Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top Ten Civil Liberties Abuses of the Income Tax
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0204-2.html ^

Posted on 09/20/2006 10:32:34 AM PDT by tpaine

Top Ten Civil Liberties Abuses of the Income Tax

by Chris Edwards

Any tax system creates a threat to individual liberty because "the power to tax involves the power to destroy," as Chief Justice John Marshall observed.

But the federal income tax and its enforcement harm civil liberties much more than necessary to raise needed funds for the government. Certainly, the IRS performs poorly and too easily abuses the rights of citizens. But ultimately Congress is to blame for creating an excessively complex and high-rate tax system.

New laws to increase taxpayer protections and replacement of the income tax with a simpler, flatter consumption-based tax could greatly reduce the following 10 areas of civil liberties abuse.

1. "Vertical" Inequality. Although equality under the law is a bedrock American principle, the income tax treats citizens unequally.

2. "Horizontal" Inequality. Even people with similar incomes are treated unequally by the many exemptions, deductions, credits, and other intricacies of the income tax.

3. Complexity, Ambiguity, and Uncertainty. Certainty in the law is a bulwark against arbitrary and abusive government. But there is no certainty under the income tax because it rests on an inherently difficult-to-measure tax base, uses no consistent definition of "income" or other concepts, and is a labyrinth of narrow and limited provisions created by politicians intent on social engineering. Individuals are baffled by the complex rules on capital gains, pension and savings plans, and a growing list of targeted incentives. Those complexities would be eliminated under a flat consumption-based tax system.

4. Huge Size and Instability of Tax Law. Citizens are required to know the nation's laws and comply with them. Yet federal tax rules are massive in scope and constantly changing. Tax laws, regulations, and related documentation span 45,662 pages.

5. Lack of Financial Privacy. The broad-based income tax necessitates a large invasion of financial privacy that a low-rate consumption-based tax could avoid. The IRS regularly gains access to a myriad of personal records, such as mortgage records, credit card data, phone records, banking and investment records, real property transaction data, and personal correspondence. This broad IRS authority to obtain records without court supervision has been referred to by the Supreme Court as "a power of inquisition."

6. Denial of Due Process. The Fifth Amendment right to due process is ignored in many respects by the federal income tax regime. Due process requires that government provide accused citizens a clear notice of a claim against them and allow the accused a hearing before executing enforcement action.

7. Shifting of the Burden of Proof. For non-criminal tax cases -- the vast majority of cases -- the tax code reverses the centuries-old common law principle that the burden of proof rests with the accuser. Except in some narrow circumstances, the IRS does not have to prove the correctness of its determinations. When the IRS makes erroneous assessments, as it often does, citizens carry the burden to prove that they are wrong.

8. No Trial by Jury in Tax Court. Despite Sixth and Seventh Amendment guarantees of trial by jury, the federal tax system carefully sidesteps such protections. To contest an IRS tax calculation prior to assessment, one must file a petition in the U.S. Tax Court. But since this is an administrative court, not an Article III court, no jury trial is required.

9. Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. In most situations, the Fourth Amendment guarantees that, before the government can search private property and seize records, it must demonstrate to a court that there is "probable cause" to believe that lawless conduct exists. However, the IRS's summons authority under tax code section 7602 allows it to obtain records of every description from any person without showing probable cause and without a court order.

10. Forced Self-Incrimination. The requirement to file tax returns sworn to under penalty of perjury operates to invalidate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Citizens face a legal dilemma. On the one hand, refusing to file a return would expose a citizen to prosecution for failure to file. On the other hand, disclosing information sought in tax returns constitutes a waiver of Fifth Amendment protections. The IRS can and does release that information to federal, state, and local agencies for both tax and non-tax law enforcement purposes


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: fairtax; fraudtax; govwatch; irs; libertarians; scam; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-193 next last
To: tpaine
Normally you nitpick 'Fairtax'. --- Now you want to nitpick 'rational'. -- Is there ever any end?
I know what "rational" means, I just don't know what was said that wasn't rational. Maybe you could tell me instead of playing the usual FairTaxer game of "I got a secret."
81 posted on 09/23/2006 7:59:16 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
Do you mean the Nightmare Tax - or one of the other many forms of flat tax being pitched??? Please specify.
You know as well as I do that there is no such thing as the "Nightmare Tax." It is something you invented in a lame attempt to belittle me. Hasn't that grown old yet?

If you would like to look at a Flat Tax legislation, S.1099 is pretty darn good.
82 posted on 09/23/2006 8:02:41 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Concho

The majority of people see the income tax as a welfare program. If you make "X" amount of dollars under "Y" tax bracket, you get "X+++" dollars back. I did taxes for 87 people last year and at least 50 of them got back more than they paid in.


