Author Topic: The battle of Charlottesville: A continuing discussion thread about the War between the States  (Read 20057 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HonestJohn

  • Guest
A foreign force tearing  through a seceded land is not an invasion? Do you understand what that sounds like?  I bet you were cheerleading as Sherman was raping and pillaging through Georgia and SC in that non-invasion.

Yeah, you never answered my question about whether my ancestors were treasonous for defending themselves.  Yep, you are past brainwashed.  You have terminally succumbed to the PC historical revisonist propaganda.  A full tilt dumbing down.

No one gets to claim defense when initiating war.

The Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians weren't defending themselves in the 1967 war.

The North Koreans weren't defending themselves as UN forces overran Pyongyang in the Korean War.


Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,233
@goatprairie

You won't find anything about individuals having the right to vote either.  Don't you think something as momentous as an individual having the right to vote would have something codified in the US Constitution?

Come to think of it, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the right to free speech either.  Go figure.  Oh sure, it places a limitation on what the legislature can do.  But it doesn't give you the right to free speech.


Let's take a closer look at that wording, shall we?

Amendment X:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Rights not delegated by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states?  Gee, that would include the right to secede.  And as it specifically says, that right would be "reserved to the states respectively".  No twisting there.  It is exactly what it says.

Yet that is exactly what the United States was intended to be.  It is an additional check on the national government that makes it accountable to the States.
If you want to interpret the tenth amendment as a license for states to secede, I can't stop you. But it's ridiculous.
Do really think the fed. gov. would grant territories, the other 37 states, statehood if they knew that any time those new states could legally secede?  They would never have done so.
Why do you think the FFs ditched the Articles of Confederation for the union? If they had thought individual states were "sovereign" and had the right to secede whenever, they would have EXPLICITLY!! put it in the constitution.
If you look at it the whole idea of any state thinking themselves to be sovereign is ridiculous. If some other resident of my state, Wisconsin, went around babbling about being a "sovereign" country, he'd be treated as a lunatic.
I'm proud to be from Wisconsin, but I  think of myself as an American and not some citizen of a sovereign midwestern state.
No amount of nuts (and we have our share) in my state wanting secession would somehow justify secession.
You're trying to do that typical backwards justification for secession through a tortured interpretation of the tenth amendment. 
As to the issue of citizens being justified in rebelling against tyranny, tell me how the South was being tyrannized. The tariff issue had been discussed, but that certainly wasn't the reason why the Southern states rebelled as the Ordinances of Secession plainly stated.

Online Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,820
The Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians weren't defending themselves in the 1967 war.

The Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians crossed the border and invaded Israel.  They were the aggressors.  Likewise, the North crossed the border and invaded Virginia.  They too were the aggressors.


In retrospect, as a Southerner I agree with Lincoln's purpose which was to preserve the Union.  And history shows it to be the right call.  But I am not going to change the facts and sugarcoat the events to portray one side in a better light.

The whole point here is to preserve history.  As George Santayana once said, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Robert E. Lee resigned from his commission and chose to serve his State.  Not slavery.  Not the Confederacy.  But Virginia.  In my eyes, he will forever be a hero to the Commonwealth.  And it galls me to no end to see his legacy impugned.
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Online catfish1957

  • Ultra-Conservative in exile.
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,268
The Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians crossed the border and invaded Israel.  They were the aggressors.  Likewise, the North crossed the border and invaded Virginia.  They too were the aggressors.


In retrospect, as a Southerner I agree with Lincoln's purpose which was to preserve the Union.  And history shows it to be the right call.  But I am not going to change the facts and sugarcoat the events to portray one side in a better light.

The whole point here is to preserve history.  As George Santayana once said, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Robert E. Lee resigned from his commission and chose to serve his State.  Not slavery.  Not the Confederacy.  But Virginia.  In my eyes, he will forever be a hero to the Commonwealth.  And it galls me to no end to see his legacy impugned.

Well put.  Honest John is the real "lost causer"
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,586
  • Professional Misanthrope
The Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians crossed the border and invaded Israel.  They were the aggressors.

Not in 1967.  The Israelis launched a pre-emptive strike to prevent attack/invasion by the arab coalition.  They did, however, have just cause, due to the blockade (a recognized act of war) in the Straits of Tiran by Egypt, cutting off the Israeli port of Eliat.

Historians have argued whether the first shots on US troops at Ft. Sumter were the Union's just cause.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Online catfish1957

  • Ultra-Conservative in exile.
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,268

Historians have argued whether the first shots on US troops at Ft. Sumter were the Union's just cause.

And will be debated to infinitum.  Still 2 facts remain....

(1) The SC governemnt  asked that occupants of Moultrie/ Sumpter leave peaceably.

