by Kirk Barbera, staff writer for The Constitutional Reporter
The Hollywood Ten were humanitarian heroes. They were ten individuals, who were fired for holding certain beliefs, beliefs which just happened to be communist. These individuals were fired from top paying jobs that carried a great amount of respect. They were fired for the heroic deed of defying congress and their employers. This belief is common today in a world heavily influenced by leftist Hollywood, and it is also a load of baloney. The public is content with believing the farce put forth by Hollywood and other ‘intellectuals’ that these people were innocent victims accused merely of thinking. Whenever one mentions communists and a threat of losing a job there is an enormous uproar. ‘Witch-hunts’ they say. No one should be forced to say what their ideological viewpoints are to keep a job. Nonsense, of course they can.
When a businessperson opens up shop, puts their blood, sweat, tears, money, and more into their business; they have every right to decide who can and cannot work in their place of business. This is a fact many intellectuals of our time – and times past – wish to skew. To them, everyone has a ‘right’ to a job, even at the expense of the business owner. After all, it is the workers who are doing all of the ‘work.’
That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is this. When a business is opened up, the capital put forth; what is the first thing a businesswoman must do? Spend money. They must spend money on construction, or renting an office building, telephones, faxes, internet and more. They must also hire workers, and pay for advertisement. This is done before the proprietor sees one cent of profit. Many times an entrepreneur must take a loss for up to 5 years or more before seeing any returns. Yet the people still continuing to be paid are the workers, the companies that provide telephone service, internet service, cleaning service, and so on. Each of those companies receives money from the businessperson and is able to pay their workers. If a business does not pay its workers, it will inevitably lose those workers and go bankrupt.
To assume that workers in Hollywood should be any different is just the elitist attitude that is the major problem. The Hollywood Ten and any other worker is accepted and hired to work at a particular place of business on the basis of the business’s requirements. Businesses do not grow in nature. Men and women must start them and make them work. Since the entrepreneur is putting up all the risk, it is their right to hire whom they wish. If the owner chooses it is not in the best interests of their company to hire a person for any reason that is their choice. As the business owner, they will have to live by their choices. If the executives in charge of Hollywood during the 40s decided that having communists in their employ was detrimental to their success, they have every right, and obligation, to terminate their contracts.
A book entitled Ayn Rand and Song of Russia: Communism and Anti-communism in 1940’s Hollywood by Robert Mayhew, attempts to put the record straight as to the farce of intellectual deterrents put up over the last fifty plus years. Song of Russia is a movie produced in 1943 with such obvious propaganda as to show every Russian as a happy little peasant enjoying life in Stalinist Russia, and to show such things as these peasants enjoying a bountiful harvest. This at a time when even the
Russian government admitted to an enormous famine which killed – according to their government – an estimated ten million people (many accounts say much more than this). It shows the two heroes of the movie dancing in a luxurious club, while in the real world millions were killed by maniacal dictatorship. It claimed the peasant farmers ‘owned’ their tractor, even though they lived in a place where no one owned anything. It presented the female lead, a peasant girl named Nadya, traveling from a small town into Moscow. While excluding the GPU agents and other massive obstacles to her progress of attaining a pass to enter Moscow.
In the book Mayhew succinctly covers the massive changes the script undertook, at the behest of many very dubious characters; as well as Ayn Rand’s testimony to the House Un-American Activities (HUAC) congressional board in 1947. The author introduces his book with a sentence told to Ayn Rand which motivated her throughout the rest of her days.
“At a bon voyage party for Ayn Rand in January 1926, before she left Russia for the United States, a gentlemen approached her and said: ‘When you get there, tell them that Russia is a huge cemetery and that we are all dying.’ This is what Ayn Rand spent her life attempting to proliferate to the world.”
Today there are many claims presented as the atrocities the Hollywood Ten - and others who were supposedly prosecuted by congress during the three periods of the investigations towards Hollywood in 1947, 1951-52, 1953-55 - underwent. The claims touted are always the same; these ‘Ten’ and their comrades were heroes who were standing up for the Bill of Rights, for freedom of speech and more.
What these supposed advocates of freedom fail to acknowledge – or refuse to acknowledge – is the differentiation between the ideological and the physical. This is what is meant by the Bill of Rights. The idea of civil liberties i.e. free speech, free assembly etc applies and belongs only in the realm of ideas. Once those ideas cross into physical violence, they become null and void. What the HUAC (House Un-American Activities) was investigating was not merely what their ideological viewpoints were, but whether or not those under question were a card carrying member of the Communist Party. Indeed they carried cards. Being a member of the Communist Party meant much more than simply believing in what the communists believed, it meant adhering to their creed and law. It meant taking orders. It meant belonging to an organization of murder, violence, sabotage, and spying. This moves the individuals being investigated from the realm of ideas into criminal law. Moreover, those who were card carrying members also received their orders from a foreign government, which puts them in the realm of treason and military law. The Congressional hearings were correct in their condemnation.
To further elucidate this point I refer to Ayn Rand’s commentary on her HUAC testimony regarding communist membership.
“Membership in the Communist Party is a formal act of joining a formal organization whose aims, by its own admission, include acts of criminal violence. Congress has no right to inquire into ideas or opinions, but has every right to inquire into criminal activities. Belonging to a secret organization that advocates criminal actions comes into the sphere of the criminal, not the ideological…”
As she further states, allowing members of the Communist Party is like saying it is ok for a certain religious sect to practice religious sacrifices. The members of that religious sect would be persecuted for murder. Their ideological backing would have no merit on the trial. The same logic applies to the HUAC hearings, although Congress seemed to pursue these villains with a half-hearted vigor.
The fact that the Hollywood Ten claimed they did not want to reveal their connection to the Party because they would lose their jobs, only indicates their perpetration of a fraud. It attests to the fact that they wished to conceal information from their employers, co-workers, customers and the general public. That people would not deal with them if they knew the truth only shows the gravity of their wrongs. By condemning Congress for not allowing the Hollywood Ten to commit their crimes is a mockery to the idea of individual rights and the Rule of Law. This is equivalent to a con artist saying to congress that if they force them to reveal their con then the jig is up for them and they will lose their livelihood.
The false idea being pushed around the intellectual forum today that these supposed heroes were fighting for their freedom of speech is ridiculous. Again, free speech wasn’t an issue. The issue was whether or not these people were in fact members of a party which would kill any of their own people to keep them quiet. Ironically enough, as these Ten were portraying their viewpoints of Stalinist Russia in American movies, an atrocity rarely heard of was being carried out by that evil dictator; the extermination of the Lubyanka Thousand. The Lubyanka was a Moscow headquarters of the Soviet secret police. Many innocent people were imprisoned, tortures, and killed there. The Lubyanka Thousand were the over one thousand writers murdered there.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Obama's Supreme Court pick
A Supreme Let Down
by Kirk Barbera, staff writer
As many American’s are aware, Supreme Court Judge David Souter is now retiring after 19 years. This gives President Barrack Obama the opportunity to exercise one of his most important executive powers; to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. Obama has made it very clear his major requirements for the next Supreme Court choice. As he has said on a few occasions “We need someone who’s got the heart to recognize – the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges” This bold statement completely refutes the intent of our constitution.
Our framers specifically and painstakingly designed a state that is a ‘constitutionally restricted republic.’ Today, people believe our country is merely a democracy, yet they forget democracy is only one check on the overall state.
A problem with the way America’s state was designed begins to occur when we look at what a state really is.
Murray Rothbard succinctly covered many aspects of the state in his essay The Anatomy of the State. First, understanding the state is not us. This is a common misconception today, that ‘we are the government.’ This sad and ideological term ‘we’ has prevented citizens of a particular state to be unaware of the reality of political life. As Rothbard States: “If ‘we are the government.’ Then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also ‘voluntary’ on the part of the individual concerned.” As he further explains, “under this reasoning any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have ‘committed suicide,’ since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part.” This reasoning seems ludicrous, but yet, it is completely in line with the common thinking of our time. It must be emphatically stated that we are not the government, and understand what the government is and its general purpose. A state is an organization that has a ubiquitous monopoly on force over a given geographical area. Moreover, it is the only organization which does not attain its monies by voluntary measures; its only means to attaining revenue is force.
There are only two ways a human may attain wealth; voluntary trade, or compulsion. Open hand, or the gun. The state only has one option available to it.
This then leads into the development of our own constitutionally restricted republic. Our founding fathers knew one thing, and that is, if a state is left unchecked it will trample individual rights, as per the states nature. Our founders began with the understanding that individual rights are not granted from god, society, king or any other means – but that individual rights are inalienable. Some may cite the Declaration of Independence’s statement: “That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” This seems to say that our founders believed our rights derived from god, or something outside of ourselves, yet this is not congruent with what our framers tried to convey. Merely a line before that ‘Creator’ line it states: “…assume the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” It is clear through the writings of our framers what they hoped future generations would retain, and that is our conception of our individual rights. Rights are a moral concept which serves as a transition from the principles which guide each and every one of us individually to the principles guiding our relationship with others. As Ayn Rand wrote, “the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” Also in Atlas Shrugged the character John Galt explains, “the source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law but the law of identity. A is A and man is man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.”
There is a disconnect, from what our founders intended, and what they in fact implemented in our constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has the ultimate and last say in the interpretation of our constitution, and it is a part of the government. The masses may believe that the judicial branch of the government is separate from the other two, yet the members are chosen from the executive and legislative branches. This allows the federal government to pick the individuals who will be enforcing the rules they will create, which is like a professional basketball team picking the referee who will ref their games. The basketball team (and the politicians) will obviously pick those people who are most likely to call the game in their favor. So comes to fruition, once again, the battle between state power and social power.
In our system, the best check on this blatant flaw is our president picking the best person for our country. When we select a president to run for 4 years it should be known by the public that when the president chooses a Supreme Court Judge, it is a lifetime position. Justice John Paul Stevens all but wiped away the constitutions restrictions on the government’s ability to confiscate private property in “Kelo v. New London” – 30 years after President Ford appointed him.
When Obama speaks of choosing Judges based off of their ‘empathy’ he neglects the purpose of the judges. Obama, a former law professor, completely ignores the reasoning behind our lady justice being blindfolded. The reason Justice is blind, is that it matters not what a person’s skin tone is, what their social status, wealth, fame, handicap, political preferences, sexual preferences and more are. Only justice matters.
It is unfortunate but when Barack Obama chooses a judge it will be in complete accordance with his world views, which he has elucidated very clearly to the American people and we are still buying into what he is selling. The only factor that Obama cannot forestall (yet) is time. It takes a lot of time for judges to retire, or die. If our country can sound the alarms now, it just might be enough time to alter the course of the way our constitution is upheld for the next 30 years.
Regrettably, our current media is on the side of destroying our constitution. In the Sunday Denver Post an article written by Michael Riley outlines the grievous errors in all of our judgments. Governor Bill Ritter and two freshman senators asked Obama to “Seriously Consider” appointing Secretary Ken Salazar to the U.S. Supreme Court. What did they and the article cite were Salazar’s qualifications? That he is a “Westerner who from hard-scrabble beginnings has risen to become one of the country’s most successful Latino politicians.” The people pushing Salazar mainly are explaining his heritage, his skin color and his ability to rise from nothing to political bureaucrat. The article also points out that politicians and interest groups have been weighing in on their judgeship pick since Souter announced his retirement. Here is how they wish to ‘weigh in’ on who should be picked, “an African-American, a Latino, a woman, a liberal, to balance the court’s conservatives or a moderate who would sway from the middle.” This erases the most important qualification, which is whether the new judge will uphold our constitution. The article does point out that Salazar has never served as a judge but that doesn’t matter because Obama will consider real world experience when he is making his big choice.
The question our politicians should be asking our judges is not whether they will have empathy for the people they judge over, but whether or not they will uphold the constitution which protects all of our individual rights. The biggest danger for our country is not merely how a judge will vote on this or that issue, but whether they will undermine the very concept of the rule of law. Our country was founded on this idea. The idea that ‘laws not men’ govern. Once we erode this concept, our very ability to live as free people is wiped away.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
by Kirk Barbera, staff writer
As many American’s are aware, Supreme Court Judge David Souter is now retiring after 19 years. This gives President Barrack Obama the opportunity to exercise one of his most important executive powers; to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. Obama has made it very clear his major requirements for the next Supreme Court choice. As he has said on a few occasions “We need someone who’s got the heart to recognize – the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges” This bold statement completely refutes the intent of our constitution.
Our framers specifically and painstakingly designed a state that is a ‘constitutionally restricted republic.’ Today, people believe our country is merely a democracy, yet they forget democracy is only one check on the overall state.
A problem with the way America’s state was designed begins to occur when we look at what a state really is.
Murray Rothbard succinctly covered many aspects of the state in his essay The Anatomy of the State. First, understanding the state is not us. This is a common misconception today, that ‘we are the government.’ This sad and ideological term ‘we’ has prevented citizens of a particular state to be unaware of the reality of political life. As Rothbard States: “If ‘we are the government.’ Then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also ‘voluntary’ on the part of the individual concerned.” As he further explains, “under this reasoning any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have ‘committed suicide,’ since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part.” This reasoning seems ludicrous, but yet, it is completely in line with the common thinking of our time. It must be emphatically stated that we are not the government, and understand what the government is and its general purpose. A state is an organization that has a ubiquitous monopoly on force over a given geographical area. Moreover, it is the only organization which does not attain its monies by voluntary measures; its only means to attaining revenue is force.
There are only two ways a human may attain wealth; voluntary trade, or compulsion. Open hand, or the gun. The state only has one option available to it.
This then leads into the development of our own constitutionally restricted republic. Our founding fathers knew one thing, and that is, if a state is left unchecked it will trample individual rights, as per the states nature. Our founders began with the understanding that individual rights are not granted from god, society, king or any other means – but that individual rights are inalienable. Some may cite the Declaration of Independence’s statement: “That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” This seems to say that our founders believed our rights derived from god, or something outside of ourselves, yet this is not congruent with what our framers tried to convey. Merely a line before that ‘Creator’ line it states: “…assume the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” It is clear through the writings of our framers what they hoped future generations would retain, and that is our conception of our individual rights. Rights are a moral concept which serves as a transition from the principles which guide each and every one of us individually to the principles guiding our relationship with others. As Ayn Rand wrote, “the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” Also in Atlas Shrugged the character John Galt explains, “the source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law but the law of identity. A is A and man is man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.”
There is a disconnect, from what our founders intended, and what they in fact implemented in our constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has the ultimate and last say in the interpretation of our constitution, and it is a part of the government. The masses may believe that the judicial branch of the government is separate from the other two, yet the members are chosen from the executive and legislative branches. This allows the federal government to pick the individuals who will be enforcing the rules they will create, which is like a professional basketball team picking the referee who will ref their games. The basketball team (and the politicians) will obviously pick those people who are most likely to call the game in their favor. So comes to fruition, once again, the battle between state power and social power.
In our system, the best check on this blatant flaw is our president picking the best person for our country. When we select a president to run for 4 years it should be known by the public that when the president chooses a Supreme Court Judge, it is a lifetime position. Justice John Paul Stevens all but wiped away the constitutions restrictions on the government’s ability to confiscate private property in “Kelo v. New London” – 30 years after President Ford appointed him.
When Obama speaks of choosing Judges based off of their ‘empathy’ he neglects the purpose of the judges. Obama, a former law professor, completely ignores the reasoning behind our lady justice being blindfolded. The reason Justice is blind, is that it matters not what a person’s skin tone is, what their social status, wealth, fame, handicap, political preferences, sexual preferences and more are. Only justice matters.
It is unfortunate but when Barack Obama chooses a judge it will be in complete accordance with his world views, which he has elucidated very clearly to the American people and we are still buying into what he is selling. The only factor that Obama cannot forestall (yet) is time. It takes a lot of time for judges to retire, or die. If our country can sound the alarms now, it just might be enough time to alter the course of the way our constitution is upheld for the next 30 years.
Regrettably, our current media is on the side of destroying our constitution. In the Sunday Denver Post an article written by Michael Riley outlines the grievous errors in all of our judgments. Governor Bill Ritter and two freshman senators asked Obama to “Seriously Consider” appointing Secretary Ken Salazar to the U.S. Supreme Court. What did they and the article cite were Salazar’s qualifications? That he is a “Westerner who from hard-scrabble beginnings has risen to become one of the country’s most successful Latino politicians.” The people pushing Salazar mainly are explaining his heritage, his skin color and his ability to rise from nothing to political bureaucrat. The article also points out that politicians and interest groups have been weighing in on their judgeship pick since Souter announced his retirement. Here is how they wish to ‘weigh in’ on who should be picked, “an African-American, a Latino, a woman, a liberal, to balance the court’s conservatives or a moderate who would sway from the middle.” This erases the most important qualification, which is whether the new judge will uphold our constitution. The article does point out that Salazar has never served as a judge but that doesn’t matter because Obama will consider real world experience when he is making his big choice.
The question our politicians should be asking our judges is not whether they will have empathy for the people they judge over, but whether or not they will uphold the constitution which protects all of our individual rights. The biggest danger for our country is not merely how a judge will vote on this or that issue, but whether they will undermine the very concept of the rule of law. Our country was founded on this idea. The idea that ‘laws not men’ govern. Once we erode this concept, our very ability to live as free people is wiped away.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
Friday, May 15, 2009
We’re all criminals now
Michael Krueger, staff writer of The Constitutional Reporter
It’s late. You are asleep in your bed dreaming of acing your finals. You awake from your slumber to get up and use the restroom. You flush the toilet and climb back into bed. You are just about to fall asleep when you hear banging on your front door. Bewildered, you stumble out of bed to see who it could possibly be. You think to yourself that it must be your drunken roommate. He must have forgotten his keys. You are almost to the door when suddenly it bursts open and federal agents storm in and tackle you to the ground. You yell that you didn’t do anything. They put handcuffs around your wrists and stand you up. You demand to know what is going on—what crime you have committed. One of the agents looks you in the eyes and says, “You flushed your toilet.” Title 10 part 430.32 of the Code of Federal Regulations makes it a crime to operate a toilet that uses more than 1.6 gallons per flush.
To be sure, the FBI is hardly kicking in doors gestapo-style to arrest people for having old toilets, but the fact remains that you are in violation of federal law for doing absolutely nothing. You are a criminal, not because you murdered someone or robbed a bank, but because of the kind of toilet you own. Of course, it does not end with toilets. Among the 75,000 pages of regulations, one is certain to be found in violation of something. Whether it is how much water one’s showerhead uses, the proper sterilization of chimpanzees as per the CHIMP Act, mandatory locks on bathrooms in private homes, the kinds of labels that must be placed on clothing, or what kind of trash cans one can own, we are all criminals somehow.
Welcome to the nanny state—where the government infringes on your rights but assures you that it is perfectly ok because it is “for your own good.” Government officials, instead of dealing with issues of any real importance, are obsessed with controlling and regulating the lives of the people. They regulate everything. One code about housing construction reads, “Each habitable room shall be provided with exterior windows and/or doors having a total glazed area of not less than 8 percent of the gross floor area.” Do these bureaucrats have nothing better to do than decide how many windows someone’s living room has? If I want to buy a house that doesn’t have any windows, then isn't that my prerogative as a free individual in a supposedly free country?
Government regulations are kind of like those carnival games where everyone is a winner and gets a prize so he can feel good about himself for actually overcoming his ineptitude and winning something for a change. Only in this game your “prize” is not some cheaply made stuffed dog that is supposed to resemble Pluto but looks more like some malformed mutt. Instead, your prize is around 75,000 pieces of toilet paper with complementary paperwork, liability waiver, a safety inspection, a license and zoning permit, and a contract stating that it will only be flushed down a 1.6 gallon toilet. Basically, everyone is a loser together, but the government gets to feel good for “helping” people.
These rules have real impacts. Complying with them costs businesses $1.14 trillion. They burden farmers with unnecessary and cumbersome farming regulations, manufacturers with endless safety protocols, small business with mountains of paperwork, and the average citizen with the single greatest travesty since the Noachian Flood: the U.S. tax code.
The government has no right to intrude in the lives of the people as it currently does. These regulations are chains of slavery forced on both individuals and businesses and serve only to expand the power of the State. These government sanctioned codes, regulations, and laws erode our liberties. As Barry Goldwater wrote, “My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel out old ones that do violence to the Constitution…I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.” We must not allow the State to run our lives for it will inevitably lead to serfdom and tyranny.
It’s late. You are asleep in your bed dreaming of acing your finals. You awake from your slumber to get up and use the restroom. You flush the toilet and climb back into bed. You are just about to fall asleep when you hear banging on your front door. Bewildered, you stumble out of bed to see who it could possibly be. You think to yourself that it must be your drunken roommate. He must have forgotten his keys. You are almost to the door when suddenly it bursts open and federal agents storm in and tackle you to the ground. You yell that you didn’t do anything. They put handcuffs around your wrists and stand you up. You demand to know what is going on—what crime you have committed. One of the agents looks you in the eyes and says, “You flushed your toilet.” Title 10 part 430.32 of the Code of Federal Regulations makes it a crime to operate a toilet that uses more than 1.6 gallons per flush.
To be sure, the FBI is hardly kicking in doors gestapo-style to arrest people for having old toilets, but the fact remains that you are in violation of federal law for doing absolutely nothing. You are a criminal, not because you murdered someone or robbed a bank, but because of the kind of toilet you own. Of course, it does not end with toilets. Among the 75,000 pages of regulations, one is certain to be found in violation of something. Whether it is how much water one’s showerhead uses, the proper sterilization of chimpanzees as per the CHIMP Act, mandatory locks on bathrooms in private homes, the kinds of labels that must be placed on clothing, or what kind of trash cans one can own, we are all criminals somehow.
Welcome to the nanny state—where the government infringes on your rights but assures you that it is perfectly ok because it is “for your own good.” Government officials, instead of dealing with issues of any real importance, are obsessed with controlling and regulating the lives of the people. They regulate everything. One code about housing construction reads, “Each habitable room shall be provided with exterior windows and/or doors having a total glazed area of not less than 8 percent of the gross floor area.” Do these bureaucrats have nothing better to do than decide how many windows someone’s living room has? If I want to buy a house that doesn’t have any windows, then isn't that my prerogative as a free individual in a supposedly free country?
Government regulations are kind of like those carnival games where everyone is a winner and gets a prize so he can feel good about himself for actually overcoming his ineptitude and winning something for a change. Only in this game your “prize” is not some cheaply made stuffed dog that is supposed to resemble Pluto but looks more like some malformed mutt. Instead, your prize is around 75,000 pieces of toilet paper with complementary paperwork, liability waiver, a safety inspection, a license and zoning permit, and a contract stating that it will only be flushed down a 1.6 gallon toilet. Basically, everyone is a loser together, but the government gets to feel good for “helping” people.
These rules have real impacts. Complying with them costs businesses $1.14 trillion. They burden farmers with unnecessary and cumbersome farming regulations, manufacturers with endless safety protocols, small business with mountains of paperwork, and the average citizen with the single greatest travesty since the Noachian Flood: the U.S. tax code.
The government has no right to intrude in the lives of the people as it currently does. These regulations are chains of slavery forced on both individuals and businesses and serve only to expand the power of the State. These government sanctioned codes, regulations, and laws erode our liberties. As Barry Goldwater wrote, “My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel out old ones that do violence to the Constitution…I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.” We must not allow the State to run our lives for it will inevitably lead to serfdom and tyranny.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Higher Standard of Journalism
The call of duty for journalists and bloggers should be one of higher standards...
(First- a disclaimer. The Constitutional Reporter is not a shtick for Cleve Tidwell, and we do have other student stories soon to be published on the blogosphere. Promise)
Now, to address some recent blogosphere workings that we find to be rather unprofessional-
A blogger, Haners, heard from an unidentified source that some seemingly inappropriate activities were in the works at the recent Cleve Tidwell meet and greet event in Acacia Park, Colorado Springs. He posted his result to a blog site which was then re-posted to at least two other sites. That's what we call 'shoot first, ask questions later' journalism. Since we have met with Cleve and his staff and find them all to be upstanding, professional individuals, we had to dig deeper in the pursuit of truth and objective journalism.
So in the interest of "asking questions" after the shots have already been fired, here is how the blog coverage of Cleve Tidwell's official announcement should have been written up, from a professional, objective stance (the part Haners left out):
First- before publishing anything mind you- we asked some questions of those involved.
Bob Clark, who stands identified and accused by Haners and his source, had this to say:
"So we can confirm the person who 'gentleman wearing a tweed like trousers and a vest, sporting a black shirt and a blue tie" was James Cagle. James Cagle is a man of Jewish decent who has studied Martial Arts for over 20 years. So what you're saying is an Anonymous source, said an anonymous source saw me say 'Hey, did you know that the Star of David is really a swastika?' to a Jewish man, who has studied martial arts for over 20 years, and I survived? Do I even need to dignify that with a response?"
The Jewish man in question, James Cagle- another volunteer for the Tidwell campaign- responded with this:
"I did not hear anyone say that about the Star of David... That's just silly that someone could believe a comment of that sort be made to me, when everyone on the campaign knows me as the 'Jewish guy.' It's very much a part of me and people who know me, know that.
"As for the allegations that our staff is 'flirty?' Look, the BBQ was very professional- not some episode of Love Boat. And I definitely don't think Bob was hitting on me and I hope no one got that impression."
Both Bob Clark and James Cagle seemed offended by the post of Haners, but were willing to laugh it off and poke fun at the same time.
Bob Clark's official response can be seen here:
http://www.rockymountainright.com/?q=node/792
We did not ask Haners any questions because he was not at the actual BBQ event.
(First- a disclaimer. The Constitutional Reporter is not a shtick for Cleve Tidwell, and we do have other student stories soon to be published on the blogosphere. Promise)
Now, to address some recent blogosphere workings that we find to be rather unprofessional-
A blogger, Haners, heard from an unidentified source that some seemingly inappropriate activities were in the works at the recent Cleve Tidwell meet and greet event in Acacia Park, Colorado Springs. He posted his result to a blog site which was then re-posted to at least two other sites. That's what we call 'shoot first, ask questions later' journalism. Since we have met with Cleve and his staff and find them all to be upstanding, professional individuals, we had to dig deeper in the pursuit of truth and objective journalism.
So in the interest of "asking questions" after the shots have already been fired, here is how the blog coverage of Cleve Tidwell's official announcement should have been written up, from a professional, objective stance (the part Haners left out):
First- before publishing anything mind you- we asked some questions of those involved.
Bob Clark, who stands identified and accused by Haners and his source, had this to say:
"So we can confirm the person who 'gentleman wearing a tweed like trousers and a vest, sporting a black shirt and a blue tie" was James Cagle. James Cagle is a man of Jewish decent who has studied Martial Arts for over 20 years. So what you're saying is an Anonymous source, said an anonymous source saw me say 'Hey, did you know that the Star of David is really a swastika?' to a Jewish man, who has studied martial arts for over 20 years, and I survived? Do I even need to dignify that with a response?"
The Jewish man in question, James Cagle- another volunteer for the Tidwell campaign- responded with this:
"I did not hear anyone say that about the Star of David... That's just silly that someone could believe a comment of that sort be made to me, when everyone on the campaign knows me as the 'Jewish guy.' It's very much a part of me and people who know me, know that.
"As for the allegations that our staff is 'flirty?' Look, the BBQ was very professional- not some episode of Love Boat. And I definitely don't think Bob was hitting on me and I hope no one got that impression."
Both Bob Clark and James Cagle seemed offended by the post of Haners, but were willing to laugh it off and poke fun at the same time.
Bob Clark's official response can be seen here:
http://www.rockymountainright.com/?q=node/792
We did not ask Haners any questions because he was not at the actual BBQ event.
Friday, May 8, 2009
What can poker teach us about economics? A lot, actually.
The Constitutional Reporter hosted the first ever “Poker and Politics” tournament yesterday at Auraria Campus. Students from a European Politics class were invited to play poker with celebrity dealers Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute and radio personality, Cleve Tidwell candidate for U.S. Senate, and State Representative Kent Lambert.
Caldara was the featured 'fascist' poker dealer. He was quick to cut deals across the table and exhort poker chips from the four players at his table. A central-planning dealer will try to get involved in the poker game in every way possible, and Caldara did just that by telling players what to bet, when not to bet, and when to give him money. In exchange, Caldara provided favors through winning opportunities to his two favorites at the table. At a fascist poker table, even a two pair can beat a royal flush; it all depends on what the dealer says. While Caldara was busy choosing winners at this poker economy, his overall economy began to sharply decline and many players were left behind.
Cleve Tidwell, though a committed free-enterpriser, played the role of 'socialist' poker dealer remarkably well. This may have been made easier by the availability of current events and news stories which are easy to parody. For example, Cleve would tell players that, “Pelosi says we need to raise taxes so we can prepare for the future. We need to be ready in case we need to bail any of you out.” At the end of this game, the socialist dealer held almost all of the chips and was dealing himself into the game. “The government had to step in and take an active role in this poker economy,” said Tidwell, “because these players weren't doing enough in the economy?” Could that be because the socialist government sucked up all their money and resources through taxes and redistribution???