83 posted on 09/23/2006 8:09:59 AM PDT by Safetgiver (Stinko De mayo, Stinko to the Commies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
Our economy is quote 'working' [cross your fingers] despite a messed up income tax system. -- And you fellas can't come up with a rational basis for your opposition to cleaning up the mess..

What was said that wasn't rational?

Normally you nitpick 'Fairtax'. --- Now you want to nitpick about the word 'rational'; -- when the question remains unanswered.

What is the basis for your opposition to cleaning up the income tax/SS withholding mess?

Is there ever any end?

84 posted on 09/23/2006 8:23:46 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
One of the reasons the term "Nightmare Tax" originated was to highlight the fact that you never had any actual, specific tax plan in mind but that when you'd mention a specific one (such as the one you now do) and when its points began to be rebutted you'd normally start your bob and weave about "... oh, well - I don't back that plan anyway ...", etc.

Your deceptiveness never ends, it seems, as you're trying to bring out this same stunt again. Why not tell us about the Nightmare Tax of yours???

85 posted on 09/23/2006 8:48:16 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Our economy is quote 'working' [cross your fingers] despite a messed up income tax system. -- And you fellas can't come up with a rational basis for your opposition to cleaning up the mess..

The number one problem we have is spending and entitlement growth. The FairTax adds to this problem greatly by making government much larger through the addition of the huge welfare prebate, which would overnight be the largest entitlement program. And it is all new. Then, they have to make government larger in dollars just to stay even because they have to collect the FairTax money from us, so that they can pay it on everything they buy and all their salaries and benefits.

So, the FairTax doesn't fix anything. And I have given my exact things that I think need to be done to cleanup the present mess, which is not optimum.

86 posted on 09/23/2006 9:03:39 AM PDT by RobFromGa (The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: pigdog; Your Nightmare

"Nightmare Tax" like all of your personal attacks was designed to make the atgument personal, against an individual, to make him appear in your eyes ridiculous. You do this because you were unable to debate his points & ideas using logic and reason. So, you just resort to ad hominem attacks.


87 posted on 09/23/2006 9:06:04 AM PDT by RobFromGa (The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
-- what really infuriates those here that support the income tax.. They can't come up with a rational basis for their opposition to cleaning up the mess.. [instead they want to "improve" what we all agree is a mess]

Rob:
--- what we need to do, incremental improvements in what we already have.
This is already working and we should keep at it...

The number one problem we have is spending and entitlement growth. The FairTax adds to this problem greatly by making government much larger through the addition of the huge welfare prebate, which would overnight be the largest entitlement program.

Irrational comment, in that you are only guessing that a prebate would be worse than the welfare mess we have now.

And it is all new. Then, they have to make government larger in dollars just to stay even because they have to collect the FairTax money from us, so that they can pay it on everything they buy and all their salaries and benefits.

Of course its "all new". That's the point, to get rid of the mess we have now..

So, the FairTax doesn't fix anything.

Round you go, unable to give us a basis for your opposition to cleaning up the existing mess..

And I have given my exact things that I think need to be done to cleanup the present mess, which is not optimum.

The "present mess" is "not optimum" [the best].. -- Yet you want to make "incremental improvements in what we already have."
"This is already working and we should keep at it..."

88 posted on 09/23/2006 9:36:43 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Normally you nitpick 'Fairtax'. --- Now you want to nitpick about the word 'rational'; -- when the question remains unanswered. What is the basis for your opposition to cleaning up the income tax/SS withholding mess?
The question that remains unanswered is "what was said that wasn't rational."
89 posted on 09/23/2006 10:55:29 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

Comment #90 Removed by Moderator

To: tpaine
Irrational comment, in that you are only guessing that a prebate would be worse

It is not irrational. The FairTax would create an entirely new government entitlement program-- the prebate. It would immediately be larger than Social Security or Medicare, and it would require the FedGov to increase the amount of revenue collected as compared to today by a very large amount.

Of course its "all new".

I was talking about the prebate, but yes the entire FairTax plan is new (and unproven). To me that is not a point in it's favor because there are very many NEW plans that could be tried. That doesn't make them good, or efficient, or workable.

Round you go, unable to give us a basis for your opposition to cleaning up the existing mess.

You are the one talking in circles. I have given my thoughts on what should be done to cleanup the present system. Just because I don't think potentially blowing up the greatest eceonmic engine the world has ever seen is a great idea does not make me an enemy of tax reform...

You'll have to come up with a better argument than that, and you could start by showing how the FairTax flaws I commented on above are incorrect.

91 posted on 09/23/2006 11:01:39 AM PDT by RobFromGa (The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa; Your Nightmare
Fellas, -- I'll get back to you later on these issues.
Some duty calls, and besides I would like to keep this thread out of the backroom.
92 posted on 09/23/2006 11:22:33 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Concho

Most have no choice, as their taxes are taken from them before they get their checks.


93 posted on 09/23/2006 11:26:01 AM PDT by MistrX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa; groanup; StJacques; phil_will1
It's interesting to note that this poster continues to get by the Moderators with his continual use of vanity posts and links to them since, supposedly, those are not allowed on FR. Characterizing your spam as "rational" hardly makes it so.

Actually even in this post the points you make (which are presented with no rational basis and no definitive backup studies (except for your own "opinion forecasts" which certainly do not qualify as any sort of definitive study at all since you're not an economist). Almost every point in this point has been refuted or is a gross distortion of things in evidence.

All you have done is merely searched far and wide for negative things to throw out against the FairTax, hoping that some of them will stick in readers minds - despite the fact they are not based in truth (and many are only your own uninformed claims). Let's look at them:

WAGES: After almost a year of claiming otherwise at least you are now beginning to admit that full wages will be the norm under the FairTax. Since you now agree with the FairTax on his point it must be merely a holdover from long ago when you insisted the opposite. Might as well remove it and save space and bandwidth.

BUSINESS COSTS: When you claim an 8% reduction in prices it's hardly reasonable even using the items you (incorrectly) state as you mention ER fica at 7.65% -

"plus taxes on corporate profits (average <2% of Cost of Goods sold) and some tax compliance savings (being generous we'll call this 1% savings), "

It's noted that you conveniently use "corporate taxes" when it is actually business taxes that are involved and not merely corporate taxes. That means your 2% is artificially low along with your chosen compliance cost percentage. The intent here is not to name a specific price reduction, but to note that most of your "opponent colleagues" have stipulated to the 9% figure we use in comparative purchasing power examples (that you've refused to participate in). Other points later relate to this intentional understatement also. Many FairTax supporters believe the price reduction will likely be greater than the 9% figure, but that's not the issue. Your misstatements are.

PRICES: Imported beer will be taxed at the same rate as domestic when sold for consumption (23% ti - more than presently generated as tax revenue) and not before (and not when imported to the distributor) so that entire "analysis" is ephemeral at best. The rest of your "analysis" here is nothing less than patent nonsense since it is the COST of things to the taxpayer that is the important point as the PRICE they pay at the cash register includes the marginal FairTax rate while the actual COST to the taxpayer would be determined at the effective FairTax rate. Only a true demagogue would continually emphasize the marginal rate which a taxpayer will never pay; instead the money that comes out of his pocket over the year is the effective tax rate which for most taxpayers is MUCH less that the marginal rate you pretend and which a taxpayer can determine for himself by using the FairTax Effective Tax Rate Calculator. The calculator by design does not show negative effective tax rates but will stop at 0% and while some will have negative rates, most people will be shocked to see how low their effective rate will be after all the demagoguery on these threads about "everyone will pay 20% (or more) for everything" which can now be seen for the demagoguery it truly is.

GOVERNMENT EXPENSES: Your claims here also make no sense since government expenses merely are a shuffling of fund amounts from one pocket to another. Any "expenses" as such that the pay merely are returned to hem as tax revenue. Your entire paragraph is meaningless and is merely intended to misinform and frighten any who know no better. Oh, and while on he subject, "government salaries" aren't taxed at "30%" as you falsely claim. Correctly, the gross wages of non-educational government employees will be tax at 23% of the wages (less the effect of the 7.65% ER fica) so your pompous claims there are wrong, too.

ENTITLEMENT COSTS: An odd attempt to insert something here that is already done in the way of having a cost of living adjustment in Social Security as though it were somehow new to the FairTax. It isn't. That aside, actually there are NO entitlement costs since the prebate is not an entitlement at all but a rebate ... and it says so in the bill with the definition:

"... `Each qualified family shall be eligible to receive a sales tax rebate each month. The sales tax rebate shall be in an amount equal to the product of-- ..."