(2) On December 26, 1860, six days after South Carolina seceded from the Union, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie, spiking its large guns, burning its gun carriages, and taking its smaller cannon with him that were aimed at Charleston. (paraphrased from wiki)

In this tinderbox....... I can see (2) as an act of aggression
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 11:06:33 AM by catfish1957 »
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Online Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,820
If you want to interpret the tenth amendment as a license for states to secede, I can't stop you.

If you want to interpret ________________________ as a license to prohibit secession, I can't stop you.

Oh wait, you have nothing.  Nothing more than your own personal vision of tyranny that you would inflict upon an entire nation if given the chance.

Here's you: 
"States can't secede unless they have a very good reason that I approve of."


Nothing personal, but I will take the Constitution of the United States of America over that any day of the week.


Do really think the fed. gov. would grant territories, the other 37 states, statehood if they knew that any time those new states could legally secede?  They would never have done so.

But they did do so.


Why do you think the FFs ditched the Articles of Confederation for the union?

Why do you think the Founding Fathers ditched the "perpetuity" clause when drafting the Constitution?


If they had thought individual states were "sovereign" and had the right to secede whenever, they would have EXPLICITLY!! put it in the constitution.

By that same line of reasoning, if they had thought that individuals has the right to vote, they would have explicitly put that in the Constitution.  But they didn't.
You also won't find anything in the Constitution explicitly granting you free speech rights either.  So according to you, the Founding Fathers didn't want you to have it.


If you look at it the whole idea of any state thinking themselves to be sovereign is ridiculous.

Strawman.  No one is making that argument.

See:  Logical fallacies - Straw man


You're trying to do that typical backwards justification for secession through a tortured interpretation of the tenth amendment. 

Compare that to you offering an interpretation of _______________________.  Oh wait, you haven't offered up a damn thing other than your personal view of how the world should be and how you think that view should be imposed upon others at the point of a gun.  When faced with that choice, I will choose the Constitution of the United States of America every time.

btw, did you catch that part where it says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"?  Amazing.  The Founding Fathers made allowance for things that were not explicitly enumerated.  Imagine that.  Yet you willfully choose to ignore that, relying instead on your own personal view of how things should be.


As to the issue of citizens being justified in rebelling against tyranny, tell me how the South was being tyrannized.

Well for starters, there were the good citizens of Manassas waking up to the sound of Union cannon fire on the morning of July 21, 1861.


The tariff issue had been discussed, but that certainly wasn't the reason why the Southern states rebelled as the Ordinances of Secession plainly stated.

The reason doesn't matter.  It was Virginia's decision - not yours.  You do not get to be the arbiter of whether their reason was good enough or not.

Yet the open gap in your world view is noted.  Since you believe yourself to be the arbiter of who gets to secede and who does not, you open the door for the possibility of secession, which effectively trashes your earlier claims about explicitly stated Constitutional rights.

Trying to have it both ways will always make you look foolish.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 11:04:45 AM by Hoodat »
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Online catfish1957

  • Ultra-Conservative in exile.
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,268
I might as well be trying to teach calculus to Maxine Waters.

 :beer:
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Online Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,820

Quote
So where is that perpetual union now?  Looks like all 13 states were effectively allowed to opt out of that perpetual union.

@Hoodat

Now you sound like one of those Black Lives Matter retards uttering,"might makes right" as you "liberate" designer sneakers from a shop you are looting.

Which,IN EFFECT,is what that asshat Lincon ended up doing to the delight of his criminal supporters.


You might want to check the level on your oxygen tank.  My point is that it is ridiculous to use the 'perpetuity' clause of the Articles of Confederation as the US Constitution basis prohibiting States from seceding.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 11:10:02 AM by Hoodat »
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Online Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,820
And will be debated to infinitum.  Still 2 facts remain....

(1) The SC governemnt  asked that occupants of Moultrie/ Sumpter leave peaceably.

(2) On December 26, 1860, six days after South Carolina seceded from the Union, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie, spiking its large guns, burning its gun carriages, and taking its smaller cannon with him that were aimed at Charleston. (paraphrased from wiki)

And . . .

(3) With the White House and Capitol within eyesight from Virginia soil, the Commonwealth of Virginia did nothing.
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Online INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,812
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
The Declaration of Independence is EXACTLY what it says it is!  It is a DECLARATION proclaiming the many reasons why the Original 13 colonies were taking the action they chose to take against the King and his government.  Pretty much the same thing the 11 states who sought to leave the Union were doing!  But, as a legal matter, it is just a statement and nothing more.
The Declaration establishes as immutable, the sovereign natural rights of men and their right to alter or abolish such government that they no longer want to be part of.  It is the foundational and fundamental precept IN WRITING that declares the foundational purpose of government and the right of a people to alter and abolish it.

SCREW the legal matters that make the state the Supreme sovereign (which is what this entire argument is about).   'Legality' outside the parameters of the covenant as ratified since broken has absolutely no authority other than what agents of the state demand when they put guns to our heads to force compliance.

Which is tyranny.

Which necessitates resistance by force, or we become subjugated slaves.

Period.  End of discussion.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Online sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,230
Indeed. I read the Declaration in a similar fashion: "all men" literally means all humans, not just those capable of overpowering others.

@goodwithagun @IsailedawayfromFR

Judging from some of the commentators on this thread,it wouldn't surprise me at all to see someone here arguing that "Mankind" exists without women.

I honestly think about a third of the posters on this thread have to have someone tie their shoes and empty their drool cups. They have staked out a kneejerk positions,and BY GAWD AND BARACK OBAMA,THEY AIN'T GOING TO ALLOW A LITTLE THING LIKE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE CHANGE IT".

Even President Abraham Lincoln has said the war he started had NOTHING to do with slavery,and here we are all these decades later,and the PC Public is saying Lincoln didn't know what he was talking about.

BTW,after I close out the thread today I will not be responding to it anymore. I have already said everything I have to say and backed it up with evidence none of you <NOPE> is interested in looking at,so from this point on it's just wasting time. I might as well be trying to teach calculus to Maxine Waters.

Cut it out, Pete.

- MOD

« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 12:10:55 PM by Mod2 »
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,233
If you want to interpret ________________________ as a license to prohibit secession, I can't stop you.

Oh wait, you have nothing.  Nothing more than your own personal vision of tyranny that you would inflict upon an entire nation if given the chance.

Here's you: 
"States can't secede unless they have a very good reason that I approve of."


Nothing personal, but I will take the Constitution of the United States of America over that any day of the week.


But they did do so.


Why do you think the Founding Fathers ditched the "perpetuity" clause when drafting the Constitution?


By that same line of reasoning, if they had thought that individuals has the right to vote, they would have explicitly put that in the Constitution.  But they didn't.
You also won't find anything in the Constitution explicitly granting you free speech rights either.  So according to you, the Founding Fathers didn't want you to have it.


Strawman.  No one is making that argument.

See:  Logical fallacies - Straw man


Compare that to you offering an interpretation of _______________________.  Oh wait, you haven't offered up a damn thing other than your personal view of how the world should be and how you think that view should be imposed upon others at the point of a gun.  When faced with that choice, I will choose the Constitution of the United States of America every time.

btw, did you catch that part where it says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"?  Amazing.  The Founding Fathers made allowance for things that were not explicitly enumerated.  Imagine that.  Yet you willfully choose to ignore that, relying instead on your own personal view of how things should be.


Well for starters, there were the good citizens of Manassas waking up to the sound of Union cannon fire on the morning of July 21, 1861.


The reason doesn't matter.  It was Virginia's decision - not yours.  You do not get to be the arbiter of whether their reason was good enough or not.

Yet the open gap in your world view is noted.  Since you believe yourself to be the arbiter of who gets to secede and who does not, you open the door for the possibility of secession, which effectively trashes your earlier claims about explicitly stated Constitutional rights.

Trying to have it both ways will always make you look foolish.
I'm sorry sir..it's you have literally nothing in this argument. I don't believe I'm the arbiter of who gets to secede...there's nothing in the constitution that allows for lawful secession.
People who feel they're being harmed by an oppressive gov. have the right to rebel. That's what the Confederacy was...a rebellion. But there was no lawful secession.

People like you can claim you have the right to secede, but you don't. So you have to twist the meaning of the 10th amendment to reason backwards. Can you seriously say with a straight face that the founders in passing an amendment meant to define the rights of states while still claiming the supremacy of federal law provides for the rights of states to unilaterally leave? And that they would establish future states that supposedly would be sovereign countries?
 One state can't have any more rights than another under the constitution.  How in the world could a state like my state of Wisconsin, which previously was a territory,  be considered a sovereign country? Again, the whole idea is ludicrous.

Online Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,820
there's nothing in the constitution that allows for lawful secession.

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants you the right to vote either.  Does that mean you can't lawfully vote?


People who feel they're being harmed by an oppressive gov. have the right to rebel.

Your basis?


That's what the Confederacy was...a rebellion. But there was no lawful secession.

The Confederacy played no role in Virginia's secession.  Or in South Carolina's either for that matter.  When those states seceded, they were not part of any confederacy.


People like you can claim you have the right to secede, but you don't.

My claim is based upon the Constitution of the United States of America.  And your claim is based upon ___________________.

Oh, nevermind.   You still have no legal basis.  Yet you still feel inclined to dictate to everyone else what they can and can't do.


So you have to twist the meaning of the 10th amendment to reason backwards.

I twist nothing.  Here it is again:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


So until you can find that part of the Constitution that empowers the federal government to prohibit secession, I will continue to refer to

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states
.

No twisting involved.  Those are the words exactly as written.


Can you seriously say with a straight face that the founders in passing an amendment meant to define the rights of states while still claiming the supremacy of federal law provides for the rights of states to unilaterally leave?

The States passed that amendment - not the Founders.


One state can't have any more rights than another under the constitution.  How in the world could a state like my state of Wisconsin, which previously was a territory,  be considered a sovereign country?

It's not a sovereign country.  No one is making that argument.  (See:  Straw man)
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,586
  • Professional Misanthrope
There is nothing in the Constitution that grants you the right to vote either.

The right to vote is mentioned in the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,749
  • Constitutional Extremist
@Cripplecreek

Doesn't he do that fairly often?

BTW,after I close out the thread today I will not be responding to it anymore. I have already said everything I have to say and backed it up with evidence none of you <Nope> is interested in looking at,so from this point on it's just wasting time. I might as well be trying to teach calculus to Maxine Waters.


You go to your Profile page..click Modify Profile and it is on the drop down menu...just enter the other member's name and save.
@mystery-ak

Can we get a refresher on how to ignore posters who can't seem to stop harassing others who didn't ask nor care about their opinions. I don't like using the ignore option but some posters couldn't find a clue if a truckload ran over them.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 12:13:23 PM by Mod2 »

Nothing should make a man happier than knowing his government couldn't care less about him.
I'd rather lose defending the constitution than win at its expense.
Hitlers are born and die every day without notice. Its the morons who put them in power that are dangerous.
You don't escape guilt by declaring that you have no choice.
Lese-majeste is my middle name

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 265,702
Quote
BTW,after I close out the thread today I will not be responding to it anymore. I have already said everything I have to say and backed it up with evidence none of you shitheads is interested in looking at,so from this point on it's just wasting time. I might as well be trying to teach calculus to Maxine Waters.

@sneakypete  you keep posting that yet your still here...lol

Support the USO

Online Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,820
The right to vote is mentioned in the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments.

Mentioned, yes.  Gives you the right to vote?  No.
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,586
  • Professional Misanthrope
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,788
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Online Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,820
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Online INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,812
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
If you want to interpret the tenth amendment as a license for states to secede, I can't stop you. But it's ridiculous.

...If they had thought individual states were "sovereign" and had the right to secede whenever, they would have EXPLICITLY!! put it in the constitution.
If you look at it the whole idea of any state thinking themselves to be sovereign is ridiculous.
 
...As to the issue of citizens being justified in rebelling against tyranny, tell me how the South was being tyrannized.

As always, one man's Liberty is seen as tyranny by another.

..That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Our Establishing document lists the rights and duties a people have inherent when ANY government becomes destructive of their unalienable rights. They retain the right and duty to abolish it.

The argument is over what constitutes a destructive government.  As Jefferson noted, mankind will suffer evil while evils are sufferable rather than abolish the forms of tyranny and slavery that they have grown accustomed.

And we are accustomed.

History proves, despotism is ALWAYS "legal", the same as genocides are always made "legal" while the subjects of said despotism willing abide it out of fear or coercion, usually economic.

And we are arrived to the point of answering the question of whether or not we will submit to tyranny and slavery or resisting it by deadly force.  Problem is, what I see as tyranny, the other half sees as 'justice'.  As a people we no longer agree on foundational principles or even what the definition of liberty is.  A society cannot exist for long like that.

Economic consequences of this Statist tyranny we are accustomed to are going to tear down the thin veneer of civilization much quicker than anything else you can imagine.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Had the Colonies lost to the Crown, King George III would be singing the same exact tune.


Funny thing is, had you waited a century or so, independence would have been freely granted anyways and there'd have been no civil war to endlessly rehash - since the Empire was a significant contributory factor to the whole mess.  :tongue2:

The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Online INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,812
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Funny thing is, had you waited a century or so, independence would have been freely granted anyways and there'd have been no civil war to endlessly rehash - since the Empire was a significant contributory factor to the whole mess. 

Hindsight from history is always 20/20. 

We were the first to break the chain under the Crown and history teaches that tyranny is rarely if ever, overcome via civil means.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,849
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
The Declaration establishes as immutable, the sovereign natural rights of men and their right to alter or abolish such government that they no longer want to be part of.  It is the foundational and fundamental precept IN WRITING that declares the foundational purpose of government and the right of a people to alter and abolish it.
 

No sir!  The Declaration of Independence did not "establish" anything!  It points out and expounds on the FACT that the immutable rights of man always been in existence prior to any man made government on this Earth!



Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf