Author Topic: Executive Order #12548  (Read 413 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,439
    • Boiling Frogs
Executive Order #12548
« on: April 21, 2014, 08:08:48 PM »
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer, to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee, and provided further, that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this Order, the term:

(a) "Public rangelands" has the same meaning as in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95514);

(b) "Forage Value Index" means the weighted average estimate of the annual rental charge per head per month for pasturing cattle on private rangelands in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service from the June Enumerative Survey) divided by $3.65 and multiplied by 100;

(c) "Beef Cattle Price Index" means the weighted average annual selling price for beef cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) for November through October (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service) divided by $22.04 per hundred weight and multiplied by 100; and

(d) "Prices Paid Index" means the following selected components from the Statistical Reporting Service's Annual National Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods and Services adjusted by the weights indicated in parentheses to reflect livestock production costs in the Western States: 1. Fuels and Energy (14.5); 2. Farm and Motor Supplies (12.0); 3. Autos and Trucks (4.5); 4. Tractors and Self-Propelled Machinery (4.5); 5. Other Machinery (12.0); 6. Building and Fencing Materials (14.5); 7. Interest (6.0); 8. Farm Wage Rates (14.0); 9. Farm Services (18.0).

Sec. 3. Any and all existing rules, practices, policies, and regulations relating to the administration of the formula for grazing fees in section 6(a) of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 shall continue in full force and effect.

Sec. 4. This Order shall be effective immediately.

RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
February 14, 1986.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,439
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Executive Order #12548
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2014, 08:20:07 PM »
Private Grazing Fees in 2012: low $9 per AUM in Arizona, high $33.50 per AUM in Nebraska per month.

The Federal government that Cliven Bundy doesn't believe exists has been subsidizing his cattle business for decades, and he doesn't even want to pay that.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,610
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Re: Executive Order #12548
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2014, 08:34:01 PM »
Wait for the spin on this !!
#NeverHillary

Online Lando Lincoln

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,123
Re: Executive Order #12548
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2014, 08:36:25 PM »
Robbers of even benevolent kings have often achieved folk hero status. And to many, our government is hardly benevolent.
For the progressive, there is very little to love about the United States. Washington, Jefferson, Madison? A bunch of rotten slaveholders, hypocrites, and cowards even when their hearts were in the right places. The Declaration of Independence? A manifesto for the propertied classes. The Constitution? An artifact of sexism and white supremacy. The sacrifices in the great wars of the 20th century? Feeding the poor and the disenfranchised into the meat-grinder of imperialism. The gifts of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor? Blood money from self-aggrandizing robber barons. Nat Rev

Online Lando Lincoln

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,123
Re: Executive Order #12548
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2014, 08:47:21 PM »
But... I need to be clear - he is a thief, not unlike the vast numbers of people who defraud welfare.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 08:49:15 PM by Lando Lincoln »
For the progressive, there is very little to love about the United States. Washington, Jefferson, Madison? A bunch of rotten slaveholders, hypocrites, and cowards even when their hearts were in the right places. The Declaration of Independence? A manifesto for the propertied classes. The Constitution? An artifact of sexism and white supremacy. The sacrifices in the great wars of the 20th century? Feeding the poor and the disenfranchised into the meat-grinder of imperialism. The gifts of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor? Blood money from self-aggrandizing robber barons. Nat Rev

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,822
Re: Executive Order #12548
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2014, 09:20:09 PM »
Federal Judge Slams BLM: Criminal Conspiracy

Brandon Walker

For over 20 years, the BLM has been engaging in criminal conspiracy according to federal courts. Now a federal judge has stepped up and slammed them for the true intent of the BLM.

Kit Daniels from Infowars discovered a case that over throws any idea that Clive Bundy was even close to wrong out of the water. In fact it has the federal judge’s opinion from a recent court case that throws this logic of back taxes to the BLM out the window. It reveals a 20 year old conspiracy by the BLM, that the judge calls “literal and intentional”, against Nevada ranchers to force them to sell their land at a loss and kill their business. The judge doesn’t mix words and uses an actual case to expose this vast land grab and undermining of the Constitution.

It is actually an insightful and wise case that everyone in America should pay attention. There is an old saying, “follow the money and you will find the truth.” In fact, this “battle” at the Bundy ranch was settled 20 years ago, While it seems that the liberal outlets are touting a court decision against Bundy for failure to pay fees, they are using the local courts. If they would have paid attention to the appeals courts, the Supreme Court, and U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones, they would have found that it wasn’t a valid case against Bundy. They are using the normal smoke and mirrors to distract, while the real reason for the fight is completely illegal and immoral.