... so that your intentional use of the wrong descriptive word will not go unnoticed. Your use of inflammatory phrases such as "... when this 20%+ price rise slams through the economy ..." are also noted for what they are (nonsense) since they also are mere demagoguery.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING POWER PARITY: Actually your attempt to make everything inflated by "breathing heavily on it" as you do - since you've offered no concrete information but merely your own assessment that everything will rise in price by "20%" (or more, depending upon which paragraph one reads - as you're not consistent between them). Nor have you even shown hat there will be any inflation at all and groanup has clearly shown you several times there will be no such effect.

FAIR TAX RATE: Actually your unsupported claim that:

"... post-tax savings would be devalued by the FairTax inflation by 20% ..."

... is merely another of the many you've made in this post. The truth of the matter is just the opposite - purchasing power will rise. This has been shown by repeated comparative purchasing power examples by several FairTax supporters on these threads. It is as true for savings as it is for newly-earned funds since taxpayers will be paying at their effective FairTax rate and NOT the marginal rate (or more) as you pretend. And here, too, we see more of the unbridled, crass demagoguery when you make the further unsupported claims that:

"... a 36% sales tax (or much higher like 50%) will cause consumption to suffer and/or transactions driven into a barter system or the black market where they cannot be taxed ..."

... which merely sounds more like the pronouncements of William Gale of Brookings Institute when he tried to pin a "94% tax rate" on what he (and you) believe to be the FairTax donkey. Sorry, pal, that sort of nonsense from either of you won't fly.

Further along in your rant, we see the rhetorical question (thrown in for extra effect since you've seen it offered by other opponents):

"Isn't is likely that we will end up with an income tax again on top of the FairTax when this all plays out?"

... that's easily answered - NO!! And for several very good reasons not the least of which is the removal of the income tax (and others), the IRS (and its funds), the change of the Tax Code as well, and the destruction of the income tax records. In addition if there are sufficient votes to pass the FairTax (and there will be) there are certainly sufficient votes to prevent an income tax from being restarted from the ground up ... and keep in mind the repeal bills that are making their way through Congress (and which the FairTax bills call for). Once taxpayers realize the economic and administrative and logistic benefits of the FairTax it will be a practical impossibility to turn back to an income tax no matter how much you may like it (for whatever reason).

"And once people either stop buying, or buy used, or barter for services, or buy on the black market, or funnel purchases through their businesses for a tax exemption, it is very likely that the FairTax inclusive rate would be 33%-- which is an exclusive rate of 50%, making the problem worse."
Nice scare tactic but one that assumes nothing that has ever been shown in even he wildest study of the actual FairTax bill. Get real!

"... The FairTax plan makes the false ASSUMPTION that 23% inclusive will be enough ... "
That's no "assumption" at all (as opposed to your assumption that something else will happen) but rather the multiple results of a number of different economic studies - all saying that the 22% to 24% FairTax rate is revenue neutral. Nothing you claim alters that.

"FairTaxers generally agree that the FairTax will cause higher prices and FairTaxers think that these will be ok because the purchasing power is what matters. "

Both wrong and right. Wrong because there is no general agreement that prices will rise with the removal of he income tax. If anything, the more common opinion is that prices will decline with he removal of income tax and that even with the imposition of the FairTax MOST taxpayers will be better off economically by having greater purchasing power under the FairTax than they did under the income tax. Many comparative price examples between the two tax system have shown his on these threads and you - or your colleagues - have never been able to refute these examples. Your spurious claims about "price rises" are completely without basis as well.

"And that assumes no reduction in the base. If we assume just the very minimum that the base reduces 8% due to reduction in shelf prices-- ie. no reduction in unit volume of sales, just an 8% lower price for everything, then we need to divide the 27.1% by 0.92 to get a new inclusive rate of 29.5%, which is 41.8% exclusive. And this assumes ZERO evasion, and the same exact level of unit sales as now."

Sadly, that's complete gibberish as the tax base INCREASES under the FairTax and is about twice what it was with the income tax. If fact, there will be many more contributing to the tax rolls that do at present since under the FairTax those in the illegal economy (who now pay little or nothing in tax revenue) will pay the full FairTax when they purchase at retail. Your "mumbo jumbo arithmetic" is unworthy of anyone attempting honesty.

Nor can you assume anything but zero evasion under the FairTax since evasion is a taxpayer not paying the tax he should be paying and when an item is purchased at retail the very act of purchasing it and receiving the receipt is de facto and de jure compliance with the tax law. Theft of tax funds by a merchant who has agreed in writing to collect and forward he tax (and be paid to do so) is a series on one or more crimes but is certainly NOT evasion - perhaps theft of government would be a more correct word. Also, collusion between a potential taxpayer and a seller (which seller is still liable for the tax if not paid by the buyer) is another type of defalcation as well and will certainly be very infrequent since only one party gains while the other shoulders most of the risk of punishment - and why would he do that?

"... Most recently the FairTax commission found ..."

... funny that you mention the Tax Panel since their "findings" were not about the FairTax but about some alterations they assumed into a hypothetical Retail Sales Tax law with great differences from the FairTax. They did not at all review or comment on the FairTax but merely ignored it so your offering of the Panel's findings are no better than its efforts to bury the FairTax (since they were undoubtedly scared silly by the 75% or so volume of Comments supporting the FairTax that they freely received. Seems you're also "scared silly" by it also since you're obviously that way for some reason. Claiming the Panel did review the FairTax puts you into the category of Mr. Gale of Brookings which aligns you with the far left, "government should decide all" crowd and yet you've loudly cried how "conservative" you are many times and how you so admire Reagan" ... certainly those things are greatly at odds with each other.

"... I want to see elimination of corporate taxes, elimination of death taxes, additional reductions in the marginal income tax rates ..."

Actually it's good to hear that since the FairTax accomplishes all those things and even more in the way of economic benefit to our country. it eliminates all the hings just mentioned along with all he mechanisms, forms, tax code involved, etc. In fact it would even save the 300,000 trees wasted each year on tax forms, publications, etc. so the Green and Save-The-Forests folks should back the FairTax too, no doubt. In effect, too, every taxpayer (not just the oldsters or those enmeshing themselves in government-mandates tax free goody plans) will have their own tax-free savings and investment plan (and have more funds to take advantage thereof due to the increased purchasing power), so the privatization of S/S should actually be more easily done. I would also expect benefits in the M/C entitlement (and preferably its elimination) since market action rather than the present government interference would be more likely to reduce costs there.

94 posted on 09/23/2006 11:56:58 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
WAGES: After almost a year of claiming otherwise at least you are now beginning to admit that full wages will be the norm under the FairTax. Since you now agree with the FairTax on his point it must be merely a holdover from long ago when you insisted the opposite. Might as well remove it and save space and bandwidth.

Actually, I have a recent letter from John Linder in which he tells me that the opposite might be true, and government salaries might be actually cut to current take-home levels under the FairTax, depending on circumstances. And that private salaries might do the same.

Would that surprise you?

95 posted on 09/23/2006 12:06:32 PM PDT by RobFromGa (The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: pigdog

The bottom line is that if wages go up about 20-25%, prices will also go up about the same (and more for foreign items), and the FairTax rate would have to go up by whatever amount of measured consumption of final-sale personal-use taxable transactions disappears. And that people who have after-tax savings will see the value of those assets crash. Face it, it's not going to happen.

Even Boortz knows that all the FairTax Book hoopla and the rallies were just manufactured events. He was at the White House and didn't even mention his pet plan, even when he was there to discuss what's on the minds of talk radio listeners...


96 posted on 09/23/2006 12:11:39 PM PDT by RobFromGa (The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
It's interesting to note that this poster continues to get by the Moderators with his continual use of vanity posts and links to them since, supposedly, those are not allowed on FR.

You have a warped view of what the FR guidelines are apparently.

97 posted on 09/23/2006 12:12:52 PM PDT by RobFromGa (The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
"... The FairTax adds to this problem greatly by making government much larger through the addition of the huge welfare prebate, which would overnight be the largest entitlement program ..."
Not true. The Tax Panel statement is nonsense as has been shown several times when hey claimed incorrectly that the "cost" of the prebate was $600 billion. They arrived at that figure by artificially inflating the tax rate (and, remember it wasn'Teven he FairTax they were reviewing) FAR beyond the actual 23% rate which would have a corresponding amount of $429 billion rather than $600 billion and that is ignoring the $725 billion under the present tax system currently being spent on loopholes and tax exemptions. The $429 billion is amply covered by the 23% tax inclusive rate in any event and is not an added-on amount.

In addition, the prebate goes directly to the taxpayer not to expand the size of government as you claim. Indeed the FairTax fixes many of the ills that most people (aside from a small handful such as you and your cronies) know prevail in the present tax system.

98 posted on 09/23/2006 12:14:42 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Frohickey
What the United States needs is another Tea Party!!!

Taxation with Representation ain't so hot either.

99 posted on 09/23/2006 12:17:41 PM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pigdog

The FairTax is not under serious consideration by anyone, it has more holes than Sean Penn's rescue boat. And bailing won't help, it just needs to be scuttled. No one is fooled by the phony numbers any more...


100 posted on 09/23/2006 12:18:13 PM PDT by RobFromGa (The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-193 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson