Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

By DENISE LAVOIE

AP Legal Affairs Writer

September 1, 2014 10:49 AM

BOSTON (AP) Bernadette Lyons came home one day and found 10 strangers milling around her driveway looking for free golf carts.

The next day, her husband, Jim, began getting phone calls late at night from people inquiring about a Harley Davidson motorcycle. The couple also received an anonymous email containing their Social Security numbers and other personal information, along with a message: Remember, if you arent miserable, I aint happy! The clincher came when child-protection workers knocked on their door and said they were investigating a report that Jim Lyons had physically abused their 13-year-old son.

It was overwhelming, Bernadette Lyons said. Every day, we woke up not knowing what was going to happen. We were very scared.

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

The couples neighbors in Andover, William and Gail Johnson, were convicted of harassing the Lyonses, helped by a friend who admitted placing fake Craigslist ads and sending the anonymous email at the behest of William Johnson.

The Johnsons are appealing their convictions, arguing that their actions were protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the states highest court, is scheduled to hear arguments in the case Wednesday.

Trouble between the once-friendly neighbors began in 2003, after William Johnson said he wanted to develop land he owned behind the Lyonses home into a small subdivision. The Lyonses and other neighbors objected, and years of litigation followed.

More:
Duo behind fake golf cart ads fight harassment law

Denise Lavoie, Associated Press 8:46 a.m. MST September 1, 2014

Get the latest developments on the biggest stories on azcentral.(Photo: azcentral)

BOSTON Bernadette Lyons came home one day and found 10 strangers milling around her driveway looking for free golf carts.

The next day, her husband, Jim, began getting phone calls late at night from people inquiring about a Harley Davidson motorcycle. The couple also received an anonymous email containing their Social Security numbers and other personal information, along with a message: “Remember, if you aren’t miserable, I ain’t happy!” The clincher came when child-protection workers knocked on their door and said they were investigating a report that Jim Lyons had physically abused their 13-year-old son.

“It was overwhelming,” Bernadette Lyons said. “Every day, we woke up not knowing what was going to happen. We were very scared.”

The couple’s neighbors in Andover, William and Gail Johnson, were convicted of harassing the Lyonses, helped by a friend who admitted placing fake Craigslist ads and sending the anonymous email at the behest of William Johnson.

The Johnsons are appealing their convictions, arguing that their actions were protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state’s highest court, is scheduled to hear arguments in the case Wednesday.

Trouble between the once-friendly neighbors began in 2003, after William Johnson said he wanted to develop land he owned behind the Lyonses’ home into a small subdivision. The Lyonses and other neighbors objected, and years of litigation followed.

Jim Lyons, a businessman who owned several flower and ice cream shops, was elected as a state representative in 2010, after the dispute.

In March 2008, a Craigslist ad was placed by Gerald Colton, a friend of the Johnsons who posed as a former campground owner trying to get rid of golf carts. The ad said there were free golf carts in his yard, available on a first-come, first-served basis, and it included the Lyonses’ address and home phone number. After that, the Lyonses were the targets of a series of hoaxes.

See the article here:
Online harassers claim free-speech protection

May 082014

A Legal and Business Portal : Social Security | Finance Hotels: US History: Restaurants Entertainment: World Directory

Link:

Fifth Amendment

Economy For Utah, it arrives April 17; April 21 for rest of nation.

“Tax Freedom Day” when a typical worker will have earned enough to pay his tax bill for the year if he spent money on nothing else is falling three days later this year both in Utah and the nation.

In Utah, it will be on April 17 after falling on April 13 in 2013, according to a study by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan tax research organization based in Washington, D.C.

However, that is still earlier than average.

The national Tax Freedom day is on April 21, 111 days into the year. Last year, it was on April 18.

“Tax Freedom Day is three days later than last year due mainly to the countrys continued slow economic recovery,” the Tax Foundation said.

Twenty-six states have earlier Tax Freedom Days than Utah this year.

The earliest, or best, among the states is in Louisiana on March 30. The latest, or worst, is in Connecticut and New Jersey on May 9.

