West Virginia House Votes on Convention of States, on to the Senate hopefully for #18
Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.Thomas Jefferson
Senate just passed we have 18 states now!!!
Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.Thomas Jefferson
So more than 1/2 way there. Still a long way to go.
https://conventionofstates.com/state...-v-application
It takes 34 states to call a convention - 38 to ratify anything.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Hopefully? Meaning you want it to happen?Originally Posted by showpan
Ron PaulThere is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
7 other states have passed it in one chamber . Seems pretty remote , even if you got those maybe the only others would be Ky , Wy , KS and South Dakota . Thatd be twenty tree percent short of changing anything and a lot of people are doubtful of changes at all .
Last edited by oyarde; 03-04-2022 at 02:19 PM.
Do something Danke
That's what I was thinking. States that are unwilling to act under the already existing 10th amendment are going to get together to do what? Remove it?
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”
H.L. Mencken
Exactly. I'm not sure what positives people think this would provide. The Constitution as it is written is pretty good, and way better than anything that would come out today.
At best you'd get a bunch of fine print added to the Bill of Rights to explain how your rights aren't absolute, similar to Canada's charter of rights. At worst they'll just eliminate them altogether. Just leave it alone. The big problem with the Constitution is that we the people failed to keep the government within its bounds.
Utterly meaningless as long as the Deep State is still drawing breath. Unneeded if the DS is made extinct.
Pretty much. This is a terrible idea.
^^^THIS^^^
First of all, this an awesome thing and it IS part of OUR constitution. They aren't trying to change anything....lmao
They want to enact term limits so that people like Biden and Pelosi cannot continue to make bad decisions for this country for over 4 decades!!!
The second part is they want fiscal responsibility so no new $Trillion printing money out of thin air and giving it away to Pakistan for gender studies.
How on earth can anyone say this is a bad thing!!! Especially Libertarians???
Our founders wanted a strong states rights and the feds have destroyed this whole concept. The states are now banding together top take that power back. How awesome!!!
Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.Thomas Jefferson
Don't be naive. If you had a constitutional convention right now, you can expect your current liberal overlords to repeal the 1st anc 2nd.
Depends on the outcome. The 16th Amendment is possibly the single greatest victory for the enemies of the United States, ever. There are legitimate questions about whether it was even passed legally, but the point is that a Constitutional convention is a two-way sword. It could cut the last few threads of liberty remaining.
"Term limits" is the circus midget of politics... it gets trotted out between acts whenever there is a lull in the crowd to make sure that people don't forget that the show is still going.They want to enact term limits so that people like Biden and Pelosi cannot continue to make bad decisions for this country for over 4 decades!!!
I took a quick look at the Wiki page and I see zero (0, none, nada, zilch) proposals for rescinding the 16th Amendment and constitutional prohibition of central banking. And "fiscal responsibility"/"balanced budget" is DC code-speak for printing money. No, we don't need a Constitutional amendment to have a balanced budget, all we need is representational government that is actually functioning according to what is written in the law. No rational American wants to be trillions of dollars in debt to China. The only reason such debts can exist is because the central banking syndicate greases the skids and the rampant political corruption in the US has made our "representatives" utterly deaf to the people they're supposed to be representing.The second part is they want fiscal responsibility so no new $Trillion printing money out of thin air and giving it away to Pakistan for gender studies.
Neither of these issues -- term limits and "fiscal responsibility" (aka printing money) -- are issues of liberty. You seem to have confused Ron Paul with big-L Libertarians... the bohemian frat-boy Libertarians are down at the end of the hall and to the left. Look for the unicorn suits and LED party goggles...How on earth can anyone say this is a bad thing!!! Especially Libertarians???
I think you have managed to pack more fallacies than words into these sentences. That's an amazing feat. No, the Feds have not destroyed states' rights (Texas, for example). Congress has used the Commerce Clause to weasel around the enumeration of powers. The founders didn't want "strong" state's rights, rather, they specified that all powers not enumerated to the Federal government are reserved to the states.Our founders wanted a strong states rights and the feds have destroyed this whole concept. The states are now banding together top take that power back. How awesome!!!
The reason this is not the time for a convention: the Left has been slavering for a Constitutional Convention for decades because they already own and control the political apparatus of the US, having bought it up with infinity-cash from the Fed (bribes, corruption). So, if a Convention happens right now, they'll have a trillion dirty tricks to ramrod their Agenda through. And that's pretty much the worst-case scenario... it's like packing SCOTUS with extreme-left globalist judges... who never die. So, the order-of-events matters. Yes, we need to repeal the 16th Amendment and do some other Constitutional housekeeping in the modern era... but first we need to address the corruption in the political establishment.
The cause of political corruption is not the lack of Amendments. The cause of political corruption is, ultimately, us... We, the People have the power and with that power comes the obligation to take responsibility for our collective moral failures. These clowns could not be running the circus if we (collectively) were not allowing it. We have sold our political order to the highest bidder in exchange for the illusion of comfortable, suburban life. "Do whatever, just don't bother us." That's how things got like this. We are rapidly approaching a tipping-point where enough Americans are in enough pain that they are being forced to wake up and face the hangover. What we need is a cold glass of water, not the hair of the dog. Enough politics, address the moral rot in your hearts, homes, churches and communities. I'm not "preaching", I'm only stating the diagnosis of the disease.
We don't need a Convention right now, and certainly not for the issues you've mentioned.
Last edited by ClaytonB; 03-06-2022 at 10:08 AM.
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
I have my issues with the constitution, primarily that it is not radical enough, it was a counterrevolutionary break from the Declaration of Independence.
That said, I sure don't want it re-written by $#@!s like this guy. How do you prevent that?
Mystal: U.S. Constitution Is ‘Trash’ Written by Slave-Owning ‘White People’
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022...-white-people/
PAM KEY4 Mar 20222,522
1:50
The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal said Friday on ABC’s “The View” that the United States Constitution is “trash” written by slave-owning white people.
Discussing his new book “Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution,” Mystal said, “Republicans are obviously trying to manipulate those laws, particularly the rights of minorities, women, and the LGBTQ communities, and I explain it in ways we can understand so we can fight them.”
Co-host Ana Navarro said, “I live in Florida, so I’m, like, on ground zero of where all of this is happening. I’m out of my mind about the bills banning conversations about race and ethnicity and LGBTQ, just even mentioning gender identity in primary schools…Are you arguing for throwing out the Constitution? Should the Constitution be thrown out? What do we do? Is it a living document, or is it a sacred document?”
Mystal said, “It’s certainly not sacred. Let’s start there. The Constitution is kind of trash. Again, let’s just talk as adults for a second.”
Co-host Joy Behar said, “What did you say?”
Mystal said, “It’s kind of trash. It was written by slavers and colonists and white people willing to make deals with slavers and colonists. They didn’t ask anybody who looked like me what they thought about the Constitution.”
He added, “This document was without the consent of black and brown people in this country and without the consent of women. I say if that was the starting point, the very least we can do is ignore what those slavers and colonists and misogynists thought and interpret the Constitution in a way that makes sense for our modern world.”
“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Arnold Toynbee
The power to impose an income tax was in the original Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), so I guess Madison, Hamilton, et al. were enemies of the United States even though they founded it. The nation's first income tax was enacted 52 years before the 16th Amendment and was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1881.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Correct. They were traitors to the Articles of Confederation.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
It's a good thing to start forming the groups of states that are willing to call a convention, even if there won't be a majority, there will be high-level discussions and party candidate adjustments that can only be positive. It's a matter of raising the bar beyond the rigamarole of voting for individuals every 2-4-6 years that merely keep the frog in the proverbial blender.
A new Confederacy.... to challenge the Feds.
"When Sombart says: "Capitalism is born from the money-loan", I should like to add to this: Capitalism actually exists only in the money-loan;" - Theodor Fritsch
The Federal government had no power to levy an unapportioned income tax, which is what the 16th Amendment overturns (and illegally, since it was not legitimately ratified):
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (Section 2)
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." (Section 9)
Taxation of income, in itself, is not the issue. The issue is apportionment (direct taxation). The apportionment of taxation puts the power of the state between the people and the Federal government. It also prevents the states from becoming tyrannical duchies. The 16th Amendment removed the monetary shackles binding the Federal government and it has predictably become a populist nation-state just like the nations of Europe. Fortunately, the College of Electors still stands between us and a Twitter-fueled populist tyranny...
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
They can repeal the 2nd but it won't change anything. The right to own moderately powered firearms for hunting purposes is a God-given right... it cannot be taken away.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
Where did you pull that out of...lol...the states that are calling for a convention are all PRO 2nd amendment. Many of them have or are passing laws for constitutional carry.
Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.Thomas Jefferson
Doesn't matter who calls it. Once it happens anything and everything is on the table. Look who are currently in power. Do you want them to write a new constitution? I don't.
The income tax isn't a direct tax and therefore needn't be apportioned. The Civil War era income tax was upheld in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), in which a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the claim that the tax was a direct tax and was invalid because it was unapportioned. To the contrary, the Court held the tax was in the nature of a duty or excise and stated that the only direct taxes were capitations and taxes on land.
Fourteen years later the Court held 5-4 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) and 158 U.S. 601 (1895) that a tax on investment income (but not other types of income, such as wages) was a direct tax. It reasoned that taxes on real and personal property were direct taxes and that a tax on the income of property (e.g., dividends, interest, and rent) was equivalent to a tax on the underlying property producing the income. The result in the case was overturned by the 16th Amendment, thereby making the case one of only three SCOTUS decisions to precipitate constitutional amendments to overturn their results.
In addition, the Court later recognized that the Pollock decision was incorrect, stating in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1915) that "the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived -- that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed."
Most recently, in National Federation of Businesses v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) the Court upheld the Obamacare individual mandate against the claim that it was an unapportioned direct tax and stated in dictum that the only direct taxes under the Constitution are capitations and taxes on property (this is why many feel that a wealth tax such as those proposed by Senators Warren and Sanders would be unconstitutional). FWIW, I happen to disagree and would have held the mandate (if it was a tax at all instead of a penalty) was an unapportioned direct tax and therefore invalid.
Incidentally, the apportionmant requirement for direct taxes doesn't prevent the states from being tyrannical duchies, since it applies only to federal taxes. Each state has the power to tax its citizens as much as they are willing to let it get away with, which you would know if you lived in a place like California or New York.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
That's a lot of words to say what I said over again.
The 16th amendment was passed in order to get around the apportionment requirement of the Constitution (in sections 2,9). Without it, the Federal income tax (certainly personal, possibly also corporate) would be un-Constitutional. I've read good arguments in the past showing that the 16th Amendment was not passed legally. Even if true, it's clearly a situation of the-victor-writes-history, so the only way to set it right would be to repeal the 16th Amendment with a new amendment re-establishing the apportionment of direct taxes, as the Founding Fathers originally intended.
Post-1913 rulings on this question are purely academic disputes over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin -- mental masturbation.In addition, the Court later recognized that the Pollock decision was incorrect, stating in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1915) that "the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived -- that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed."
Most recently, in National Federation of Businesses v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) the Court upheld the Obamacare individual mandate against the claim that it was an unapportioned direct tax and stated in dictum that the only direct taxes under the Constitution are capitations and taxes on property (this is why many feel that a wealth tax such as those proposed by Senators Warren and Sanders would be unconstitutional). FWIW, I happen to disagree and would have held the mandate (if it was a tax at all instead of a penalty) was an unapportioned direct tax and therefore invalid.
This is blockheaded, as if the only thing that prohibits/compels actions are laws/regulations. The states cannot become tyrannical duchies under the system of apportionment and college-of-electors because the Federal government has enough power to check un-Constitutional or other Federally prohibited abuses. An individual state is free to levy whatever direct tax rate they choose, but the consequences will be that they drive out business and human capital to more rational states. Which was the whole point of the Federal structure to begin with. It creates healthy competition between states without an existential "race to the bottom" hazard.Incidentally, the apportionmant requirement for direct taxes doesn't prevent the states from being tyrannical duchies, since it applies only to federal taxes.
Last edited by ClaytonB; 03-06-2022 at 06:12 PM.
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
Noooo...lol...anything and everything isn't going to be on the table. Who told you that...Soros and CNN...lmao
The states that are calling for article V have no interest in writing a new constitution...lol....This is about reeling in the federal over reach which is NOT abiding by our constitution.
Article V was included in our constitution just for that very reason.
It is a way for the states to protect the constitution as it is written and nullify federal laws that go against it because the FED continues to step on state laws.
It is also a way to make positive changes that congress refuses to enact because it is a conflict of their own interests....TERM LIMITS.
There is a HUGE majority in this country that support term limits and I am one of them.
Yes, look at who IS in power. Biden and a bunch of neoclown warmongers. They have been in power for so long that pretty soon, our constitution will cease to exist!!!
They are not the ones calling for a convention...lmao...the states that wish to preserve our constitution are!!!
Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.Thomas Jefferson
Federal postal service and the income tax are also part of the Constitution (I don't say OUR, because I had nothing to do with it). That doesn't make them awesome.
The whole point of a constitutional convention is to change the Constitution.
Oh, so they do want to change things. I don't support term limits. But even if I did, you can be sure that that is not all "they" (whoever they are) want to do. And even if it was, "they" aren't going to be in a position to restrain what others want to do when they get the opportunity to change the Constitution. You seem to think that a constitutional convention would be immune to the same sausage making process that we see in effect every other time a law gets passed by any legislative body. If anything, it would be worse. It won't be a bunch of Ron Paul types writing and voting on a short and simple plain English one-sentence constitutional amendment that will be effective in limiting the federal government in a way that the existing constitution was unable to. For that matter, the state legislators who voted for constitutional conventions in all these states aren't Ron Paul types either.
You're talking about politicians who prove that they don't want fiscal responsibility on a daily basis. Also, "fiscal responsibility" is a very dangerous phrase. Very often it is an excuse to balance the budget by raising taxes. If fiscal responsibility involves raising taxes, then we're better off with fiscal irresponsibility.
In fact, if you want to see the kind of trash that is liable to get passed at a new constitutional convention, just look at the balanced budget amendment proposals that have had some steam in Republican circles in recent decades and how much of obvious Trojan horses they were. Then realize that at a constitutional convention, those balanced budget amendments, as bad as they were, wouldn't be the form the amendments would take when they got passed. They would just be the starting offer in the negotiations, prior to getting transformed into even worse versions that would have been sufficiently edited to buy the votes of a high enough number of the corrupt politicians to get them ratified.
You've been a member of this forum since 2011. This seems like a question you would have already gotten the answer to during Ron Paul's 2012 presidential run. This constitutional convention scam is not a new idea.
If I were more cynical, I'd ask who paid you to post this.
Last edited by Invisible Man; 03-07-2022 at 07:37 AM.
Ron PaulThere is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
The Social Security Act is being used to make people less secure. The Civil Rights Act isn't there to create equality by giving civil rights to blacks, but rather by stripping civil rights from everyone else. The PATRIOT Act is being used to hunt patriots.
So tell me, what's in a name? How do good intentions pave the road to hell, again?
There's nothing wrong with an Article V convention as long as we keep a tight rein on the conventioneers. Of course, the Constitution has worked pretty damned well, as long as we were keeping a tight rein on the government when it tried to disobey it. Has our grip improved?
If we are all over this convention like ugly on an ape, we might get something decent out of it. Then again, we might get what we got at the RNC convention in Miami, where Romney was coronated--a long ride on the short bus.
If we aren't all over it, it doesn't matter who started it or why. All we will get out of it is chains. And they won't be made of gold.
Remember--the last convention was called not to replace the Articles of Confederation, but just to make a few little changes to it. When asked if the Articles would be thrown out and replaced by a federalist system, Hamilton tweeted, "Noooo...lol..."
Last edited by acptulsa; 03-07-2022 at 08:23 AM.
It's apparent you've never read the Pollock cases (there were two majority opinions). The Court went out of its way to say that only a tax on investment income was a direct tax and that taxes on other kinds of income were not:
The reason the entire act was declared unconstitutional instead of just the portion inposing a tax on investment income was that the Court felt that Congfress would not have intended the entire tax burden to be borne by other kinds of income:We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.
Moreover, a tax on corporations measured by income was upheld two years before the 16th Amendment in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911).According to the census, the true valuation of real and personal property in the United States in 1890 was $65,037,091,197, of which real estate with improvements thereon made up $39,544,544,333. Of course, from the latter must be deducted, in applying these sections, all unproductive property and all property whose net yield does not exceed four thousand dollars; but, even with such deductions, it is evident that the income from realty formed a vital part of the scheme for taxation embodied 637*637 therein. If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by far the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain in substance a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of Congress. We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act; and the scheme must be considered as a whole. Being invalid as to the greater part, and falling, as the tax would, if any part were held valid, in a direction which could not have been contemplated except in connection with the taxation considered as an entirety, we are constrained to conclude that sections twenty-seven to thirty-seven, inclusive, of the act, which became a law without the signature of the President on August 28, 1894, are wholly inoperative and void.
The argument that the 16th wasn't properly ratified has been consistently rejected by the courts. In addition, you'd better read the Constitution again -- only direct taxes were required to be apportioned. Excises, duties, and imposts were not but were only required to be geographically uniform. The 16th simply removed the apportionment requirement for income taxes, even if certain types of income taxes were considered to be direct (i.e., those involved in Pollock). But since the Court later disavowed the reasoning in Pollock (calling it "a mistaken theory"), it's clear that the income tax is an excise on the receipt of income that never had to be apportioned in the first place.
They are more than that. They serve to reject as frivolous some of the crackpot arguments tax protesters raise.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
To be blunt, your posts on this topic are Fed dog-whistling. I'm certainly no tax-protester and my interest in this topic has nothing to do with minimizing my own tax bill, although I also take all legal measures to minimize my taxes that I can take, especially since the taxed money is used for things like bombing women and children in foreign countries, and countless other atrocities. We'll just have to agree to disagree -- you're simply not responding to what I write, instead, you're just repeating the IRS FAQ on "common tax-protester arguments". Maybe it would be relevant if I was a tax-protester...
Summary: If the apportionment provision of the Constitution did not apply to direct income taxation, there would have been no need to pass the 16th Amendment.
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
So you like that fact that Biden has been allowed to stay in power for 47 years...LMAO....maybe you should change your name to invisible neocon. Let just do NOTHING at all to upset the power they hold.
BTW, Ron Paul would disagree with you!!!
"Secession, of course, is not lawful. And if we've learned anything from history, we know it can have disastrous results. The federal government abuses its power, true, but if we have any alternatives to civil war, we should take them."
https://conventionofstates.com/news/...n-is-good-news
Last edited by showpan; 03-07-2022 at 09:51 AM.
Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.Thomas Jefferson
Please read what I posted earlier. The 16th Amendment was needed to overcome the holding in Pollock that an unapportioned tax on investment income was unconstitutional. Since Pollock acknowledged that a tax on other kinds of income was valid, in order to have an income tax apply to the wealthy (who had a lot of investment income) a constitutional amendment was necessary. The following editorial cartoon from 1913 illustrates this (the wording on the figures are "The Working Class" and "The Idle Rich", and the collar around the rich guy is labeled "Income Tax"):
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us