Representative Kent Lambert, the token free-market table, led his table to victory. Every player at this table ended up with sufficient wealth and resources, despite suffering several losses and setbacks throughout the game. What was his secret? Did Rep. Lambert have a special, several hundred page tax code, or did he work to create incentive for some poker players and dis-incentive for others? Quite the opposite. “This table is hands-off poker,” said Lambert, “all the hard work and ingenuity of the participants is the reason for their success. Since they were the contributors to the creation of wealth, then they should also be the benefactors of that wealth. I made sure the government stayed out of this poker economy." Thanks to the approach of Rep. Lambert, this economy was actually able to lower the cost of living (in poker terms, the ante) so that more players were able to take part in the action, and were able to increase available resources through their high levels of productivity.
And this took place while the other tables were in a race to raise the cost of living higher and to squander resources faster.
The students were competing for shares of Jimmy John's sandwiches. The socialist and fascist table went hungry, with the government taking up most of the food. But at the Capitalist table, every player was able to take some bread home to their families.
“Government has to be well-fed,” explained Jon Caldara.
“If they were concerned with providing food for their families, they should have sat at the Capitalist table,” said Cleve Tidwell, “I kind of wish I would have sat at that Capitalist table...”
At the end of the poker game, State Representative Kent Lambert gave a great talk about the failures of socialized medicine as he had personally experienced and see first hand in Sweden, years ago. Students were receptive, and the possibility of hosting another “Poker and Politics” tournament next semester looked very promising.
Caldara was the featured 'fascist' poker dealer. He was quick to cut deals across the table and exhort poker chips from the four players at his table. A central-planning dealer will try to get involved in the poker game in every way possible, and Caldara did just that by telling players what to bet, when not to bet, and when to give him money. In exchange, Caldara provided favors through winning opportunities to his two favorites at the table. At a fascist poker table, even a two pair can beat a royal flush; it all depends on what the dealer says. While Caldara was busy choosing winners at this poker economy, his overall economy began to sharply decline and many players were left behind.
Cleve Tidwell, though a committed free-enterpriser, played the role of 'socialist' poker dealer remarkably well. This may have been made easier by the availability of current events and news stories which are easy to parody. For example, Cleve would tell players that, “Pelosi says we need to raise taxes so we can prepare for the future. We need to be ready in case we need to bail any of you out.” At the end of this game, the socialist dealer held almost all of the chips and was dealing himself into the game. “The government had to step in and take an active role in this poker economy,” said Tidwell, “because these players weren't doing enough in the economy?” Could that be because the socialist government sucked up all their money and resources through taxes and redistribution???
Representative Kent Lambert, the token free-market table, led his table to victory. Every player at this table ended up with sufficient wealth and resources, despite suffering several losses and setbacks throughout the game. What was his secret? Did Rep. Lambert have a special, several hundred page tax code, or did he work to create incentive for some poker players and dis-incentive for others? Quite the opposite. “This table is hands-off poker,” said Lambert, “all the hard work and ingenuity of the participants is the reason for their success. Since they were the contributors to the creation of wealth, then they should also be the benefactors of that wealth. I made sure the government stayed out of this poker economy." Thanks to the approach of Rep. Lambert, this economy was actually able to lower the cost of living (in poker terms, the ante) so that more players were able to take part in the action, and were able to increase available resources through their high levels of productivity.
And this took place while the other tables were in a race to raise the cost of living higher and to squander resources faster.
The students were competing for shares of Jimmy John's sandwiches. The socialist and fascist table went hungry, with the government taking up most of the food. But at the Capitalist table, every player was able to take some bread home to their families.
“Government has to be well-fed,” explained Jon Caldara.
“If they were concerned with providing food for their families, they should have sat at the Capitalist table,” said Cleve Tidwell, “I kind of wish I would have sat at that Capitalist table...”
At the end of the poker game, State Representative Kent Lambert gave a great talk about the failures of socialized medicine as he had personally experienced and see first hand in Sweden, years ago. Students were receptive, and the possibility of hosting another “Poker and Politics” tournament next semester looked very promising.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Marx makes front page of Foreign Policy Magazine
One of my favorite magazines, Foreign Policy, has me agitated over their recent cover story- “Marx Really? Why he matters now.” I read through, with much consternation, the articles “Thoroughly Modern Marx” by Leo Panitch and “Confessions of a True Believer” by John B. Judis.
Two things struck me like a sickle and hammer when reading these articles: 1) The irony that the articles were ordered to follow right after an article praising the healthy growth of Angola, where free enterprise is beginning to be embraced. And 2) Since the argument for the Marx articles was that sales of Das Kapital have increased of late, will we see a follow up article about Ayn Rand, objectivism, and the booming sales of Atlas Shrugged? Rand's book recently passed the President's book, Audacity of Hope, on the Amazon best-seller list, and sold over 200,000 copies last year. Talk about resurgence.
The articles merit a serious examination. Upon said examination, many flaws in the theory of Marx reveal why Das Kapital was put to rest.
“Confessions of a True Believer”
An admitted, “true believer, ”John B. Judis' efforts are admirable, but truly confused. His confusion is evident in the fluid transitions he makes between free market being to blame because of government policies. They are not one in the same. Any mention of government policies automatically disqualifies the problem from being a free market problem. How can a bad government policy or regulation mean that the “free market” does not work or is to blame? Unfortunately, Judis and many of our leaders and intellectual types today fail to make that distinction. For example, Judis admonishes “regulatory bodies” and “corporate lobbies.” There may be room for “regulatory bodies,” or “corporate lobbies in a mixed economy, but not in a free-market capitalistic economy.
According to Judis, we must have experienced unfettered capitalism in recent years because of George W Bush's “blind faith in free markets.” Are you kidding me? George may have indeed been blind to free markets, but he certainly was no defender of capitalism. In rhetoric, perhaps; in action, hardly. Bush gladly took part in this anti-capitalism business of bailing out failed banks.
The confusion continues when Judis suggests that the “America of the New Deal” was somehow grossly different than “the America of Herbert Hoover,” despite the policies of the New Deal being a continuation and expansion of Hoover's policies. The socialists love to assign free market credentials to Hoover. No capitalist would assign free market credentials to Hoover, especially since he hardly followed a free market philosophy.
In case you're not convinced by those examples, Judis quotes France's President Nicolas Sarkozy who recently announced that “laissez-faire is finished.” That may be true, and expected in France, but far from it in the U S of A. Hardly a telling blow to capitalism when you call forth a quote from the 'commissar' of France. Surprise, surprise, France is calling for the end of free markets.
One thing Judis does accurately describe is that the U.S. “public sector also has significant control over how industry functions and how wealth and income are distributed.” Are these attributes that one would associate with free market capitalism, or does this sound more like fascism? In the mind of Judis, there is no difference between government policies that are to his full content, and capitalism. It goes to show how far, clearly, we are from having a true capitalist economic system.
Thoroughly Modern Marx
Leo Panitch, coeditor of the Socialist Register, lays out the Marxist case for driving our economy further into darkness with Marx's works in Das Kapital as the guiding light. How does he present his case? By insisting that, were Marx here today, he would “relish pointing out how flaws inherent in capitalism led to the current [financial] crisis.” It takes a crisis to make Marxism more attractive—when times are good, few people would turn the pages of this demoralizing and drab text. The debate on the supposed flaws of capitalism has yet to be resolved, but there are plenty of free-market defenders who will show you, and Panitch, how the crisis was brought about not by free-markets, but government intervention into those markets. Panitch insisted that the free market system “produced a series of inevitable financial bubbles,” but fails to tell us why those bubbles are “inevitable.” But economist Thomas Wood's recent book, Meltdown, explains how the financial crisis was actually the result of cheap money policy of the Federal Reserve and loose government spending. Far from free markets. I doubt Panitch has read this book.
Like Judis, Panitch is critical of government plans that he disapproves of, and substitutes blame on the state for blame on free markets. Panitch labels President Obama's carbon credit trades and the Kyoto Protocol as irrationalities. I beg your parden, Panitch, but allow me to point out that anything Obama and anything Kyoto are government policies, pure and simple. President Obama's policy proposal merely shows how interwoven government is in the economy. More importantly, ask yourself, how can the “free market” be blamed for poor government policy and action? The solution, is to “democratize our economies,” suggests Panitch. What exactly does that mean? Would every person be entitled to vote an any and all activity taking place in our diverse economy? Panitch suggests that democratizing our economy would undo the catalyst for the crisis, and that is a “culture of risk disassociated with consequence.” Ask any business owner if that is how they run their operation. There is plenty of consequence in today's modern, industrialized world. Namely, profit and loss and, thanks to an over-active legal system, jail time for executives who do not perform well.
There is a meek attempt to initiate a rallying cry in this article, in which Panitch suggests capitalism creates social isolation which keeps “informed citizens from coming together to take up radical alternatives to capitalism.” Obviously, Panitch was not at the recent nationwide tea parties, where thousands of informed citizens came together to protest our departure from capitalism. Panitch goes on to say that, with the “formation of new collective identities. . .people could resist the capitalist status quo and begin deciding how to better fulfill their needs.” What's wrong with this assertion? Well, the leftist Socialists are notorious for decrying individualistic tendencies of capitalism—so how can there be a status quo at the same time, among all those capitalist individuals? Second, capitalism is entirely about better fulfilling our individual needs. In fact, it is precisely the opposite that is true. Socialism forces people together to work for the “community's needs” not the individual's needs, and the status quo of individuals that is formed when the only concern is for the “community,” is frightening.
Bringing his article to a close, and with great gusto, Panitch firmly declares that, “Marx was the greater realist.”
We cannot let that remark go un-challenged can we? Marx's economic and socio-political proposals relied heavily on influence he took from the Fabian Socialists (after all, Marx was not the father of socialism/communism). The Fabian socialists knew that the success of their ideas hinged on the development of a new type of “socialist (super)man.” They envisioned a world where men were free to be and the animals provided all of our means of survival. In the Fabian Socialist dreamworld, chickens would literally fly onto our plate for meals, lions would bow down and render themselves as mounts for transport, and whales would pull ships across the sea. Someone who takes influence from this group—is that what you call a realist?
Indeed, Marx made some accurate predictions of what could take place in an industrialized economy. However, the culprit for whom he assigns blame to—free markets—is a blatantly false allegation.
Austrian economists have also been accurate in predicting what can happen in an industrialized economy. But unlike Marx, the Austrian economists are able to provide a clear and accurate explanation of boom/bust cycles and can accurately identify the true culprit and cause of our current economic fiasco—government intervention into the economy and the failed monetary policies of European and U.S. Central banking systems, namely the Federal Reserve banking system.
Two things struck me like a sickle and hammer when reading these articles: 1) The irony that the articles were ordered to follow right after an article praising the healthy growth of Angola, where free enterprise is beginning to be embraced. And 2) Since the argument for the Marx articles was that sales of Das Kapital have increased of late, will we see a follow up article about Ayn Rand, objectivism, and the booming sales of Atlas Shrugged? Rand's book recently passed the President's book, Audacity of Hope, on the Amazon best-seller list, and sold over 200,000 copies last year. Talk about resurgence.
The articles merit a serious examination. Upon said examination, many flaws in the theory of Marx reveal why Das Kapital was put to rest.
“Confessions of a True Believer”
An admitted, “true believer, ”John B. Judis' efforts are admirable, but truly confused. His confusion is evident in the fluid transitions he makes between free market being to blame because of government policies. They are not one in the same. Any mention of government policies automatically disqualifies the problem from being a free market problem. How can a bad government policy or regulation mean that the “free market” does not work or is to blame? Unfortunately, Judis and many of our leaders and intellectual types today fail to make that distinction. For example, Judis admonishes “regulatory bodies” and “corporate lobbies.” There may be room for “regulatory bodies,” or “corporate lobbies in a mixed economy, but not in a free-market capitalistic economy.
According to Judis, we must have experienced unfettered capitalism in recent years because of George W Bush's “blind faith in free markets.” Are you kidding me? George may have indeed been blind to free markets, but he certainly was no defender of capitalism. In rhetoric, perhaps; in action, hardly. Bush gladly took part in this anti-capitalism business of bailing out failed banks.
The confusion continues when Judis suggests that the “America of the New Deal” was somehow grossly different than “the America of Herbert Hoover,” despite the policies of the New Deal being a continuation and expansion of Hoover's policies. The socialists love to assign free market credentials to Hoover. No capitalist would assign free market credentials to Hoover, especially since he hardly followed a free market philosophy.
In case you're not convinced by those examples, Judis quotes France's President Nicolas Sarkozy who recently announced that “laissez-faire is finished.” That may be true, and expected in France, but far from it in the U S of A. Hardly a telling blow to capitalism when you call forth a quote from the 'commissar' of France. Surprise, surprise, France is calling for the end of free markets.
One thing Judis does accurately describe is that the U.S. “public sector also has significant control over how industry functions and how wealth and income are distributed.” Are these attributes that one would associate with free market capitalism, or does this sound more like fascism? In the mind of Judis, there is no difference between government policies that are to his full content, and capitalism. It goes to show how far, clearly, we are from having a true capitalist economic system.
Thoroughly Modern Marx
Leo Panitch, coeditor of the Socialist Register, lays out the Marxist case for driving our economy further into darkness with Marx's works in Das Kapital as the guiding light. How does he present his case? By insisting that, were Marx here today, he would “relish pointing out how flaws inherent in capitalism led to the current [financial] crisis.” It takes a crisis to make Marxism more attractive—when times are good, few people would turn the pages of this demoralizing and drab text. The debate on the supposed flaws of capitalism has yet to be resolved, but there are plenty of free-market defenders who will show you, and Panitch, how the crisis was brought about not by free-markets, but government intervention into those markets. Panitch insisted that the free market system “produced a series of inevitable financial bubbles,” but fails to tell us why those bubbles are “inevitable.” But economist Thomas Wood's recent book, Meltdown, explains how the financial crisis was actually the result of cheap money policy of the Federal Reserve and loose government spending. Far from free markets. I doubt Panitch has read this book.
Like Judis, Panitch is critical of government plans that he disapproves of, and substitutes blame on the state for blame on free markets. Panitch labels President Obama's carbon credit trades and the Kyoto Protocol as irrationalities. I beg your parden, Panitch, but allow me to point out that anything Obama and anything Kyoto are government policies, pure and simple. President Obama's policy proposal merely shows how interwoven government is in the economy. More importantly, ask yourself, how can the “free market” be blamed for poor government policy and action? The solution, is to “democratize our economies,” suggests Panitch. What exactly does that mean? Would every person be entitled to vote an any and all activity taking place in our diverse economy? Panitch suggests that democratizing our economy would undo the catalyst for the crisis, and that is a “culture of risk disassociated with consequence.” Ask any business owner if that is how they run their operation. There is plenty of consequence in today's modern, industrialized world. Namely, profit and loss and, thanks to an over-active legal system, jail time for executives who do not perform well.
There is a meek attempt to initiate a rallying cry in this article, in which Panitch suggests capitalism creates social isolation which keeps “informed citizens from coming together to take up radical alternatives to capitalism.” Obviously, Panitch was not at the recent nationwide tea parties, where thousands of informed citizens came together to protest our departure from capitalism. Panitch goes on to say that, with the “formation of new collective identities. . .people could resist the capitalist status quo and begin deciding how to better fulfill their needs.” What's wrong with this assertion? Well, the leftist Socialists are notorious for decrying individualistic tendencies of capitalism—so how can there be a status quo at the same time, among all those capitalist individuals? Second, capitalism is entirely about better fulfilling our individual needs. In fact, it is precisely the opposite that is true. Socialism forces people together to work for the “community's needs” not the individual's needs, and the status quo of individuals that is formed when the only concern is for the “community,” is frightening.
Bringing his article to a close, and with great gusto, Panitch firmly declares that, “Marx was the greater realist.”
We cannot let that remark go un-challenged can we? Marx's economic and socio-political proposals relied heavily on influence he took from the Fabian Socialists (after all, Marx was not the father of socialism/communism). The Fabian socialists knew that the success of their ideas hinged on the development of a new type of “socialist (super)man.” They envisioned a world where men were free to be and the animals provided all of our means of survival. In the Fabian Socialist dreamworld, chickens would literally fly onto our plate for meals, lions would bow down and render themselves as mounts for transport, and whales would pull ships across the sea. Someone who takes influence from this group—is that what you call a realist?
Indeed, Marx made some accurate predictions of what could take place in an industrialized economy. However, the culprit for whom he assigns blame to—free markets—is a blatantly false allegation.
Austrian economists have also been accurate in predicting what can happen in an industrialized economy. But unlike Marx, the Austrian economists are able to provide a clear and accurate explanation of boom/bust cycles and can accurately identify the true culprit and cause of our current economic fiasco—government intervention into the economy and the failed monetary policies of European and U.S. Central banking systems, namely the Federal Reserve banking system.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Obama's Approval
contributed by staff writer and all around good guy: Kirk Barbera
Many Obama supporters would probably like to believe that their beloved is favored above all by Americans. Unfortunately for them this is not the case. Obama is the second least popular president in 40 years. These five presidents have rated higher then Obama at the end of the 100 day mark: Ronald Reagan with 67% approval, Jimmy Carter with 63%, George W. Bush with 62% and Richard Nixon with 61%, and George H. W. Bush with 58%. Of course we’re not hearing to much of this in the liberal media. After propping up this poster boy it would be wrong to actually begin reporting the news. Instead they ignore the facts and pretend that everything is just honky dory.
As the Washington Times explicates, the reason for this low rating is that Obama ran as a moderate, yet he has only governed our country from far left field. The people responsible for allowing this person into our most honored American office should at the very least admit their mistake. Obama was voted into office by claiming he was going to reduce government spending and reduce the size of the deficit. Blame was his biggest weapon. He blamed the economic crisis on the excessive deficit, and at no time did he say that increased deficit spending was the answer.
Although, most believe people rarely learn from their mistakes, one can hope that this mistake will wake people up to the dangers of where our society is moving along. Changes need to be made in the natural order of our thinking. Socialism or capitalism. We all decide our future.
to read more from this author, please visit
www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)