Quote
In his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones reveals that after late Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage indicated on his 1993 grazing permit renewal that by signing the permit, he was not surrendering his family’s long-standing water and forage rights on the land, the BLM not only rejected the permit but also conspired for decades to both deny his family’s property rights and to destroy their cattle business.

“Based upon E. Wayne Hage’s declaration that he refused to waive his rights — a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights — the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed,” Judge Jones wrote. “After the BLM denied his renewal grazing permit for this reason by letter, the Hages indicated that they would take the issue to court, and they sued the Government in the CFC [Court of Federal Claims.]”

And at that point, Jones explained, the BLM refused to consider any further applications from Hage.

“The entire chain of events is the result of the Government’s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal permit for 1993–2003, and the effects of this due process violation are continuing,” he stated.

Judge Jones continued:


In 2007, unsatisfied with the outcome thus far in the CFC, the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate. The Government did not bring criminal misdemeanor trespass claims, perhaps because it believed it could not satisfy the burden of proof in a criminal trespass action, as a previous criminal action against E. Wayne Hage had been reversed by the Court of Appeals. During the course of the present trial, the Government has: (1)invited others, including Mr. Gary Snow, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits, indicating that Mr. Snow could use water sources on such land in which Hage had water rights, or at least knowing that he would use such sources; (2) applied with the Nevada State Engineer for its own stock watering rights in waters on the land despite that fact that the Government owns no cattle nearby and has never intended to obtain any, but rather for the purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage’s rights; and (3) issued trespass notices and demands for payment against persons who had cattle pastured with Hage, despite having been notified by these persons and Hage himself that Hage was responsible for these cattle and even issuing such demands for payment to witnesses soon after they testified in this case.

By filing for a public water reserve, the Government in this case sought specifically to transfer to others water rights belonging to the Hages. The Government also explicitly solicited and granted temporary grazing rights to parties who had no preferences under the TGA [Taylor Grazing Act of 1934], such as Mr. Snow, in areas where the Hages had preferences under the TGA.


It is necessary to note that under the TGA, according to Red Canyon Sheep Co. v. Ickes (1938), a rancher whose cattle had previously grazed in the area based upon adjacent land, water rights on the land, etc., has a right to a grazing permit over others who apply for a permit to graze the area without having previously grazed there.

So in this instance, Hage would have priority over Snow for a grazing permit, but the BLM willfully ignored this court ruling.

And after the agency filed for a public water reserve, according to Judge Jones, the BLM “sent trespass notices to people who leased or sold cattle to the Hages, notwithstanding the Hages’ admitted and known control over that cattle, in order to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.”

“For this reason, the Court has held certain government officials in contempt and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” he wrote. “In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights.”

“This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.”

So in other words, the BLM willfully attempted to destroy the Hage family’s livelihood because Hage dared to assert his existing rights to the land which his family has held since the late 19th century.

And unfortunately the BLM is attempting to do the exact same thing to Cliven Bundy.

“Has Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuted any federal officials for criminal activity and violation of the Hage family’s constitutionally protected rights? No,” William F. Jasper, senior editor of The New American, wrote on the subject. “Has Sen. Harry Reid denounced this lawlessness and criminal activity by government officials and call upon President Obama and Attorney General Holder to protect the citizens of his state from the depredations of federal officials under their command? No.”

“With attitudes such as those expressed above by Sen. Harry Reid, it is almost a certainty that the recently defused Bundy Ranch standoff will be replayed again — and in the not-too-distant future. And the outcome could be much less amicable for all concerned.” ~Kit Daniels
http://madworldnews.com/federal-judge-slams-blm-criminal-conspiracy/

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,610
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Re: Executive Order #12548
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2014, 09:30:34 PM »
Can we stipulate the property in question is federal owned, not Bundy's own land?

#NeverHillary

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,439
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Executive Order #12548
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2014, 11:17:07 PM »
This is such a Bizarro world situation.

Here we have a ranchers who, via an Executive Order signed into law by none other than Ronald Reagan, benefited from Federal corporate welfare by way of grazing fees that have not increased a nickel in 36 years as a result of Federal subsidies (read: taxpayer's dollars), protesting that such fees (fees which have been absolutely immune to three and a half decades of dollar devaluation/inflation) and the management of the law by Reagan's designated Departments of the Federal government, are unconstitutional, but apparently only since 1993 and not between the signing of Reagan's Executive Order in 1978 1986 and that time since he made payments to the Federal government for that 15 7 year span of time.  This rancher claims rights as a citizen of a nation that he doesn't believe exists, and upholds himself as some sort of freedom-loving citizen of that same non-existent nation, as he and his followers all argue the very liberal notion of having rights to things that they (by their own admission) do not now, nor have they ever owned.

