, if we take as biological parents married as 1, mother married to stepfather, 3, biological mother and own, 9, biological parents cohabiting but not married, 18, biological father alone, 27, biological mother cohabiting, 73.
In other words, a child is 73 more times more likely to suffer fatal child abuse with a biological mother cohabiting.
And what the leftists do is they combine these two things.
They say, well, women suffer from X amount of violence, both marriage and intimate partner violence, which is sort of like saying X number of people are killed by car crashes and puppy bites.
Well, we've got to separate these things and get a clear view of the world.
Love to hear your thoughts on this or any other topic that's on your mind.
Please give us a call.
855-472-4433.
▲
Export Selection