For states surrounding Utah, Tax Freedom Day is on April 8 in New Mexico; April 11 in Idaho and Arizona; April 15 in Nevada; April 17 (like Utah) in Wyoming; and April 22 in Colorado.

The foundation says it now takes the nations workers 33 days to pay their federal income tax bill; 27 days to pay Social Security taxes; two days for federal excise taxes; eight days for federal corporate taxes; and four days for other federal taxes.

See the original post:
Tax Freedom Day will come 3 days later this year

Kevin Williamson, a libertarian-ish conservative writer for the National Review, wrote a bracingly honest assessment of the limited appeal of Rand Pauls ideology. (Short story: Most people really love the biggest government programs, like Social Security and Medicare.) This confession against ideological interest naturally antagonized Reasons Nick Gillespie, who is not only a libertarian-libertarian, but also deeply committed to his belief that libertarianism is always, just you wait and see, on the rise.

Gillespie counters Williamson with a sputtering piece arguing that Rand Paul is poised to seize the center of the American political debate with his innovative proposals, such as saving Ukraine by cutting aid to Ukraine. Gillespie bolsters his thesis with a random collage of factoids:

The one sort-of on-point factoid Gillespie offers is a poll conducted by the libertarian Reason foundation showing that, contrary to the overwhelming findings of pollsters everywhere, voters really do want to cut Medicare and Social Security. The unstated joke here, in case you didnt catch it, is that every interest group has its own handcrafted polls showing that, if you word the question in just the right way, overwhelming numbers of Americans agree with their position on any given issue. And sure enough, Reasons poll has its own wording that finds people are really keen to cut Social Security and Medicare. But this poll, just like every advocacy poll, is worthless, because in real politics, one side of the issue cant control the terms by which it will be debated.

The movie Divergent provides the frame for Gillespies paean to Paul. I have not seen the film. Apperently it describes a future in which people are slotted from birth into categories, and those who refuse to follow along are Marked for Death! This theme, explains Gillespie, sums up Rand Paul. Because obviously the clearest hallmark of an independent rebel is a candidate who has devoted his entire life to slavishly carrying out his fathers kooky dogma.

See the rest here:
Everybody Loves Libertarianism, Insists Libertarian

Jun 132013

Since I published my Salon essay, The Question Libertarians Just Cant Answer, true believers in the libertarian cult have been struggling to answer the simple but devastating question I asked: If libertarianism is such a good idea, why arent there any libertarian countries?

Writing in Reason, Ronald Bailey cites the spread of particular liberties since the eighteenth century as evidence that the entire world is becoming libertarian. But he ignores the fact that the welfare state and business regulation have grown up together with democracy and civil liberties. The citizens of democracies prefer to vote themselves generous social insurance benefits. They also insist on using government to police business firms while benefiting from a market economy.

Most of Baileys examples assume that this or that trend of which he approves will continue forever. For example, he points out that cross-border migrants now constitute one in 33 people (putting it this way makes it sound more impressive than no more than 3 percent of the human race). He doesnt mention that even this surprisingly small amount of global migration has produced anti-immigrant backlashes in most developed countries, including the U.S., where comprehensive immigration reform may fail once again.

Writing in The Economist, a libertarian-leaning magazine, Will Wilkinson tries to answer my question in a different way:

Wilkinson is confusing policies and systems. In my essay, I took care to distinguish the two. I pointed out that particular useful policies favored by libertarians can be adopted by modern countries, without fundamentally altering the dominant mixed-economy model that blends markets, government and the nonprofit sector in a compound that will always be too statist for libertarians.

American progressives in the tradition of the two Roosevelts have never been doctrinaire statists or socialists and have no objection to promoting markets, where that serves the public interest. A progressive can favor privatizing the Post Office and expanding Social Security at the same time. Or vice versa (progressive arguments against Social Security privatization are based on its practical problems). I recently co-authored a proposal to use vouchers for eldercare in the U.S., without thereby becoming any less a sinister statist enemy of human freedom, from the perspective of the libertarian cult.

You never find similar pragmatism among libertarians. They are always against any public option and always for a real or imagined private option. Libertarianism is dogmatic, not experimental. Any maverick libertarian who suggested a deviation from orthodoxy say, expanding Medicaid, on efficiency grounds would be expelled from the cult as a statist heretic.

Bailey and Wilkinson accuse me of discouraging potentially useful social experimentation. But its not an experiment if you know the result in advance. Libertarians, like utopian socialists and utopian anarchists, think they already know the desirable end state of human social evolution, even if they are content to move toward that utopia incrementally.

Most liberals would approve of the philosopher Karl Poppers distinction between piecemeal social engineering and utopian social engineering, symbolized by the lethal attempts of Jacobins, fascists and communists to remake whole societies from scratch on the basis of this or that theory. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper wrote that the piecemeal engineer will adopt the method of searching for, and fighting against, the greatest and most urgent evil of society, rather than searching for, and fighting for, its greatest ultimate good. In some cases, fighting urgent evils requires the expansion of particular liberties, like abolishing slavery and segregation and securing the right to vote. In other cases, it requires limiting particular liberties, like the freedom of employers to buy and sell slaves, use child labor or pollute the environment.

Libertarianism poses as a comprehensive public philosophy promoting the greatest ultimate good of individual freedom, not just a list of particular policies, like private toll roads instead of public highways or vouchers for schools. So it is not enough for libertarians to point to discrete measures that have been adopted by systems based on other principles, like social democratic progressivism or conservative welfare capitalism. Libertarianism as a system will be hard to take seriously until there are at least a few functioning, systematically libertarian countries in the world.

See the article here:
Grow up, Libertarians!

CASCADE TOWNSHIP, MI A father himself, U.S. Rep. Justin Amash is certainly no stranger to parental advice.

Typically, it falls to his three children. But on Saturday, aconstituentat a Cascade Township town hall asked the West Michigan congressman for help dealing with “wayward” children who believe liberal economic policies.

Amash’s advice: Have them study economics in college and “introduce them to libertarianism.”

It was just one of the many questions put to and answered by Amash, who is spending his congressional spring break hosting town halls and forums throughout his district. Saturday’s town hall at the Cascade Township branch of the Kent County District Library was standing room only.

“I went to D.C. to shrink government, and not grow government,” he said.

A couple people asked Amash what he and Congress will do to help veterans and fix problems with wait times for services. Amash said that veteran care was being victimized by big spending programs like the military, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.

One person said some veterans are waiting up to two years to have claims considered or to appeal decisions by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs. Another person told a story of a veteran who wanted help with his suicidal thoughts, could not find it and killed himself. Someone else said the treatment of veterans is embarrassing.

“It is a travesty what happens to our veterans because of the budget process,” Amash said, adding later that he votes in favor of appropriation bills that provide care for veterans and believes they are “perfectly within the bounds of the Constitution.”

“Caring for veterans is one area where Congress agrees.”

On Iran, Amash said he was in favor of sanctions that stop the country from obtaining nuclear weapons but against sanctions that hinder trade and hurt people.

Read more from the original source:
U.S. Rep. Justin Amash talks budgets, veterans, guns, doles out parenting advice

To the editor:

Dr. Leonard Duckworths letter to The Courier Sunday was full of frustration. He wondered how the non-thinkers could vote for President Obama. His frustration is systematic of all minorities. All surveys show Americans in general are empathetic and pragmatic. It is these feelings that make our political majority an amalgamation of libertarianism, inclusiveness, the ecologically bent, competitive and nationally centric. Throughout our history, Americas political philosophy has been center-right on economic issues and center-left on social issues.

If you are a liberal, progressive, socialist, etc., you are a minority. If you are a conservative, libertarian, a Tea Party supporter, a follower of the Christian right, etc., you are a minority. This makes for diverse views in letters to The Courier. It is this diversity of thought that makes America great. It is also this diversity of thought that leads to frustration for many. It is not the non-thinkers but the thoughtful center that elects the president.

Duckworth and other minorities need to keep their pens handy. No matter whether Obama or Romney gets elected, the president will pander to the majority and implement policies that frustrate the minority. As ugly and frustrating as it is, this is the American way and in todays world there is no better way.

If you need proof, just think of this; Texas is one of the most conservative states in the country, and its largest city has an openly gay mayor. How strange is that?

Tim Doherty

Conroe

To the editor:

The Tea Party position is that they want to keep their hard-earned money and that they basically should not pay any taxes all the while driving on streets and highways that are paid for through taxes.

They dont want government to touch their Medicare or Social Security, but they do not want to pay any taxes. They fly safely on airlines, are protected by our military abroad and by first responders locally, but they do not want to pay any taxes. They buy foods that are safe to eat due to our Department of Agriculture and they do not wish to pay any taxes.

See the original post here:
America made up of minority groups, diverse views

WASHINGTON (AP) Republicans determined to spare the military from devastating across-the-board spending cuts presidential candidate Mitt Romney among them must be willing to consider closing tax loopholes and raising rates to increase revenue, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Tuesday.

Democratic Sen. Carl Levin insisted that all elements of the federal government taxes, entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security and even additional defense reductions need to be part of the calculation as Congress scrambles to come up with a way to avoid the automatic, $1.2 trillion cuts in domestic and military programs over a decade. Those cuts are scheduled to start kicking in Jan. 2.

Levin said Republican and Democratic presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, adopted both spending cuts and tax increases to address budget deficits. He said the current Republican leadership needs to do the same.

There can be no real deficit reduction and you cannot protect defense and other critically important priorities of this country from sequestration without additional revenue, the Michigan lawmaker said, referring to the process of automatic cuts that will take effect if Congress does not act.

Levin spoke at a national security briefing with retired Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and David H. Langstaff, president and CEO of TASC Inc. The company provides engineering systems and other services to the Defense and Homeland Security Departments.

Levin ticked off various tax loopholes that could be closed, such as offshore tax havens and the carried interest rate that allows profits made by hedge fund managers to be taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. He also favors returning the top tax rate to 39.6 percent for the wealthiest Americans, a number that was reduced to 35 percent when Congress adopted tax cuts under former President George W. Bush.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned about the meat ax approach of the automatic cuts, arguing it would hollow out the force. The cuts would come on top of a $492 billion reduction over 10 years that President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to last summer.

Levins appeal to Republicans to stop drawing an absolute line in the sand on additional revenue adds to the pressure as more than two dozen Senate Republicans and Democrats privately talk about an ambitious plan to avoid the automatic cuts. Uncertainty about the outstanding financial issues the automatic cuts, expiration of the Bush tax cuts and increasing the nations borrowing authority is unnerving to both industry and the markets.

Were all looking for the best way to deal with a large number of issues we have facing us at the end of the year, said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who said he had spoken Tuesday morning to a Democratic senator and staff about possible steps. Alexander said he would listen to Levins suggestions.

Tax reform is at the top of the list of most Republican senators and most of us feel like that means broadening the base, closing the loopholes and could include more revenues. But for me, only if we have a firm plan to reduce mandatory spending. For me, runaway mandatory spending is the big bugaboo and thats what we need to deal with.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrat to GOP: Consider tax hikes to spare military from cuts

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans determined to spare the military from devastating across-the-board spending cuts presidential candidate Mitt Romney among them must be willing to consider closing tax loopholes and raising rates to increase revenue, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Tuesday.

Democratic Sen. Carl Levin insisted that all elements of the federal government taxes, entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security and even additional defense reductions need to be part of the calculation as Congress scrambles to come up with a way to avoid the automatic, $1.2 trillion cuts in domestic and military programs over a decade. Those cuts are scheduled to start kicking in Jan. 2.

Levin said Republican and Democratic presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, adopted both spending cuts and tax increases to address budget deficits. He said the current Republican leadership needs to do the same.

“There can be no real deficit reduction and you cannot protect defense and other critically important priorities of this country from sequestration without additional revenue,” the Michigan lawmaker said, referring to the process of automatic cuts that will take effect if Congress does not act.

Levin spoke at a national security briefing with retired Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and David H. Langstaff, president and CEO of TASC Inc. The company provides engineering systems and other services to the Defense and Homeland Security Departments.

Levin ticked off various tax loopholes that could be closed, such as offshore tax havens and the carried interest rate that allows profits made by hedge fund managers to be taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. He also favors returning the top tax rate to 39.6 percent for the wealthiest Americans, a number that was reduced to 35 percent when Congress adopted tax cuts under former President George W. Bush.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned about the meat ax approach of the automatic cuts, arguing it would hollow out the force. The cuts would come on top of a $492 billion reduction over 10 years that President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to last summer.

Levin’s appeal to Republicans to stop “drawing an absolute line in the sand on additional revenue” adds to the pressure as more than two dozen Senate Republicans and Democrats privately talk about an ambitious plan to avoid the automatic cuts. Uncertainty about the outstanding financial issues the automatic cuts, expiration of the Bush tax cuts and increasing the nation’s borrowing authority is unnerving to both industry and the markets.

“We’re all looking for the best way to deal with a large number of issues we have facing us at the end of the year,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who said he had spoken Tuesday morning to a Democratic senator and staff about possible steps. Alexander said he would listen to Levin’s suggestions.

“Tax reform is at the top of the list of most Republican senators and most of us feel like that means broadening the base, closing the loopholes and could include more revenues. But for me, only if we have a firm plan to reduce mandatory spending. For me, runaway mandatory spending is the big bugaboo and that’s what we need to deal with.”

See the original post:
Dem to GOP: Consider tax hikes to spare military

Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012

By ROBERT J. SAMUELSON

WASHINGTON — The emergence of super PACs shows once again that “campaign finance reform” has failed abysmally. After nearly four decades, it has achieved none of its goals. It has not purged politics of big donations, nor cured public cynicism about the influence of the rich, nor made elected leaders more trusted. What it has done is compromise basic First Amendment rights, clutter politics with baffling laws and regulations, and actually deepen cynicism.

Except for contribution disclosures, campaign finance laws should be scrapped. If there were no limits on individual contributions to candidates (the basic limit is $2,500 per candidate per election, meaning $5,000 for a primary and general election together), there would be few — if any — super PACs. The wealthy would give to candidates directly instead of resorting to some contorted alternative. Super PACs are merely the latest of many contortions born of a muddled Supreme Court.

On the one hand, the court has blessed limits on direct contributions to candidates and political parties. The rationale: to prevent corruption and its appearance — undue influence by big contributors. On the other, the court has also said that the First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to spend unlimited amounts to elect anyone they wish. It's free speech. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the court tried to reconcile the contradictions by saying people could make unlimited “independent expenditures” not “coordinated” with the candidates or their campaigns.

The unsurprising result is that both parties searched for new ways to maximize spending without violating the letter of the law. These have included PACs (political action committees), so-called 527 groups, “soft money” and now super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions and make “independent expenditures” (mainly media advertising). The trouble is that these various responses, though legally clever, seem ethically suspect to many Americans. The press generally adopts the same attitude.

The perception that political operatives and wealthy donors are skirting contribution limits — as they are — creates the aura of corruption and even criminality. Super PACs also seem to make candidates' campaigns less accountable. The fact that all this is an exercise of First Amendment rights is simply ignored. The paradox is that campaign financial “reform,” far from allaying public suspicion of the political system, deepens it.

What started as an understandable reaction to Watergate abuses now imposes a tangle of rules on free speech and political activity. Go to the Federal Election Commission's website and download its summary of regulations on “coordinated communications and independent expenditures.” It's 11 single-spaced pages of legalese. This is not what the Founders imagined when they said Congress “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” or the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Three myths buttress the status quo.

Myth One: The rich and corporate interests rule government through campaign contributions and lobbying.

This is absurd. In 2009, $2.1 trillion (60 percent) of federal spending went for “payments for individuals.” This included 52.5 million people receiving Social Security; 46.6 million on Medicare (many of the same people); 32.9 million on food stamps; 47.5 million on Medicaid; 3.9 million with veterans benefits. Almost all these benefits go to the poor and middle class. Meanwhile, the richest 5 percent of American pay 44 percent of federal taxes.

Does this look like government for the rich? Of course, businesses and wealthy individuals support candidates that share their interests. This is their right. But many super-rich contributors (George Soros and the like) are focused on political philosophies, not their net worth.

Myth Two: Political spending is out of control.

Not so. In 2008, spending for federal elections (the president, Congress) totaled $5.3 billion, up 27 percent from 2004. Over the same period, the economy grew 21 percent. By comparison, Americans spent $297 billion in 2008 on mobile and landline phones. Neither party has a permanent fundraising advantage over the other. In the last seven elections, Republicans raised more money in four, Democrats in three.

Myth Three: Spending isn't speech.

Well, try “getting your message out” without spending. If money is necessary to disseminate campaign themes, then limits on spending (“independent” or otherwise) restrict speech.

The widespread belief in these myths makes campaign finance regulation seem respectable. It's always convenient to blame the nation's problems on moneyed “special interests” and to pretend that controlling them will advance obvious solutions. This is usually a delusion. Solutions aren't always obvious, and the most powerful constituencies are not those with big bags of money but those with huge blocs of voters. AARP outguns the American Petroleum Institute.

The greater threat to our democracy arises from the well-intentioned effort to curb traditional First Amendment political freedoms under the guise of cleansing the system of the evils of money. There lies the true corruption of the U.S. Constitution.

© 2012 Washington Post Writers Group

Read more:
Campaign finance reform fails to reach goals

I'm not a big fan of Mitt Romney. I hammered him the day before Christmas for being open to a value-added tax, and criticized him in previous posts for his less-than-stellar record on healthcare, his weakness on Social Security reform, his anemic list of proposed budget savings, and his reprehensible support for ethanol subsidies.

Go here to see the original:
Mitt Romney and Bain Capital Were Right to Utilitize So-Called Tax Havens

Freedom Disability, a national Social Security Disability Advocacy group, has launched Freedom Cash Rewards, a unique online referral program designed to connect those who need Disability benefits to a premier advocacy service.

Read this article:
Freedom Disability Launches Referral Program in Response to Customers

The Nation — There’s right-wing hypocrisy, and then there’s this: Charles Koch, billionaire patron of free-market libertarianism, privately championed the benefits of Social Security to Friedrich Hayek, the leading laissez-faire economist of the twentieth century. Koch even sent Hayek a government pamphlet to help him take advantage of America’s federal retirement insurance and healthcare …

See the rest here:
Charles Koch to Friedrich Hayek: Use Social Security!

Jul 272011

Today I was interviewed by a midwestern radio station about why I wrote a piece about the 400  richest Americans paying only 18% federal taxes.He was vehemently opposed to the rich paying any more in taxes whatsoever. What did taxing have to do with spending?He didn’t get it

See the original post here:
The Underdogs And The Overdogs

Today I was interviewed by a midwestern radio station about why I wrote a piece about the 400  richest Americans paying only 18% federal taxes.He was vehemently opposed to the rich paying any more in taxes whatsoever. What did taxing have to do with spending?He didn’t get it.

The rest is here:
Downsizing Big Goverment Could Backfire

I’ve feared for a while that my generation would become libertarians by default: the social safety net has been so thoroughly worn down that there’s little social contract left; I fear that people expect Medicare and Social Security to …

Read more:
Paul Ryan and “libertarianism by default” « Steve Reads

Quote of the Day: “. .

Read the rest here:
Correcting Fantasies About Social Security :: Liberty Maven

In a “free” Libertarian society, there would be no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, and no tax funded public schools. In short there would be no “welfare” of any kind; every individual, no matter what their age, …

See more here:
Kansan compares libertarianism to "Dog eat Dog" Naziism | Liberty …

International Liberty . Restraining Government in America and Around the World. Feeds: Posts · Comments.

Link:
Norquist Is Right and Coburn Is Wrong: Tax Increases Will Lead to …



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com