Worthy of note here is that Bundy, while having support among militia and other segments of the population, lacks the support of Demar Dahl , a longtime conservative political activist and member of the board of directors of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association as well as the Nevada Land Management Task Force, a group working to bring vast stretches of the State's public lands under state control.

From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Quote
If anyone can feel the beleaguered rancher’s pain, it’s a man like Dahl. But while some members of the public are on Bundy’s side, he makes his argument with a religious zeal, and he appears to have temporarily shaken the BLM’s ham-handed grip, that doesn’t mean Bundy is on stable legal footing, Dahl says.

Bundy continues to argue, mostly in the press, that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the land on which his cattle graze. But federal courts have consistently dismissed that argument, and on July 9, 2013, U.S. District Judge Lloyd George signed an order permanently enjoining Bundy from running cattle on the disputed land. Judge George’s order was emphatic.

“In sum,” he wrote, “in his most recent effort to oppose the United States’ legal process, Bundy has produced no valid law or specific facts raising a genuine issue of fact regarding federal ownership or management of public lands in Nevada.”

Walking into a federal court and arguing that the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction in a case involving federal land isn’t likely to go far. And Bundy had been making the argument for the better part of two decades. By 1998, the courts had ruled against him, and still he kept riding in the same legal direction.

“He had his neck bowed and had his mind made up, by golly, wouldn’t stray from his position, which is that the feds don’t own the land,” Dahl said. “So he didn’t pursue that, and it’s too bad that he didn’t.”

But Dahl notes that Bundy might benefit from following Nye County rancher Wayne Hage, who won a protracted battle with the federal government by successfully arguing that he had the right to graze his cows within two miles of water sources he developed.

“The Hage case, it went on for over 20 years,” Dahl said. “And the Hage case and this case are very similar because the Hages ran without a permit for a long time. It was either do that or pull out and give up.”

Bundy was made aware of Hage’s legal strategy years ago, Dahl said, but chose to pursue a different route that has led to a drubbing in court.


Bundy listens to no one, has no respect for any authority other than his own, and there is a very real possibility that he will get people killed in his stubborn refusal to listen to reason, even when it comes from people who want him to win this argument.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 08:26:02 AM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,770
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Executive Order #12548
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2014, 11:21:31 PM »
Federal Judge Slams BLM: Criminal Conspiracy

Brandon Walker

For over 20 years, the BLM has been engaging in criminal conspiracy according to federal courts. Now a federal judge has stepped up and slammed them for the true intent of the BLM.

Kit Daniels from Infowars discovered a case that over throws any idea that Clive Bundy was even close to wrong out of the water. In fact it has the federal judge’s opinion from a recent court case that throws this logic of back taxes to the BLM out the window. It reveals a 20 year old conspiracy by the BLM, that the judge calls “literal and intentional”, against Nevada ranchers to force them to sell their land at a loss and kill their business. The judge doesn’t mix words and uses an actual case to expose this vast land grab and undermining of the Constitution.

It is actually an insightful and wise case that everyone in America should pay attention. There is an old saying, “follow the money and you will find the truth.” In fact, this “battle” at the Bundy ranch was settled 20 years ago, While it seems that the liberal outlets are touting a court decision against Bundy for failure to pay fees, they are using the local courts. If they would have paid attention to the appeals courts, the Supreme Court, and U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones, they would have found that it wasn’t a valid case against Bundy. They are using the normal smoke and mirrors to distract, while the real reason for the fight is completely illegal and immoral.

It is necessary to note that under the TGA, according to Red Canyon Sheep Co. v. Ickes (1938), a rancher whose cattle had previously grazed in the area based upon adjacent land, water rights on the land, etc., has a right to a grazing permit over others who apply for a permit to graze the area without having previously grazed there.

So in this instance, Hage would have priority over Snow for a grazing permit, but the BLM willfully ignored this court ruling.

And after the agency filed for a public water reserve, according to Judge Jones, the BLM “sent trespass notices to people who leased or sold cattle to the Hages, notwithstanding the Hages’ admitted and known control over that cattle, in order to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.”

“For this reason, the Court has held certain government officials in contempt and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” he wrote. “In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights.”

“This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.”

So in other words, the BLM willfully attempted to destroy the Hage family’s livelihood because Hage dared to assert his existing rights to the land which his family has held since the late 19th century.

And unfortunately the BLM is attempting to do the exact same thing to Cliven Bundy.

“Has Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuted any federal officials for criminal activity and violation of the Hage family’s constitutionally protected rights? No,” William F. Jasper, senior editor of The New American, wrote on the subject. “Has Sen. Harry Reid denounced this lawlessness and criminal activity by government officials and call upon President Obama and Attorney General Holder to protect the citizens of his state from the depredations of federal officials under their command? No.”

