Crushing the Dream Sisyphus Style

Sisyphus
In Greek mythology Sisyphus was a king of Ephyra—- punished for chronic deceitfulness by being compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this action forever. Wikipedia—-

 

So sayest the prophet of the American Dream— go west young man, work hard and enjoy your riches! Well, that was the general idea to which many a young man, or woman, would feel compelled to seek out a better life, back in those good old days. The deeper quality of that “Dream” is still quite elusive for many and a real struggle for those trying to maintain a middle class quality of life. When pondering the nature of this colossal machine called the economy, one can picture it as a system of engineering, where every part in action is just as important as those parts which remain unchanged. What does not change often serves as a key perspective on the machinery always in motion— like wheels within wheels, whose central hubs connect vast powers far from the assumed place of action or assumed dimension.

—–“For example, the opening narration of The Twilight Zone begins: “There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man….” ”

The taxpayer in the eyes of the government is just like grass in a jurisdictional field being mowed down all year round… Any gain is expertly removed by the taxing scythe. That pound of taxable flesh belongs to the Master, whose magic sovereignty rules the lands with impunity… who dares to ask why? Beware the fury of the tax-man, whose powers no truth can turn asunder. Fear is the Masters loyal servant and whatever that Master wants so shall his subjects serve to him and no other. Money owns the Law and the hand which rules that money rules it all.

Now imagine some poor bastard getting the heat from some wild-eyed IRS goon…

“We wanna know your source of income!”

“…Is that like a well?”

“Well? Well, what you dumb son-of-a-bitch!”

“Well, like a source of water….?”

“SAY well one more time.…!”

The income is stipulated to come from the source of the payment… which is from the working mans labor— which is why it is termed Earned Income. Now here Comes In the funny money—- which is from a source—- quasi-foreign central bank—- to fund that paycheck claim—into the cash Note of currency— or deposited into an account as a credit thereto. The checking account swells say from a mere ten units in dollars undefined— to a hundred dollars undefined. This is a book ledger liability for the bank and proof there were numbers added in favor of the account holder. When did any of these numbers actually become money? Now here is where things become very interesting from that higher dimensional perspective….

The debt of the United States— is the liability(14th amendment) of its citizens, who have no say, whatsoever, in its spending whether good, bad or evil to the extreme– doesn’t matter—- the working stiff is on the hook for that magic book Debt and thus works his per hour pledge like every other good serf. At the end of the payroll period— weekly for example, he receives what he is allowed to keep…. whose 1st Rights to the fruits of the labor does the Law really uphold? The number value on that Credit Check— cannot be redeemed in anything other than cash or account credit— and because they are essentially the same thing, nether of which never became real money by any lawful consideration.

Arbitrage

The simultaneous purchase in one market and sale in another of a security or commodity in hope of making a profit on price differences in the different markets.

I see another form of arbitrage occurring in this selling out of one form{credit} into cash by the receiver, who cannot benefit from the true value difference, thus cost, of two very different qualities of perceived worth. I will call this Reverse Negative-Arbitrage, because it generates profit for the ultimate Lender who Gains by the worth so LOST. The Market of American Labor is a profit center for the British banking syndicate. But in this scheme the arbitrage is hidden by the simple action of cashing a check—and does not benefit the cash receiver— who is fooled by the cash con and does not recognize the credit and cash are two very different branches of a colossal money making machine. The cogs cross in his hands like fifth dimensional magic and poof HIS money is gone.  This quality of money alchemy is also lost on most people who never pause to question the transmutations of credit and dollars from one form into another like cookie dough being pressed into an assortment of animal shapes. How that dough is cooked determines what comes out… the IRS is hardcore on whatever comes in.. but is deadly silent on what come out…. mass currency never becomes money…. so the real money is pressed OUT of the system at the TOP— where your hand will never touch it for a second. Those 1st Rights are not trivial.

—–“Another crucial power of the IRS is the ability to withhold taxes automatically from employee paychecks. The IRS was given this authority in 1943, when Congress passed legislation requiring employers to withhold from employees’ paychecks the income taxes owed to the government. This withholding requirement was one of several actions taken by the government to increase revenue so that it could meet the huge financial requirements for fighting World War II. Today, automatic withholding accounts for the majority of tax dollars paid to the government, with only a small portion sent in with tax returns by April 15, the IRS annual tax deadline. Automatic withholding is important to the government because it enables it to receive a steady stream of tax revenue. It is also useful for enforcing voluntary compliance from taxpayers because the individual’s tax burden seems less onerous when taxes owed are subtracted from a paycheck before the check is received.”  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Internal+Revenue+Service

Isn’t that kind of the Master— to diminish the psychological burdens so suffered by the working masses to pay on that ever growing book DEBT, which NEVER for one second stops its exponential growth into financial infinity— sort of like the fifth dimension of Money—- If an action at a distance is spooky— the invisible hand that taketh away the fruits of ones labors—is even worse; and the 800 pound gorilla was given this authority from its zoo keeper, who simply pulled out of its ass the absurd presumption, the Commerce Clause grants Congress absolute tyranny over the working population. How else to describe the amazing quality of power which shrouds the essential nub of the action itself: The Clause had no such purpose to control intrastate, private sector business activity. But this of course is not what is asserted by such public policy rhetoric. The more interesting principle is IF the Law is like rubber and can be bent any which way the government pleases… it is no better than having no law at all.  This damning fact is why such laws are turned to worthless shit in a cup. Which is why the stink only gets worse as principles are so ignored.

—–“The IRS was created in *1952, though it was preceded by various other U.S. tax-collecting offices. The earliest incarnation of the IRS was the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, which was established by Congress in 1792 in response to the request by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton that various tariffs and taxes be created to raise money to pay off the U.S. Revolutionary War debt. Trench Coxe of Pennsylvania was the first person to hold the office. By creating the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Congress *delegated its constitutional power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises” to the Treasury Department, which has retained the power ever since (art. 1, § 8, U.S. Constitution).

*Actually Congress cannot delegate such powers without destroying its plenary position, but that is apparently a trifle detail.1393829620144

—–By the time Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801, the internal revenue program had grown to employ 400 revenue officials, who enforced a wide variety of tax regulations, including taxes on distilled spirits, land, houses, and slaves. Jefferson, a Democrat who fiercely opposed Hamilton and his Federalist Party programs, abolished the entire system and relied instead on taxes assessed on imported items for government revenue. When the War of 1812 increased the government’s needs for funds, taxes were reimposed on items such as sugar, carriages, liquor, furniture, and other luxury items. At the war’s end, all internal taxes and collection offices were abolished, and Customs Duties again became the primary source for government revenue.”——

One cannot help but to see a pattern here like grooves in a commerce stone. The debts of War rage red and to the living the debts of the dead are sworn. The working stiff so obliged by his residence in the taxing jurisdiction, like so many sheep in a pen, can only wonder if his graven currency will indeed cover another month of his necessary expenses, which naturally cannot be deducted if they are living expenses. Yeah, ponder that for just a moment… a business can deduct every possible expense so legitimate, yet the working man, who has no other source of income, so defined as earned, cannot treat his expenses in the exact same manner. No uniform excise tax rules apply…. to the necessity of living.  So, the INCOMES requires a special “A Tax” which is floating above the actual Rules, on sovereign wings so high in the blue skies, no mere laboring man can hope to ponder such differences of indirect, arbitrage intent.

The poor working stiff will never have a snowballs chance in Hell, to question, the Lordly Authority, to whom his tax is owed. Who is that lowly man to question what is actually income when all is credit and nothing else? Did not the Master measure the four corners of the earth and thus define all that its laws can speak? For who are the dwellers in the Lords territory, who do not owe him for the price of living? Such unquestionable debt is for the peons to earn in wages and salaries, to be in-joined to the self-employed by a curse, of which only He alone can make it so… Yes, that Lord of all that you wish for is the Master of that Super-Credit so cashed into the peons dirty, little hand. Such fiends are these who dare question the why, the wheres, the how  such powers manifest upon them. The money king need not explain the forces of his commands…. his agents of inquisitions and collections are immune to commoners and preachers, for no man has 1st Right to his labors, unless by the majesties will are so exempted. His net captures all credits of monies without a single cord so stretched about them. All he needs are the laws of money— to be enforced— just like a sword to the throat— so the peons will pay their tax willingly, or upon their knees so shall they beg for his Mercies.

Well, you will never see that last paragraph in any IRS info booklet explaining those amazing taxing powers no laboring man has a 1st Right to resist.  So while the astute reader may infer from my mere exaggerations, a certain kernel of truth, many will fail to grasp the deeper implications. Your belief in money plays you. Does it not drive you crazy that this funny money, which is only in your head, is in the taxing jurisdiction at the same damn time?

The liability of Debt makes the wheel go round and the working stiff so impoverished will never escape the noose of imposed credit. The legalized relationship of employer to employee was a brilliant stroke of perfidy to accomplish the dirty deed. And how exactly did the Congress, give itself such an amazing power under its very limited, interstate commerce jurisdiction? Well, it wasn’t easy until words were simply given a new meaning, sort of like alchemy…

—–“N.L.R. B. vs Jones (1937) represented an important turning point in the Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence. The year before, in a case called Carter vs Carter Coal Co., the Court had invalidated a New Deal program that attempted to regulate the wage and hour practices of coal companies on the grounds that such practices were “local” and had only an “indirect” effect on interstate commerce. Enraged by the Court’s decision in Carter and other cases, President Roosevelt proposed “packing the Court” with sympathetic justices by increasing its size from nine to fifteen[How constitutional of him!]. In N.L.R. B. vs Jones, Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Roberts side with the government in voting to uphold an N.L.R.B. action ordering the reinstatement of union organizing employees protected by federal law at a Pennsylvania steel plant–the “switch in time that saved nine.” Over the objections of four dissenting justices who called the interstate effects of the regulated activity “too indirect,” the Court concluded that the steel industry is an interstate web of activities stretching from the iron mines of Minnesota to the steel plants of Pennsylvania and thus the manufacturing of steel is properly reachable under the Commerce Clause.

The Court was really reaching for the win… why? And what was the deal with this Roosevelt clown? Did they spray the crowds around him with sleeping potions and stupid gas? Was he so confused about the three SEPARATE branches of government that he thought what the hell I’ll just change the VOTES to favor my amazing law making schemes so these communists called socialists can dictate National Policy as if States did not exist at all.  To regulate standards is one thing to dictate them is quite another.  Especially, when the rules need to be bent 180 degrees to make that new interpretation forcefully  exclude common sense. Behind the scenes such new interpretations are always about the money a distant hand demands.  The other usual reason is to destroy the manufacturing capability, thus unwanted competition,  by strangling out any business not benefiting those holding those honey pots of interpretation. Tyrants cannot tolerate competition in their Markets, being the spoiled knobs that they are…. after all,  unearned income rises as earned income diminishes.

—–U. S. vs Darby (1941), in unanimously overruling Hammer vs Dagenhart, demonstrated how much the Court had changed its approach to Commerce Clause in a generation. Using a “substantial effects” test, the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act–an important piece of legislation that effectively set national minimum wage and maximum hour laws by prohibiting the interstate shipment of goods manufactured in violation of the federal standards.

—–Once having established that congressional exercises of power were valid if shown to regulate activities “substantially affecting” interstate commerce, the Court proceeded to open up more opportunities for exercise of the commerce power by holding that an activity only trivially affecting interstate commerce might nonetheless be regulated if all of the regulated activities of various individuals–taken cumulatively–had substantial interstate effects. In Wickard vs Filburn (1942), for example, the Court upheld a $117 penalty imposed on a Ohio farmer for growing wheat on 12 more acres than he was permitted to under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The Court relied on Wickard in the 2005 case of Gonzales v Raich, upholding the power of Congress to authorized seizure of doctor-prescribed marijuana allowed under the laws of California and other states. The Court in Gonzales noted that local use of medical marijuana had a cumulative effect on the black market for marihuana [A phrase that meant “good feeling” in illiterate Mexican peasant slang. The stupid shits created a Trade name for a substance that does not exist, and made it illegal to speak the truth about the Hemp plant.]

—–No enumerated power has justified more exercises of congressional power than the Article I, Section 8 power to “regulate commerce among the several states.” (Congress is also given the power to regulate commerce “with foreign nations” and to regulate commerce “with Indian Tribes.”) The first major challenge to the exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause came in the 1824 case of Gibbons vs Ogden, when two steamship operators with exclusive licenses granted by New York to ferry passengers from New York City to Elizabethtown, New Jersey sued to block Gibbons, a new steamship operator granted a license to ferry passengers on the same route by Congress, from competing against them. Chief Justice Marshall found that the Commerce Clause granted Congress ample power to issue the license to Gibbons. Commerce, wrote Marshall, is more than just the buying and selling of objects–it includes all branches of commercial intercourse between states, including navigation.”—–http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ ftrials/conlaw/ federalcommercepower.html

Mr. Marshall, was one smooth operator. Why was Congress selling a federal license in State waters? Would it not have been more appropriate to regulate the Selling of said licenses to operate passenger steamships IF the States were making laws which favored local operators at the expense or elimination of rivals?

In regards to the first question: The United States maintained this term from their colonial era and began regulating it federally as early as 1793, with the passage of “An act for enrolling and licensing ships and vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same”, which passed on 18 February that year.[3] Over the years, it has been codified as 46 U.S.C., Coastwise Trade.[4]

——–In 1808[3] the Legislature of the State of New York granted to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton exclusive navigation privileges of all the waters within the jurisdiction of that State[not federal], with boats moved by fire or steam, for a term of twenty years. They subsequently also petitioned other states and territorial legislatures for similar monopolies, hoping to develop a national network of steamboat lines, but only the Orleans Territory accepted their petition and awarded them a monopoly on the lower Mississippi.[4]

Aware of the potential of the new steamboat navigation, competitors challenged Livingston and Fulton by arguing that the commerce power of the federal government was exclusive and superseded state laws. Legal challenges followed, and in response, the monopoly attempted to undercut its rivals by selling them franchises or buying their boats. Former New Jersey Gov. Aaron Ogden had tried to defy the monopoly, but ultimately purchased a license from the Livingston and Fulton assignees in 1815, and entered business with Thomas Gibbons from Georgia. The partnership collapsed three years later, however, when Gibbons operated another steamboat on Ogden’s route between Elizabethtown and New York City, that had been licensed by the United States Congress under a 1793 law regulating the coasting trade.[5] The partners ended up in the New York Court of Errors, which granted a permanent injunction against Gibbons in 1820.[4]

On Appeal: —–The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons. The sole argued source of Congress’s power to promulgate the law at issue was the Commerce Clause. Accordingly, the Court had to answer whether the law regulated “commerce” that was “among the several states.” With respect to “commerce,” the Court held that commerce is more than mere traffic—that it is the trade of commodities—it is also intercourse. This broader definition includes navigation. The Court interpreted “among” as “intermingled with.

“If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations and “intermingled with” the several states is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the Constitution of the United States.”

The part of the ruling which stated that any license granted under the federal Coasting act of 1793 takes precedence over any similar license granted by a state is also in the spirit of the Supremacy Clause, although the Court did not specifically cite this clause.

Note that in Gibbons v. Ogden the court specifically stated there are limits upon the federal commerce power, but chose not to put into detail what those limits were aside from goods specifically made, moved, and sold within one state were exclusively beyond the reach of the federal commerce power. This part of the Gibbons ruling stands in direct contrast to the post-New Deal decision in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).”——https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden

Simply be changing the word “among” for the “phrase” a whole new object is created out of thin air…. Once again I am quite positive every word was chosen specifically in each Clause and if the Framers had wanted to say “intercourse” or “intermingled with” each meaning essentially the same in commerce they would have used one of those terms instead.

But we get this BS instead:

—– In interpreting the power of Congress[not the constitution?] as to commerce “among the several states”:
“ The word “among” means intermingled with. A thing which is among others, is intermingled with them. Commerce among the States, cannot stop at the external boundary line of each State, but may be introduced into the interior….Comprehensive as the word “among” is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one.”

among: 3. In the company of;  in association with:  for example: a grouping of States.

Basically the Court no longer knew how to read a sentence, define its actual terms and comprehend the results. A State is not a thing among the others… the word does not mean what the Court just made up—it is as if they were illiterate peasants? No… these were the sharpest word-smiths so employed. By moving the real definition away from its intended use— to describe a group of States who were independent to each other and yet bound to a singular Nation. A constitutional confederacy— the Court changed the football from pig-skin to iron thereby changing the game at foot. Clever word games do not make a Law speak truth. Why was  the Court making Law by telling Congress what powers it had? Was Congress confused about jurisdictions? If so why? Was the State of New York confused about jurisdictions over its INTERNAL waterways? NO… the Court simply gave Congress, a brand new intercourse jurisdiction which now included all State jurisdictions by adding words where they were never found.

Intermingled with the leaves were small red ants… among all the virtues of Saints, Jesus taught Kindness moves the heart when nothing else will. If any power was intermingled as stated— it would no longer by plenary— as it was never singular to start with.  The word among was never comprehensive— the element of its meaning was descriptive of the group period.

Splitting a hair does not make them a whole while apart. Among the States people speak different languages. Salt and pepper are intermingled in many dishes to provide flavor. Now re-read what the Court said and ponder what scheme were they really up to and why? To expand the powers of Congress was never the purpose of the Supreme Court. Was Congress too dumb to know how to exercise its powers? Here is another subtle proof that the 1st Rights were being moved into a new object… the State lost the 1st rights of water navigation and now Congress gains extra jurisdiction where it had none before…. or better yet where its “corporations” had no monopoly perhaps? The yard-stick of civil commerce was being moved again very subtly into yet another operating position.

Lost in the fog of this pysop’s war for the publics mind is the assumption that civil rights are and always were superior to those prior existing Rights, which were shoved under the constitutional rug, as if no such Rights existed at all until so granted by the 14th amendment. How exactly did a white citizen see an expansion of said Natural Rights by the inferior quality of the civil straight-jacket? A reverse discrimination racket was sold to the people like a plastic pie with all the ice-cream scoops included free. With all those great flavors in triple scoops who even notices that pie is a plastic lie and a very expensive one at that…. by emphasizing how great the deal is in having so many flavors of free cream the matter of the plastic pie is left to silence. And if somebody does ask about that worthless plastic thing costing five-hundred times more than a barrel of ice-cream— it is a dead-cold stare such a question might be asked at all. A civil right is second class status no matter how many scoops are served on top.

—–“CIVIL RIGHTS: AN OVERVIEW

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person’s race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation.

The most important expansions of civil rights in the United States occurred as a result of the enactment of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.”—–http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights

What I hate about these simple minded word tricks is the banality of the evil so hidden. The unalienable Right is the 1st right—an example is to speak ones mind— it was never a civil right— that is one granted by the government, or allowed by privilege. If it was no man could speak his own mind without permission— therefore that man is a slave to whom such authority is given. A civil right is inferior and more ominously is a direct contradiction of the true principle— your mind is not UNDER the jurisdiction of any authority period. The minute you agree the civil right is superior you are a slave… did that government create your mind? Can that government remove your mind? Inferior civil rights make a mockery of the very freedom they falsely preach.

—–“Dispute exists within the courts as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, the clause is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. However, the effect of the Commerce Clause has varied significantly depending on the Supreme Court’s interpretation. During the Marshall Court era, Commerce Clause interpretation empowered Congress to gain jurisdiction over numerous aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce as well as non-commerce. During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited. Since the latter half of the Rehnquist Court era, Congressional use of the Commerce Clause has become slightly restricted again, being limited only to matters of trade (whether interstate or not) and production (whether commercial or not).—–

Isn’t it amazing how Congress, was empowered by interpretation, to this unlimited power by simply gaming the judiciary into rubber-stamping each new interpretation, as if that was the Courts only purpose to make the Law perform new tricks. Is the Law a dog on a congressional leash? The gravity of this crime is lost in the fog of war— a war for peoples hearts, wills and minds. Only in this case death out-right is not the goal— to milk the magic money from the herds of labor is no easy feat… that herd has to believe that milk belongs to the Boss and it is their civil duty to make its taking as easy as pie.

—–“Other scholars, such as Robert H. Bork and Daniel E. Troy, argue that prior to 1887, the Commerce Clause was rarely invoked by Congress, and thus a broad interpretation of the word “commerce” was clearly never intended by the Founders. In support of this claim, they argue that the word “commerce”, as used in the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, can be substituted with either “trade” or “exchange” interchangeably while preserving the meaning of the statements. They also point to Madison’s statement in an 1828 letter that the “Constitution vests in Congress expressly…’the power to regulate trade’.”[6][7]

To regulate is to enact a standard of actions of performance. To regulate trade in the specific quality of harmonizing the movement of materials, goods etc where one set of rules allows all States to act as one. This is a uniform rule and is congruent with the taxing powers as originally established. States could not be allowed to vex one another’s trades or bloody hell would ensue. Uniform rules do not favor one over another… thus to enhance the gain of wealth of one state among the others, at the expense of those less favored… was stopped by the Commerce power. Congress is the final umpire where such matters are in conflict… this did NOT mean control every activity under the sun, it meant to create peace among them. To settle disputes arising from discordant demands is the peace-making role… a principle these word bending slime-balls never speak one word of for any reason. Too much war addles the brains apparently. To make peace among the States Congress was given the consent of the People. Now read this sentence: To make peace intermingled the States congress was given the consent of the people. Quite the difference.

—–In 1935, Roosevelt and Congress were implementing New Deal policies and the Supreme Court of the United States, in Schecter Poultry Corporation v. United States invalidated regulations of the poultry industry according to the nondelegation doctrine and as an invalid use of Congress’s power under the commerce clause. This was a unanimous decision that rendered the National Industrial Recovery Act, a main component of President Roosevelt’s New Deal, unconstitutional. And again in 1936, in Carter v. Carter Coal Company,[11] the Supreme Court struck down a key element of the New Deal’s regulation of the mining industry, on the grounds that mining was not “commerce.” In the preceding decades, the Court had struck down a laundry list of progressive legislation – minimum-wage laws, child labor laws, agricultural relief laws, and virtually every element of the New Deal legislation that had come before it.—–

Here the pattern was becoming so absurd even the Court could no longer sit and watch the communists strip away the actual Law and replace principles with socialist dogma. Why had economic conditions become so bad a starving family was forced to send off the kids to work as the only means to earn money. The very conditions those federally sheltered [persons] corporations had instituted by devious civil manipulations now needed a federal control to fix again? Apparently, even after getting slammed for bad behavior, with a new excise tax on incomes, those corporate evils continued, and the solution, as preached by President Taft, was worthless, meaningless BS. His cure was never intended to work period. The 16th amendment was a purposeful, complete failure in regards to those evils as planned.

—–In United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated the production of goods shipped across state lines. The Court stated that the 10th Amendment “is but a truism” and was not considered to be an independent limitation on Congressional power.[12]

—–States v. Darby Lumber, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:
“The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

With rulings based on such unmitigated lies it is no wonder this Country has never reached its true potential—- as a Peaceful Nation. All we know is the war side, as it is the only one so allowed. Does this not even deserve a single speck of attention? The Court once again danced around the truth without stating the obvious principle: substantial Rights pre-existed and those Rights were not to be Trespassed, lightly or otherwise.

—–The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.— Meaning these pre-existing powers were not surrendered: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

Was the Court unable to read the previous rock-solid assertions with a sane mind? Of course the 10th amendment limited Congress to only those enumerated powers, for to declare those so implied are superior is absurd. Any Implied power is by its very definition inferior to any which have a Superior standing. Otherwise, more powers would have been expressed in the superior standing leaving nothing to be implied. Implied power is a slippery slope to debasement of the power itself. Implied powers can be sold like ice-cream… any flavor of a power so sold enhances somebodies pocket. Implied powers are a racket of political influence to be peddled outside of established Consent, or no value for such powers exists.

—–In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942) the Court upheld federal price regulation of intrastate milk commerce, stating:     The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. [ …] The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. [ … ] It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.[13]

Pure nonsensical horse-shit. An entire paragraph of mindless drivel to waltz around the actual power, by avoiding the principle so established by the power itself. Where there is no principle there can be no Law. Peace among the States is the Principle so established— to be conducive to trade [commerce] Congress was given the enumerated power to make that peace among the States without restriction to the GOAL as intended. If States can re-work the deal, change the law after the fact then Congress is useless in its power. States were bound by principle to adhere to the law the same as Citizens. Simplicity was the rule itself. If a State would not allow milk to travel across and into the State, that law would be properly adjudicated on federal terms, because it involved more than one State. To keep the peace Congress, has the authority to strike down the offending nature or quality of that law to RESTORE peace once again. This is the truth of that enumerated power thereby demonstrating its honest simplicity.

—–During the Rehnquist court and to present, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution has played an integral part in the Court’s view of the Commerce Clause. The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government has only the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution while other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people. The Commerce Clause is an important source of those powers delegated to Congress, and therefore its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal power in controlling innumerable aspects of American life. The Commerce Clause has been the most widely interpreted clause in the Constitution, making way for many laws which, some argue, contradict the original intended meaning of the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas has gone so far as to state in his dissent to Gonzales,

—–Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.[20]

—–The Supreme Court decision according to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. agreed on this opinion that upholding the PPACA under the commerce clause “would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority” and that “the power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated”.[29] The Court held that Congress did not have authority under the Commerce Clause to require citizens to purchase health insurance, but still upheld the law’s “individual mandate” provision under Congress’ taxing authority.”—–https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

When an interpretation can flip the law like a pancake, the question that arises is why Congress needed the Supreme Court to give itself the very power it claimed to already possess. Either the law says what it means, or the law is defective to the purpose for which it is used. In this case the Law DID not allow the power the Banking syndicate wanted, Congress did not have the power to change the intent, so the Court was used like a dirty rag to re-interpret something that had no interpretation so required to be true to its factual intent. The Law said exactly what is was meant to do and not one thing more. By kicking the constitution into the corner and claiming fed authority is beyond questioning a tyranny, like a tax, is Imposed accordingly.

—–“Interstate commerce, or commerce among the several states, is the free exchange of commodities between citizens of different states across state lines. Commerce with foreign nations occurs between citizens of the United States and citizens or subjects of foreign governments and, either immediately or at some stage of its progress, is extraterritorial. Commerce with Indian tribes refers to traffic or commercial exchanges involving both the United States and American Indians.

—–The Commerce Clause was designed to eliminate an intense rivalry between the groups of those states that had tremendous commercial advantage as a result of their proximity to a major harbor, and those states that were not near a harbor. That disparity was the source of constant economic battles among the states. The exercise by Congress of its regulatory power has increased steadily with the growth and expansion of industry and means of transportation.

Power to Regulate

The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce in order to ensure that the flow of interstate commerce is free from local restraints imposed by various states. When Congress deems an aspect of interstate commerce to be in need of supervision, it will enact legislation that must have some real and rational relation to the subject of regulation. Congress may constitutionally provide for the point at which subjects of interstate commerce become subjects of state law and, therefore, state regulation. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause

Does it not make perfect sense that to keep the peace— congress does have the final umpire role in deciding how to best maintain equality among the several States. By providing one example after another does the simplicity not suggest the proper understanding of the power so vested? Any State interfering with another’s Rights to trade and the means to transport that trade by routes land and sea, sets in motion the power so established to preserve the fairness and thus the peace. Any action exterior to that purpose is void— a dead letter— the horse cannot ride the man pushing the cart— the Courts create an absurdity where there were none and people recognize the wrong, but not its resolution. And the Court blocks this action/result with word games to defend a false principle thereby destroying the power itself. Now who might benefit from the real powers of the Law being defeated by such damn evil schemes?

—–“The U.S. Supreme Court, in recent cases, has attempted to define limits on the Congress’s power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of “commerce” was limited to the “trade and exchange” of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that “commerce” originally included any “gainful activity.” Having examined every appearance of the word “commerce” in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense.

—–In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed. Moreover, originalist evidence of the meaning of “among the several States” and “To regulate” also supports a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. “Among the several States” meant between persons of one state and another; and “To regulate” generally meant “to make regular”–that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted–when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make “prohibitory regulations.” In sum, according to the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade. “—–

—–” 4. The Federalist Papers.
Nor was this a secret usage confined to the Convention. In several of his contributions to The Federalist Papers, ardent nationalist Alexander Hamilton repeatedly made clear the commonplace distinction between commerce or trade and production. In Federalist 11, he also explained the purpose of the Commerce Clause, a purpose entirely consistent with the prevailing “core” meaning of the term “commerce”:

———-“An unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective productions, not only for the supply of reciprocal wants at home, but for exportation to foreign markets. The veins of commerce in every part will be replenished and will acquire additional motion and vigor from a free circulation of the commodities of every part. Commercial enterprise will have much greater scope from the diversity in the productions of different States.”61

—–In Federalist 12, he referred to the “rival ship,” now silenced, “between agriculture and commerce,”62 while in Federalist 17, he distinguished between the power to regulate such national matters as commerce and “the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation.”63

——In none of the sixty-three appearances of the term “commerce” in The Federalist Papers is it ever used to unambiguously refer to any activity beyond trade or exchange. At the time of the framing, then, for Hamilton, a proponent of broad national powers, the term “commerce” in the Constitution referred to trade or exchange, not to the production of items to be traded, and certainly not to all gainful activity. Even later, with the contentiousness of the Constitution’s adoption behind him, Hamilton’s usage did not change. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton’s official opinion to President Washington advocating a broad congressional power to incorporate a national bank repeatedly referred to Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause as the power to regulate the “trade between the States.”66

—–Virginia wins the prize for the most mentions of the word: seventy-four. Here, as elsewhere, there is not a single instance of “commerce” being used unambiguously in the broader sense. To the contrary, the most striking evidence is the dominance of a conception of commerce that is even narrower than “trade” or “exchange”–also manifested by Pinckney’s reference in the South Carolina debates to “privileges with regard to shipping.”98 In Virginia, I count at least seventeen references that link “commerce” in some way to ports, shipping, navigation, or the “carrying trades.” In other words, on these occasions, the term “commerce” is limited to conveying or transporting the articles of trade, rather than to the entire act of trading.99

—–Future Chief Justice John Marshall asked whether “the Algerines . . . and every other predatory or maritime nation, cannot pillage our ships and destroy our commerce, without subjecting themselves to any inconvenience?”105 Madison asserted that “American vessels, if they can do it with advantage, may carry on the commerce of the contending nations.”106 William Grayson stated that the riches of all those “maritime powers of Europe . . . come by sea. Commerce and navigation are the principal sources of their wealth.”107 And, echoing Marshall, James Innes asked, “Is it not in the power of any maritime power to seize our vessels, and destroy our commerce, with impunity?”108

—–I present all these quotes not to show that the original meaning of the term “commerce” was limited to shipping. Surely shipping was so closely identified with commerce because it was at that time the indispensable means for the movement of goods. One could easily extend this preoccupation with what is now called the “channels and instrumentalities” of commerce to railroads, canals, and air transport. But this close connection reinforces the narrow meaning of commerce and the purpose for granting Congress the power to regulate it. It also explains why the earliest cases involving the commerce power had to do with boats.

—–Sutherland’s definition harkens back to Marshall’s use of  “intercourse” without the unwarranted suggestion that “commerce” embraces every form of intercourse. It also seems a reasonable definition of the term “commercial intercourse.”143  Using this distinction, the power of Congress to regulate the economy was sharply restricted. It is no surprise, therefore, that these decisions were roundly condemned by political and academic proponents of national control of the entire economy 144. As was to be expected, the Court was criticized for its failure to acknowledge that the meaning of the Constitution must evolve to meet changing circumstance 145. More surprisingly, however, in light of the historical evidence presented here that strongly supports its usage, the Court was also harshly criticized for distorting the original meaning of “commerce.”

d) Other commentators. Although this interpretation of “among the states” has been contested, most vigorously by William Crosskey167, there remains a scholarly and judicial consensus in favor of this as the original meaning 168. Consistent with the scheme of federalism that motivated the granting of a power to regulate commerce among the states to Congress, trade that occurs wholly within a state was not commerce “among the states” and, therefore, the regulation of such commerce was not among the powers of Congress.

—–As professor and jurist St. George Tucker, one of the earliest scholarly expositors on the Constitution, explained: “The constitution of the United States does not authorise congress to regulate, or in any manner to interfere with, the domestic commerce of any state.”169 Tucker offered as an example of such intrastate commerce, “a vessel wholly employed in that domestic commerce, seems not to be subject to the control of the laws of the United States.”170 Tucker allowed that federal law could punish or seize the vessels of persons who gave “aid or assistance to any fraudulent commerce, either with foreign parts, or between the states.”171 Congress “may also prescribe, or limit the terms and conditions, upon which vessels may be permitted to trade with foreign parts, or with other states.”172 But, citing the Tenth Amendment, Tucker concluded that Congress, under its power to regulate commerce among the states, has “no constitutional right to control the intercourse between any two or more parts of the same state.”173

—–2. The original meaning of “among the states” independently limits the federal commerce power.

—–Adopting the narrower meaning of “among the several States” also reduces the significance of whether “commerce” is interpreted broadly to include any gainful activity or limited only to trade or exchange. For if Congress can only regulate gainful activity that takes place between people of different states, even the broader definition of commerce will not encompass much more than trade or exchange.

—–Determining whether a particular regulation of activity that is not “commerce . . . among the several States”–that is, trade between state and state–is constitutional requires an assessment not only of the Commerce Clause but of the Necessary and Proper Clause as well. This is not the place to discuss fully the original meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause181. Suffice it to say that the requirement of “necessity” requires a showing, not merely an assertion, of means-end fit, while “propriety” requires a showing that the exercise of power lies properly within the jurisdiction of Congress.

As summarized by Gary Lawson and Patricia Granger:
———-In view of the limited character of the national government under the Constitution, Congress’s choice of means to execute federal powers would be constrained in at least three ways: first, an executory law would have to conform to the “proper” allocation of authority within the federal government; second, such a law would have to be within the “proper” scope of the federal government’s limited jurisdiction with respect to the retained prerogatives of the states; and third, the law would have to be within the “proper” scope of the federal government’s limited jurisdiction with respect to the people’s retained rights. In other words, . . . executory laws must be consistent with principles of separation of powers, principles of federalism, and individual rights 182.

—–“The want of a central authority over commercial affairs was one of the major weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and a central animating purpose behind the Constitutional Convention that convened in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. Under the Articles, states had enacted a variety of trade regulations to benefit themselves at their sister states’ expense, engendering, as James Madison put it, “rival, conflicting and angry resolutions.” The Convention aimed to put an end to such mischief with the Commerce Clause.

Madison, the leading Federalist at the Convention, would later claim that this purpose also placed a very tight limit on Congress’s power over commerce. To him, the commerce power did not permit Congress to legislate private behavior at all; it only empowered Congress to regulate the states themselves—to overturn or counteract the anti-trade regulations that individual states had passed under the Articles.http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/04/the-secret-life-of-the-commerce-clause/

 

To keep the peace is the principle upon which the power operates and it is plenary by that distinction alone. Any other “implied” purpose is void for Congress cannot make the law into an ass of itself. Does Congress own the Law? No… but it sure does make one hell of an effort to cloud that principle as well. This concerted action of the Courts and of Congress and to an extant that of the president, all seem to dovetail around the implication of a foreign hand seeking to dominate the economy in order to serve its own interests and the absurdities be damned. Cloaking its intentions in corporate double-speak, also removes critical aspects of the real powers being used well beyond our shores. Congress is the tail of a dog wagging right before the publics nose, somebody else is making those laws which are indeed to be used against you.

—–“The prudent American will have to ask himself one question: Why has Congress consistently refused to tell the American people what the specific Constitutional authority is for any law, or portion of law, that it enacts?

—–Could this simply be coincidence; a mere oversight?

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way.”
— Franklin D. Roosevelt

—–If FDR is right, then Congress’ failure to tell you what its authority is to enact various legislation is not an accident, oversight, or mere coincidence. What then is Congress’ motive?

—–In the section on “The Law” in this website, we discuss that fact that the intent and focus of the law in America has been perverted over the last 60 years and now the law primarily serves the following four purposes:

 

  1. Government control of persons and property.
  2. The receipt of revenue, either by lawful action or extortionate conduct.
  3. The protection of the system that provides for points 1 and 2.
  4. The protection of persons who facilitate points 1, 2, and 3.

—–We posit this question: At the federal level, would points 1-4 be substantially undermined if Congress were to tell you specifically where a federal law applies, to whom it applies, and under which Constitutional authority it is acting? We think the answer is self-evident.

—–The power of Congress to regulate commerce also extends to contracts that substantially relate to interstate commerce. For example, Congress may regulate the rights and liabilities of employers and employees, as labor disputes adversely affect the free flow of commerce. Otherwise, contracts that do not involve any property or activities that move in interstate commerce are not ordinarily part of interstate commerce.

—–One should clearly understand that the Founding Fathers never intended the interstate commerce clause to act directly upon individual Citizens of the states. As in any free nation/state, if merchants, farmers, manufacturers, etc., have concerns about trade relations with other nation/states, the individual Citizen (or group of affected Citizens) pleads his case to his elected representative and that official then attempts to have legislation passed to assist the affected Citizens in achieving an improved trade position. An “improved trade position” may be the result of tariffs, import restrictions, price controls, etc., all of which are valid methods to address trade concerns.

—–By including the interstate commerce clause in the US Constitution, the states agreed to surrender their prerogative to make laws concerning trade issues to Congress. In short, the states agreed to abide by the decisions of the central government as an alternative to making war over trade issues. It is important to note that the Founding Fathers never intended the federal government to assume complete control over every aspects of commerce between the states, but rather to create a framework of regulation designed to minimize potential conflicts and then to take action only when a conflict appeared to be imminent or a conflict was brought to the courts of United States for resolution.

—–In a discussion on why a National Bank created by Congress would be unconstitutional, here is what Thomas Jefferson said in reference to the issue Congressional power over the field of commerce:

“…if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.”

The US Supreme Court case of Hale v. Henkel is famous for what it says about the rights of private Citizens. However, equally meaningful (but generally overlooked) is what the Court says about corporations. The Court draws a clear distinction between a private Citizen and a corporation. The Court concluded that a corporation is granted into existence by the State “for the benefit of the public” and is thus subject to all manner of regulation that may be required to insure that end. The vast majority of interstate commerce laws that are on the books today apply primarily to corporations. Corporations may be regulated far more closely than citizens of the states of the Union. A Citizen is protected by the Privileges and Immunities clause of the US Constitution as he conducts his private affairs from state-to-state. Here is how the California Supreme Court described the right to travel from state to state with one’s own property:

“Our conclusion is, that the right of transit through each State, with every species of property known to the Constitution of the United States, and recognized by that paramount law, is secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does not depend upon the uncertain and changeable ground of mere comity.
Ex parte Archy (1858) 9 Cal. 147, 163-164.

—–It should also be noted that there is no governmental authority that can alter, modify, or abolish a Citizen’s fundamental rights, which existed before the formation of either the states or the federal government. Even the Constitution itself grants no such authority.

—–Although not directly involved in interstate commerce, allow us to digress for a moment and discuss the word “business”. In ordinary speech this word simply means the conduct of the affairs in what we commonly call “work”. However, in law, the word “business” almost always means a corporation, or the actions of a corporation. This is a pivotal point for one to understand when reading law. It is absolutely essential to understanding laws that are directed at corporations. In other words, in law, the words “corporation” and “business” are generally used as synonyms.

—–It should be noted that because of the way definitions are tortured in today’s statutory law, what a private Citizen does to earn his living is properly referred to as a part of his “private affairs”, and not “business”—-http://www.originalintent.org/edu/federaljur.php

 

Congress, never possessed, by the Constitutional enumerated powers, unlimited control of all private activity and that its specific powers were expressly intended to be limited— not expanded to include UNLIMITED jurisdictions, just by re-inventing the meanings of words alone. One can easily clear up all of the fog by simple deduction: the law follows the money like a dog his Master. By switching to commercial debt-notes the sly bastards put their “private” commerce note into every State as a Distributed Product, just like ham or jelly-beans. Then the regulations were written to over-lay the main arteries of control to ensure the people were fooled by the usual mix of authoritarian decrees and psychological conditioning to never question the actual weaknesses in the grand scheme by substantial misdirection. Was peace ever mentioned even once? Is the pattern obvious by now?

Holding all of this together is of course the cash— the green bills of Commerce— which directs influence by the billions—-a Trade Name recognized the world over— the single greatest product ever invented to instill false confidence— and so long as that business eventually leads to taxable Incomes, the sky is the limit to the lies so told. Now many people might argue so what…? The government wants a cut of the action of which it furnished the means to the end. And in a the case of corporations that makes rational sense, but not when it comes to private labors. Here is where the deal—that New Deal—royally screwed the honest working man by handing him a fictional symbol of money as if it was as good as the real thing. It wasn’t by a long shot, as that what— four cents worth— phony dollar of credit confidence is propped up by every dirty trick those money sorcerers can cook up.

The funny thing is if that “funny money” was really as good standards wise—as gold— WHY was force needed to remove silver and gold coined money? The pivotal key to understanding the greatest con of all time was the curious, unlawful, executive decree that Americans were not allowed to own gold or silver. What part of that amazing power of commerce allowed the president to forbid ownership of the very kernel of that commerce— well only U.S. citizens were under that amazing jurisdictional power. The bankers were under no such restrictions and that rat bastard of a president sold the gold, so unlawfully confiscated, for a profit which conversely, robbed the American people of purchasing power—of that very same synthetic dollar because they had no other choice. How odd that the choice was such a threat it had to be eliminated by decree not any genuine Market force. Market forces did not place all the gold into a Fort where it is PRETENDED to be still held today. The lies here are so bold and so damn absurd by any free Market principle, or even the slimmest lawful principle, that it begs the question: why bother even having a Law if it can be so easily defeated by such damn, stupid lies?

If gold was indeed just a worthless hunk of  “barbaric” metal, why was it still so valuable it had to be locked up in a military fortress? Can you say undefined arbitrage… under the secret table of trade? Think about it very carefully as one ponders the difference between printing costs at Face Value and loaned debt aggregates in a fractional reserve system. There is a complex math scheme here that is begging for fuller resolution. Too bad the math geniuses capable of solving this secret problem have no interest in its solutions. The problem is how to calculate the hidden values of Arbitrage lurking behind the U.S. dollar as a foreign credit monopoly and not in our favor. I see very clearly the con so embedded, but the math requires a substantial understanding of the mechanics of the Money Markets in trade.

When dollars wear out they are shredded and bundled into bales and tossed into garbage dumps. Find one example of anyone throwing away precious metals in any form…. and if those criminals will lie about which standard of value is actually in play they will lie about everything to keep it that way. So long as they own that choice, and there is no other, a man will be paid by the debt-of-dollar-unit, prices will rise even as the credit-dollar loses its confidence, but the face value of a dollar of nothing is taxed as IF it was still as good as gold. If there was any truth in this miserable system of bold-faced lies every working American would receive payment by the parity of the labor dollar to the Silver Dollar Unit of Account standard per the Law.

Too bad the working people no longer believe in real currency— that is Coin currency with intrinsic value— or at least some quality of exchange function preserved in their favor. No the sad fact is the con worked so well electronic bits are soon to be the rage… portable, easy to hold and spend, so convenient even grandma’s will use them in every transaction. Cash is dead… so the pundits will claim, now bits are the new king of commerce,  in the fictional land of credit. Well, that is until bits are deemed too inferior as money and naturally will be replaced by something else no doubt, so far removed from any genuine quality of money… money as a term will cease to be used, except by those senior citizens when talking about the days when people were paid by checks. Credit is also an abstraction of numbers or just symbols being communicated from one mind to another. Maybe those trans-humans will simply do away with the mind altogether and the new race of mindless cyborgs will roam the earth under the iron rule of their Masters, to whom they will owe every second, of their now and forever, worthless synthetic lives.

Slaves do not need money— they just need to produce income. The credit masters never run out of credit— they just destroy yours to make their own. And that secret makes the world of commerce go round.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: