|
Wickard v. Filburn Revisited
IN
THE COURSE OF A PROPAGANDA-FOR LEVIATHAN PROGRAM on PBS the
other night called "Constitution, USA", reference was made to
the infamous Supreme Court ruling in Wickard v. Filburn,
317 U.S. 111 (1942). This was the case in which the
post-packing-threat court, seeking to find a rationale for
upholding any idiotic or outrageous law dreamed up by the
Roosevelt administration, no matter how unauthorized or abhorred
by the Constitution.
Filburn had grown a bunch of wheat to feed his own livestock.
This made the Roosevelt thugs unhappy. They said that because
Filburn grew enough for his own needs, he wasn't forced into the
market to buy any, and therefore wasn't contributing demand
pressure that would keep the price of what was meant to be a
limited supply of marketed wheat as high as the administration
wanted it to be. They proposed to punish Filburn for growing
more than what the administration meant to allow him, invoking
the power to regulate commerce among the several states as their
purported authority for doing so.
Filburn said too bad-- it's his wheat, grown on his land and it
never entered the market even locally, much less "among the
states". It wasn't something subject to the authority delegated
by the Commerce Clause.
YOU'D HAVE EXPECTED FILBURN'S ARGUMENT TO CARRY THE DAY, seeing
as it's obviously correct. But you'd be wrong. That is, while
Filburn's argument does clearly carry the day-- he's
right, and that means he wins the question of who has the law on
his side-- the Supreme Court contrived to give the trophy to the
Roosevelt thugs anyway.
Sadly, by that point in our history, what had previously been a
mostly independent court (and a pretty consistently virtuous one
during the pre-court-packing Roosevelt years) had become a
creative apologist for whatever the executive decided it wanted
to do. Filburn's case is the perfect example of the depths of
the intellectual prostitution to which the court had abandoned
itself. The court upheld the farmer's punishment based on the
absurd and pernicious "reasoning" that the authority to
regulate commerce among the states comprised authority to
control whatever Congress imagined AFFECTED commerce among the
states!
This is like saying that your authority over the activities of a
horse you own comprises the authority to control everything that
might AFFECT your horse's behavior-- such as the authority to
order potentially spooking cars off any road on which you intend
to ride, or to prohibit your neighbors from painting their
houses and barns colors you think will upset the beast. Plainly
this is nonsense.
Your authority is over your horse. It is not over things that
you think will affect your horse, nor even over things everyone
AGREES would affect your horse. Even if your horse really is
maddened by the color green, this fact doesn't give you the
authority to stop your neighbor from painting his house that
color. It just means that you have to go to the trouble of
keeping your horse from seeing it-- by YOUR effort.
The "Commerce Clause" [relevantly] delegates authority to the
feds to regulate commerce among the several states. As in the
case of your horse, this means Congress is authorized to
regulate only what actually IS commerce among the several
states, not what it imagines AFFECTS what actually is commerce
among the several states.
FURTHER, "COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES" ISN'T COMPRISED OF THINGS
that move in commerce anyway, and isn't rationally capable of
being affected by "things" even when they ARE of a commercial
nature. "Commerce among the states" is the process by
which commerce among the states takes place. It has nothing to
do with the nature or quantity of the things affected by that
process.
According to James Madison, the chief architect of the
Constitution, the purpose of the clause is to provide
Congress with
"a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of
confederated States"
for "the relief of
the States which import and export through other States,
from the improper contributions levied on them by the
latter."
In other words, the purpose of the clause is to prevent one State from
taxing goods passing through it into another.
The Commerce Clause is a
delegation of authority over what happens when goods cross state
lines. It is NOT authority over WHAT goods cross, or what goods
MIGHT cross, or things that MIGHT AFFECT WHETHER goods cross, or
ANYTHING except the process by which what goods ARE crossing
state lines do so.
AS OBSERVED EVEN IN THE LEVIATHAN
APOLOGIA by which I was reminded of Wickard v. Filburn,
pretty much every "regulatory" violation of the limits on
federal power intended by the framers which held steady for
around 150+ years before collapsing during the 1930 and 40s is
justified by some contorted reading of the "commerce clause". In
light of that fact, I'd like to offer:
A Much-Needed Twenty-Eighth Amendment
To The United States Constitution
Here's the text of the amendment I'm proposing:
"The power of Congress to regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian tribes shall be exercised solely for the
purpose and to the effect of ensuring that such commerce
is unhindered and unburdened by any restrictions,
prohibitions or charges imposed from any quarter or by
any authority, other than such tariffs on foreign
imports as are elsewhere provided for herein."
This amendment will simply restore the Commerce Clause to
its proper and intended scope—preventing the several states
from interfering with the passage of goods and services
across their borders to or from the hands of their citizens
and residents.
PLEASE COPY THE TEXT ABOVE and send it to
your US congresscritters (rep and senators). As much as it might
be easier to get this pushed forward by the states, the only
method by that avenue calls for a Constitutional Convention,
not the proposing of a single amendment. The latter is what
we want (and we DON'T want the former). Have them tell you
what they do toward this purpose, and then you tell me, so I can coordinate their
effort with others and push for support nationwide.
|
|
Taking Steps To Keep It Real
CtC Warrior Barry Sullivan came across an egregious, sustained error
in a very widely-used high school history textbook. The text is 'The
Americans: Reconstruction to the 21st Century', published by
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Within, there is a section on the United
States Constitution, and in that section are several wildly- and
dangerously-incorrect assertions about the various taxing provisions
in that fundamental law.
Recognizing the significance of the implantation of this bad
information in millions of impressionable young minds, Barry took
action with a letter to Houghton Mifflin Harcourt explaining the
errors. Barry's letter, the initial response from the publisher, and
a few more comments follow:
|
03/08/2013
Barry Sullivan
XXXX Xxxxxxxxxx Xxx.
Xxxxxxxx, XX XXXXX
Hoghton Mifflin Harcourt
9400 South Park Center
Loop
Orlando, FL 32819
RE:
The Americans:
Reconstruction to the
21st Century
ISBN 978-0-547-49117-2
I wish to call your
attention to some serious errors in the above mentioned
textbook published by your company:
In the review chapter
where it discusses the Constitution of the United
States, the text states that language which is no longer
in effect is crossed out.
On page 84, in Article 1,
Section 2, Clause 3, the words “... and direct Taxes...”
is crossed out. This is incorrect. As will be explained,
direct Taxes must still be apportioned among the several
States. This has never changed.
On page 89, in Article 1,
Section 9, Clause 4, the words “...or other direct ,
Tax...” and ...”unless in Proportion to the Census or
Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” are
also incorrectly struck out as no longer applicable.
On page 100, the text
incorrectly states that Amendment 16 modifies Article 1,
Section 9. This is also untrue. In the sidebar
“Constitutional Insight” it says that income tax is a
direct tax, when the truth is that it is excise tax.
These errors seem to stem
from widely held misconceptions of the meaning and
implications of the 16th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, a general ignorance
of the Supreme Court decisions regarding it, the nature
of the income tax itself, and the apparently deliberate
promotion of these misunderstandings by the
beneficiaries of the income tax.
Following the
ratification of the 16th Amendment, the
Supreme Court addressed the new amendment in Brushaber
v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916):
“We are of opinion,
however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather
arises from the conclusion that the 16th
Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of
taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which,
although direct, should not be subject to the regulation
of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.
And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption
will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions
in argument to support it...”
“But it clearly
results that the proposition and the contentions under
it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the
Constitution to destroy another, that is, they would
result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment
exempting a direct tax from apportionment into
irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement
that all direct taxes be apportioned.”
Here the Court was
pointing out that the 16th Amendment did not
modify Article 1, Section 9. (To do so would require
that it specifically stated that modification, as all
other repeals or modifications to portions of the
Constitution do.) The Amendment, therefore, cannot be
construed to be in conflict with, nor to modify, other
provisions of the Constitution, and has no effect on
their meaning.
Much of the confusion
surrounding the 16th Amendment is founded in
reverse logic based on an erroneous conclusion: that
private earnings or other private gains which are not
the result of federally granted privilege are subject to
federal taxation; and thus the 16th Amendment
must provide that they are. Neither the former nor the
latter are true:
“The terms ‘excise tax’
and ‘privilege tax’ are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably” American Airways v. Wallace 57
F.2nd 877,880
“The right to follow any
of the common occupations of life is an inalienable
right…” Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111
U.S. 746 (1883)
“Since the right to
receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every
person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege.” Jack
Cole Company v. Alfred T. MacFarland, Commissioner, 205
Tenn. 694,337 S.W.2nd 453 Supreme
Court of Tennessee (1960)
“The income tax is not a
tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect
to certain activities and privileges which is measured
by reference to the income which they produce. The
income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis
for determining the amount of tax.” Morse Hubbard.
Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House
Congressional Record March 27th 1943, Page
2580.
It should be clear from
the above that the tax on “income” referred to in the 16th
Amendment is an excise, not a direct, tax on special
privilege, the value of which is measured by the gains
“derived” from the privilege. Since it is an excise tax
on privilege, it is an indirect tax and not subject to
regulation of apportionment. The fact that a vast
majority of Americans mistakenly believe that their
private earnings are subject to the tax, and unwittingly
and unnecessarily pay it, does not change the actual
nature of the income tax, nor the meaning of the 16th
Amendment.
The 16th
Amendment merely closed a “loophole” opened up by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust,
157 U.S. 429 and 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
“The Brushaber court also
seizes the opportunity reaffirm the core element of the
“income” tax by pointing out that the only way to
square the Sixteenth Amendment with Article 1, Sections
2 and 9 of the Constitution was through a fixed,
customized definition of what had been a legal term and
was now a Constitutional term; “income”. Because a tax
on “income” is necessarily an excise, whatever is
thus taxed as “income” MUST be confined to such things
to which an excise can properly be applied. As the court
puts it, taxation on “income” is,
‘…in its nature an excise
entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was
concluded that to enforce it would amount to
accomplishing the result which the requirement as to
apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent,
in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and
consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to
the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an
excise would not apply to it.”’
-Cracking The Code /
The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America, by
Peter Hendrickson
The 16th
Amendment only applies to gains of type already taxable,
(federal privilege), without regard that they derive
from the ownership of private property, such as stock
investments in federal instrumentalities, as in the
Pollock case.
“The Sixteenth Amendment,
although referrered to in argument, has no real bearing
and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent
decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or
excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion,
which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among
the several states of taxes laid on income, whether it
be derived from one source or another.”
It is my hope that you
understand that there is nothing “controversial” about
this subject.. There is only correct information and
incorrect information. The information I have provided
you with is correct. Regrettably, the information
contained in your textbook is incorrect.
Inasmuch as an embedded
misconception of what the income tax really is can
disastrously compromise the financial futures of
impressionable high school students, it is imperative
that you recall all of these textbooks, destroy them,
and reissue them with the appropriate corrections.
I would very much like to
know who the contributor is who provided the content in
the textbook to which this letter refers. Please return
that information to me at the address at the top of this
letter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Barry Sullivan |
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt's response so far:
Barry's initiative and activism is a kind of
stepping-up-to-the-plate that is critically important today. It also
highlights a problem that extends far beyond just highly-influential
history texts like the one addressed here. Even what are supposed to
be "movement" organizations like the Cato Institute, which proudly
publishes a little pocket-sized booklet containing the founding
documents, makes a version of this error therein.
These promulgations of bad information must be denounced and
debunked and driven from our classrooms, especially, as well as from
our public discourse. Barry has done a very important thing here,
but his initiative needs the weight of your efforts, as well. I
urge each of you to follow Barry's lead here with a letter of your
own to these folks demanding the call-back of these errant texts and
their replacement with accurate information.
"Be the change you want to see in the world."
-Mahatma Gandhi
Doesn't it strike you as kind of
sadly funny that many people made much of the fact that members
of Congress didn't read the 'healthcare reform act' before
signing it, and yet those same folks won't bother reading the
tax laws before signing their own tax forms?
Care to post a comment on this
article? Log-on to the national forum!
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
Return to contents |
|
Are You Ready For More Power?
"Peter Hendrickson has done it again! 'Upholding The Law' does
for individual liberties what 'Cracking the Code' did for tax law
compliance: exposes the reader to the unalienable truth!"
-Jesse Herron, Bill Of Rights Press, Fort Collins, Colorado |
|
CtC-Educated Lawyers: It's Way Past Time For
You All To Queue Up!
[Y]ou really need to familiarize
yourself with Pete Hendrickson's absolutely magnificent work at his website and
in his book(s). He has, brilliantly and lucidly, "cracked the code" regarding
the federal income EXCISE tax(es)."
-Mark C. Phillips, JD
"...I find your work fascinatingly simple to understand."
-Jerry Arnowitz,
JD
"Your book is a masterpiece!"
-Michael Carver, JD
"Received your book yesterday. Started reading at 11 PM, finished at 4 AM." "I have 16 feet (literally 16' 4.5") of documents supporting just about everything in your book." "Your book should be required reading for every lawyer before being admitted to any Bar." "I hope you sell a million of them."
-John O'Neil Green, JD
“Thanks
again for your efforts, Pete. They mean an awful lot to a lot of people.”
“…as an attorney, I am humbled by your knowledge and ability in navigating
the law. THANK YOU for your hard work and sacrifice.”
-Eric Smithers,
JD
"I am an
attorney and want to give a testimonial to your book, which I find to be
compelling. I am exercising these rights for myself and my adult children.
I'm even considering making this my new avenue of law practice."
Nancy "Ana"
Garner, JD
Learn what these colleagues already know, then step forward and
become part of a coordinated, mutually-supportive squadron focused
on developing strategy and deploying the law in courtrooms across
the country. There's a lot of suing that needs doing right
now.
Are
you ready for a challenge that'll put some real meaning behind all
the effort you went through to get your credentials? Send me
an email. |
Have You Taken A Military, Law Enforcement or Public Office Oath To Uphold And Defend The Constitution?
Renew Your Promise
*****
|
Illuminating
anniversaries of this week:
May 14- In 1796, the world's first smallpox vaccination is
administered. In 1804, the Lewis and Clark Expedition sets off. 1948, Jewish residents in the British "Mandate of Palestine" (who
comprised about one third of the total population at the time, and owned less
than 15% of the land) reject a United Nations plan to divide the mandate into
equal-sized Jewish and Palestinian states (with Jerusalem under international
administration) and declare the independent state of Israel, one day before the
formal expiration of the mandate. In 1961 the "Freedom Riders" bus is
fire-bombed near Anniston, Alabama, and the civil-rights protestors are
beaten by an angry mob. In 1998, the final episode of 'Seinfeld' airs. |
Set a brushfire-- E-mail
this newsletter to a friend
*****
|
Could This Be Why
The Crime Of Guantanamo Bay Lingers On?
SUPPOSE YOU WANTED TO INVADE IRAQ for reasons not likely to be
acceptable to the people who would be paying for the exercise in
blood, treasure and security such as that
Saddam Hussein had shaken the petrodollar lock that helps prop
up your trashy fiat currency gig and so was a growing threat
to that house of cards; you believe it's a good thing for the "hyperpower"
to now and then "pick
up some small, crappy little country and throw it against the
wall" just to put the fear of you-know-who into the
others; and
some cronies would make some nice bank on the affair. Suppose you
realized that you could get the popular support you needed if you could make it seem
that Iraq had a connection to "9/11".
Suppose after thinking about all this you concluded that if you
rounded up a bunch of ne'er-do-wells and radicals and tortured
them enough, you could get a few to "confess" to what you needed
to have some say in order to justify what you meant to do
anyway. You know what I mean, stuff like that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, or trained al
Quaida terrorists, or hated us for our freedoms; whatever.
It didn't work, but you gave it the old college try, over and
over, year after year. Killed a few in the process; prompted a
few despairing suicides; in short, you really sh*t on yourself,
big time.
NOW, SUPPOSE 10 years later you find yourself with 166
captives who, if let back into the world, will spill the
beans...
I suppose you would just do your best to make up "arguments" for
holding them indefinitely, maybe?
I'm just speculating here, you understand. But it sure is hard
to make sense any other way of this ludicrous, "There's no
evidence on which to charge them with anything, but we don't
dare let them go" thing... |
|
"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen
from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep
the Government from falling into error."
-United States Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
|
|
SPOTLIGHT on ACTIVISM
CtC Warrior David Sides
says, "Bumper stickers? Nice, but NOT BIG ENOUGH!"
(By the way, Dave's got it precisely right-- If you want your power to
be secure, your neighbors have to be empowered with the same knowledge
that you've acquired. Click here for ideas
about spreading the truth-- which include normal bumper stickers
available for free, by the way....)
***
Photographed on 1-70 in Missouri
***
At a
rally outside the Alamo
***
CtC Warrior
Brian H. in Alaska has a great INDOOR approach to spreading the
transformational truth. Here's Brian's desk at his workplace:
You
notice the big glass container to the right of the CtC? Tasty freebies
for Brian's co-workers-- candy and brain-candy all in one:
|
'Don't Tread On Me' Polo Shirts Say It All!
Click Here To Get Yours Now!
*****
CLICK HERE FOR THE
LATEST 'TAX TIP'
*****
More Than Two Thirds Of The Several States That Collect "Income" Taxes
Have Now Acknowledged The Truth About The Law As Revealed In
CtC, And Have Issued
Complete Refunds Accordingly! See The Following Chart...
|
Illuminating
anniversaries of this week:
May 15- In 1252, Pope Innocent IV authorizes the torture of accused
heretics in order to secure confessions and information about others. In 1776, the Virginia Convention declares the colony's independence from
Great Britain, and instructs its delegation to the Continental Congress to
propose a joint declaration on behalf of all of the American colonies. In
1862, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture is created. In 1911, the United States
Supreme Court declares Standard Oil to be too successful and orders its breakup
under the auspices of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. In 1940, the first
McDonald's restaurant opens. In 1948, Egypt, Transjordan, Lebanon, Syria,
Iraq and Saudi Arabia attack the Jewish partisans who had just seized control of
Palestine the day before the intended partitioning of that territory into
equally-sized Jewish and Arab Palestinian states under a UN mandate intended to
peacefully provide for a Jewish homeland. |
Set a brushfire-- E-mail
this newsletter to a friend
'The BOSTONIAN'S Paying the EXCISE-MAN, or TARRING & FEATHERING' (1774)
(How our forefathers responded to arrogant "Rule of Law defiers"...)
*****
LostHorizons.com traffic stats now available for the past year (March 1,
2012 to March 1, 2013) show approximately:
2,000,000 page views during that period!
YOU DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE ALL ALONE, DID YOU?
*****
HELP SPREAD THE LIBERATING
TRUTH ABOUT THE TAX
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed,
second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as
self-evident.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer
Set a brushfire-- E-mail
this newsletter to a friend
Get your FREE* CtC bumper sticker and help spread the word!
Just send a stamped, self-addressed envelope to Lost Horizons, Bumper
Sticker Offer, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382
(*If you want to throw a few bucks into the envelope to help
with costs, that'd be nice, but it's entirely optional...)
Set a brushfire-- E-mail
this newsletter to a friend
*****
|
If You're Not Standing Up, Then You're Standing Down
..and "standing down" means "going down"
MY FRIENDS, IT IS MY SINCERE BELIEF that this community of
activists has been encouraged, inspired, enlightened and expanded over
the years by the steady posting here of
your ongoing victories on behalf
of the rule of law. Certainly, it has been my pride and my joy to help
you share with the world your honorable testament to the liberating
truth about the tax, widespread knowledge of which is so critical to the
well-being of ourselves, our children, and our beloved America.
However, unless YOU send those victories I can't post them. Unless YOU
stand up, your courage and commitment can't inspire anyone.
YOU WILL RECALL THAT FOR THE LAST YEAR OR SO I've been telling you that
we are in a transformational moment. Look around at what is going on
today and recognize the truth of what I say.
More than half the American population views the state as a threat.
As mainstream a publication as Forbes magazine is posting
articles about massive DHS ammunition and armored vehicle purchases.
The
LA Times,
NY Times,
Washington Times and other mainstream organs are editorializing
about Leviathan having grown too big, and gotten dangerously out-of-hand
(see stories at each of the preceding links). Rand Paul's filibuster
denouncing the lawlessness of Mordor-on-the-Potomac has prompted a major
buzz across the country.
Concurrently, this
CtC
community has been winning legal victories and refunds which are
ever-more significant and telling. Consider, for instance, the
half-dozen victories won during the last twelve months which qualified
for the EWWBL collection (starting
with episode 39). Every one of these is an especially illuminating
acknowledgement of the truth about the tax, and included in this handful
is a very significant two-time victory in a federal district court.
Things are happening!
HOW IT ALL SHAKES OUT is still up for grabs, though. This is not the
time for either complacency or paralysis, because both of those don't
amount to "doing nothing"-- instead they amount to "standing down". And
standing down means conceding the fight, letting all these eleventh-hour
sparks of light burn out unnurtured and the moment be a transformation
for the worse.
This is not the time for standing down. This is the time for a
FULL-COURT PRESS.
This is the time for educated American grown-ups to stand up tall and
firm, pulling others to their feet by their very gravity. This is the
time for leading the way.
STAND UP! SEND THOSE VICTORIES-- the new
ones, and those of the last few years as well. Click
here to learn how. Even if you don't have checks to scan, send your
testimonials. Learn how to do that
here.
|
|
The Willingness Of Some People To Trade Liberty For Convenience Is
Without Limit
Some Observations About Current Political Efforts To
Evade The Truth, Such As The "Fair Tax" Scheme
Regarding "Tax Reform" |
"Taxes are not raised to carry on wars, wars are raised to carry on
taxes."
-Thomas Paine
Where
To Find Things On This Site
Law Professor James Duane Says: "Don't Talk To The
Police. Period."
Honest Cops Agree...
*****
The Newsletter is interested in your work! If
you are a writer, scholar, or just a dedicated Warrior with a worth-while
story to tell, please consider sharing your words and your wisdom with our
thousands of readers!
Click here to learn how.
'Letters to the Editor' should be addressed to 'feedback 'at' losthorizons.com', with "Editor" in the subject line.
*****
Films That Belong In Every Home Library
Set a brushfire-- E-mail
this newsletter to a friend
CLICK HERE TO INSTRUCT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES
Ever Wonder How Much An Unrestrained
FedState Would Like To Tap You For?
*****
Warrior David Larson shares this beautiful little farce, wryly
observing that,
"Depositors have "..not lost one penny.." - OK we could agree on that
simple statement ..how about the purchasing power
of that same penny 'not lost'?"
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
REGARDING MONEY
***
|
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
May 16- In 1866, Charles Hires invents root beer. In 1918,
Congress passes the Sedition Act, criminalizing criticism of the federal
government. In 1969, the Soviet probe Venera 5 lands on Venus.
|
Set a brushfire-- E-mail
this newsletter to a friend
Last Word
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We
seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that
feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams,
Architect of the First American Revolution
OK, Now Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Programming:
|