“With attitudes such as those expressed above by Sen. Harry Reid, it is almost a certainty that the recently defused Bundy Ranch standoff will be replayed again — and in the not-too-distant future. And the outcome could be much less amicable for all concerned.” ~Kit Daniels
http://madworldnews.com/federal-judge-slams-blm-criminal-conspiracy/



Cliven Bundy is a welfare cheat; no better than the inner-city welfare queens the right so loves to lambaste; no better than the mythical wetbacks the right claims wade the rio grande solely for the purpose of suckling on the American taxpayers' teat.


Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,439
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Executive Order #12548
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2014, 11:27:27 PM »
The reason that Hage won in Court and Bundy lost is because they argued two completely different cases. Bundy's mule-headed insistence that he will base his case on the on the idea that the land in question does not belong to the United States is what's made him lose both times he's been to Court.

Hage won because he argued a different case, and all the misguided support being given to Bundy should be directed at Hage and we should all be demanding that he be paid the amount awarded by the Courts.

Instead, what's probably going to happen here is that if (Heaven forbid) a shooting match ensues between the Feds and Bundy supporters, the media will turn this into an anti-Republican tyranny revolt because Bundy and his supporters are raising up in protest of a Reagan Executive Order.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 11:50:31 PM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,439
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Executive Order #12548
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2014, 11:35:44 PM »

Cliven Bundy is a welfare cheat; no better than the inner-city welfare queens the right so loves to lambaste; no better than the mythical wetbacks the right claims wade the rio grande solely for the purpose of suckling on the American taxpayers' teat.

Imagine for a second, just a second, that this case was a little different, and that instead of cattle being removed, this was about a family of illegal aliens who have been fighting two Court orders ordering their deportation for more than two decades by arguing that they can't be deported from what they consider to be their native soil, and that the United States does not own the land in Nevada that they live on because they don't believe that the United States even exists.

Imagine than when the Feds finally move in to forcefully remove them from their home, thousands of Mexican-Americans supporters show up armed and ready to fight the Federales, and surround their house stopping the enforcement of the Court orders.

What do you think Bundy supporters would say about that?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 11:37:11 PM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,770
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Executive Order #12548
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2014, 11:47:45 PM »
Imagine for a second, just a second, that this case was a little different, and that instead of cattle being removed, this was about a family of illegal aliens who have been fighting two Court orders ordering their deportation for more than two decades by arguing that they can't be deported from what they consider to be their native soil, and that the United States does not own the land in Nevada that they live on because they don't believe that the United States even exists.

Imagine than when the Feds finally move in to forcefully remove them from their home, thousands of Mexican-Americans supporters show up armed and ready to fight the Federales, and surround their house stopping the enforcement of the Court orders.

What do you think Bundy supporters would say about that?


Or what about a few native americans deciding that they were going to go back to florida and get back what was taken from them when they were forced out west on the trail of tears.

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: Executive Order #12548
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2014, 05:19:10 AM »
This is such a Bizarro world situation.

Here we have a ranchers who, via an Executive Order signed into law by none other than Ronald Reagan, benefited from Federal corporate welfare by way of grazing fees that have not increased a nickel in 36 years as a result of Federal subsidies (read: taxpayer's dollars), protesting that such fees (fees which have been absolutely immune to three and a half decades of dollar devaluation/inflation)and the management of the law by Reagan's designated Departments of the Federal government, are unconstitutional, but apparently only since 1993 and not between the signing of Reagan's Executive Order in 1978 and that time since he made payments to the Federal government for that 15 year span of time.  This rancher claims rights as a citizen of a nation that he doesn't believe exists, and upholds himself as some sort of freedom-loving citizen of that same non-existent nation, as he and his followers all argue the very liberal notion of having rights to things that they (by their own admission) do not now, nor have they ever owned.

Worthy of note here is that Bundy, while having support among militia and other segments of the population, lacks the support of Demar Dahl , a longtime conservative political activist and member of the board of directors of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association as well as the Nevada Land Management Task Force, a group working to bring vast stretches of the State's public lands under state control.

From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Bundy listens to no one, has no respect for any authority other than his own, and there is a very real possibility that he will get people killed in his stubborn refusal to listen to reason, even when it comes from people who want him to win this argument.


Please do date check re:  bolded, Reagan wasn't President in 1978 or am I misreading something?  Thanks
« Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 05:20:17 AM by olde north church »
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,439
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Executive Order #12548
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2014, 08:24:15 AM »
Please do date check re:  bolded, Reagan wasn't President in 1978 or am I misreading something?  Thanks

You're right... 1986.

My typo.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf