When I get a moment, I will read Barnett's article regarding the "Original" meaning of what he perceives our Founding Fathers' interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Having said that, please don't try and incorporate Uniform Commercial Code and the general principles of Contract Law with the Constitution, and in particular the Commerce Clause. The two are not even remotely similar, and have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. My point is plain, concise and relatively simple. The Congress is taxed with formulating laws in this Nation, all of which (as the Supreme Court has ruled countless times) are governed by the two Clauses that I cited, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. The Supremes have gone so far as to interpret the Commerce Clause as allowing the Congress to regulate a zipper made in one State, assembled in another State as constituting "Commerce" and therefore falling under the Congress' dominion. The same applies to Title 21, the Drug laws in this Nation, which can be produced, packaged, grown, marketed and consumed in one State, bartered with locally obtained goods for trade, and yet still constitute "Interstate Commerce". Whether you opine that such laws are Unconstitutional makes no difference.....This is the Law of the Land, and deemed by those sitting in the robes as "Constitutional". On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:14 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is you FIRST effort* misuse *of AIS8C3 in THIS thread. > [Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and > among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; > > Is the Individual (Owner) contracting with the Individual > (Employee/Would-be Employee/Customer) a foreign Nation? > Is the Individual (Employee/Would-be Employee/Customer) contracting with > the Individual (Owner) a foreign Nation? > Is the Individual (Owner) contracting with the Individual > (Employee/Would-be Employee/Customer) a State? > Is the Individual (Employee/Would-be Employee/Customer) contracting with > the Individual (Owner) a State? > Is the Individual (Owner) contracting with the Individual > (Employee/Would-be Employee/Customer) an Indian Tribe? > Is the Individual (Employee/Would-be Employee/Customer) contracting with > the Individual (Owner) an Indian Tribe? > > As TJ correctly observes: > > *To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and > with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are > very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in > its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of > the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make > a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for > buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of > regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal > commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to > Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of > the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen > and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its > external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or > with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does > not propose the measure as a regulation of trade, but as "productive of > considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by > any other of the special enumerations."* In instances of use in what > became the united States, one finds only that "commerce among the states" > meant "transfer for a valuable consideration of ownership and possession of > a tangible commodity from a vendor in one state to a customer in another." > > The word "commerce" was almost never used in common parlance in the > colonies or newly independent states. A search of newspapers, speeches, and > letters of that time and place finds few instances of it. The word is > originally French, and we have this from Emmerich de Vattel, in his Law of > Nations(1758), Book I § 92: ... commerce consists in mutually buying and > selling all sorts of commodities. Vattel was well-known and often cited > by the Founders. > > As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary > production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not > include labor, services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include > manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of > anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial > effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to > the actual transfers of ownership and possession. > > You might peruse the research of Randy Barnett: *The Original Meaning of > the Commerce Clause* Randy E. Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center > http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=facpub > > > Additionally, you CONTINUE with this absurdity that the COURT is NOT > co-equal with the Executive and the Legislature AND that they are > *magically* empowered to AMEND the Constitution -- all whole cloth nonsense. > You have a strange theory/belief of the US Government -- apparently the > Executive and Legislature may do as they please unless and until the Court > decrees otherwise ... and even then it does not necessarily matter. > > It remains that there is no Constitutional basis for the unconstitutional > Title VII and CRA of 64 -- both of which violate Amendments IX, X and XIII. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "[Y]ou wonder why anyone would make the mistake of calling it the Commerce > Clause instead of the 'Hey, You-Can-Do-Whatever-You-Feel-Like Clause?'" -- > Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth > Circuit. > > > > > At 03:00 PM 3/2/2015, you wrote: > > And equally, I've pointed out where Article One, Section 8 Clause 3, and > Clause 18 allows for the Congress to pass laws necessary to effectively > administer this Nation, especially with regard to interstate commerce.  > > It would fall upon an Article III Court to declare such a law > unconstitutional; (which has happened on numerous occasions by the Court); >  and to date, this has not happened, despite numerous occasions where > individuals and entities have challenged the constitutionality of both > Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as other aspects of the > CRA of 1964. > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: There > you go again. As noted several times, according to the Constitution. > Regard$, --MJ > > "The point is that republican government is premised on the idea of > consent. The people consented to the interpretation of the Constitution > that was presented to them in the ratifying conventions. If in the interim > no formal change in the Constitution has been forthcoming from the people, > then the understanding that was presented at the ratifying conventions must > be presumed to stand. Otherwise, professors at Georgetown University could > impose their own preferences on the public instead." -- Tom Woods > > > At 12:56 PM 3/2/2015, you wrote: > > MJ wrote: > As I already noted, CRA of 64 is unconstitutional. The Congress had ZERO > authority regarding their whole cloth invention "public accommodation". > Additionally, > it violates Amendments IX, X and XIII. > > According to who? You?  > That would make it, "Your Opinion". > > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:15 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: As was > obvious, I am well aware of the meanings of FOREGOING & VESTED. Projection? > Really? There is no FOREGOING power from which to derive a necessary and > proper law NOR is one otherwise VESTED in regards to Title VII or CRA 64. The > failure on the part of those claiming such a power exists to identify it > speaks volumes. Furthermore, Title VII and CRA of 64 violate Amendments > IX, X and XIII. Perhaps an example will aid you: A bill is offered to > purchase boats for the Navy. One READILY notes that there is no Power to > 'buy boats for the Navy'. One does note AIS8C18 allowing for "Laws which > shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing > Powers" AIS8C13 provides a Power To 'provide and maintain a Navy'. Certainly > it is necessary and proper to 'buy boats' in order to execute THAT power. I > merely ASKED for the power related to THIS effort. All sorts of > irrelevance was spewed, of course, but NO POWER was provided. Not only > does your redefining of constitutional put the Constitution on its head as > there is no possible LIMITATION had, but it allows the Judiciary to simply > WISH anything contested away. The difficulty you worshippers are having > is explained here: "As Justice William Brennan, the closest thing to a > 20th-century Marshall, would say, with five votes, a justice can do > anything. This "Rule of Five" was not enunciated in those terms before > Brennan, but it might as well have been. Republicanism – rulle via elected > officials; federalism – the division of powers between the state and > federal governments; and limited government have been the perennial victims > of judicial misconstruction of the Constitution. The case names and > subjects under dispute have changed, but the tendency has been the same: a > persistent power grab by the federal government, in the persons of federal > judges. Over time, the arrogation has been increasingly bald-faced. "Suppose > that a federal judge opposed this tendency of "constitutional law" to > distort the constitutional system; might he not counteract it? The form of > legal education in American law schools today makes that exceedingly > unlikely. "Since the beginning of the 20th century, legal education has > been dominated by the "case method" of instruction, which substitutes > reading of judicial opinions for historical study. Thus, "Constitutional > Law" classes feature a heaping helping of the opinions of John Marshall, > William Brennan, and their ilk, and no consideration at all of the debates > in the ratification conventions in which Federalists authoritatively told > the American people how the Constitution would work. Only the > mischaracterizations, in other words, and not the truth. "Lawyers-in-training > are never told that Marshall’s opinions s came out exactly, precisely, > completely, perfectly opposite where he and his fellow Virginia > Ratification Convention Federalists explicitly and vociferously said they > would, or that William Brennanâ€â„„¢s account of the Fourteenth > Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause has ns no relationship to that > provision’s intended meaning. Even "originginalist" judges, then, are > unlikely to be very originalist." > > As I noted, the CONSTITUTION -- not the Constitutional Law substitution -- > does not provide for Title VII NOR the CRA of 64. > Regard$, --MJ > "You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all > Constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which > would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as > honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same > passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. ... Their > power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not > responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The > Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever > hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would > become despots. -- Thomas Jefferson > > > > > > At 10:20 PM 3/1/2015, you wrote: > > Not only must the court have standing but the person or entity that brings > the case must as well. And Michael, I also have degrees in the law. Keiths > interpretation is not only correct in the US but in the 30 or so nations I > have practiced as well as in the World Court. The definition of "foregoing" > is simple.... it means Congress has the power to make laws that enable the > government in anything and everything mentioned prior in the Constitution > that is not explicitly denied to Congress. It is not Rocket Science. The > problem comes into it when idiots try to redefine words or the words that > are in a definition to meet their personal agenda.  > On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:18:33 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: Luck? > I don't need luck....I spent three years at Stetson College of Law, as well > as an additional four years at the University of Tampa studying Political > Science; plus an additional fifteen years practicing these skills; all > aiding me in my quest to fathom and understand how and why our > Constitutional system works. The bottom line? Whether you deem > something "Unconstitutional" has no bearing unless a Court with standing in > the United States mandates it as such. On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 1:14 PM, MJ > <[email protected]> wrote: That is a good start ... Note it says > "foregoing" and "vested". [AIS8C18 is another LIMITATION] NOW you need to > find that power that would be the BASIS. Good Luck! Regard$, --MJ "The > point is that republican government is premised on the idea of consent. The > people consented to the interpretation of the Constitution that was > presented to them in the ratifying conventions. If in the interim no formal > change in the Constitution has been forthcoming from the people, then the > understanding that was presented at the ratifying conventions must be > presumed to stand. Otherwise, professors at Georgetown University could > impose their own preferences on the public instead." -- Tom Woods > > > > At 01:07 PM 3/1/2015, you wrote: > > Here ya go Michael: The Congress shall have the power: To make all laws > which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the > foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the > government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section1 On Sun, Mar > 1, 2015 at 11:20 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: Opinion? Really? Here > is the Constitution: http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt > > Can you locate the BASIS for this legislation? [Hint: it simply is NOT > there] Are you content with worshipping *whatever* an ever-changing > majority of Justices decree? If one actually READS the Constitution, one > discovers that it is GOVERNMENT that is prohibited from "discrimination". > Additionally, > Amendment XIII SPECIFICAALLY prohibits "involuntary servitude". > Regard$, > --MJ "Has anyone noticed that Gruber's approach to selling Obamacare has > been liberals' approach to the Constitution since the Revolution of 1937? > "We'll just say that it means what we want it to mean, whatever the issue > and despite over 100 years of its meaning the opposite, every single time, > because average Americans are too dumb to know we're lying." The only thing > unusual about Gruber is that he was perfectly candid about having lied; in > law schools, this is called "constitutional theory." "This reminds me of > one of my mentors at UVA, the leading historian of 19th-century American > politics (now retired). "Kevin," he once said to me, "there's one theme > that runs through American political history: although I don't always think > much of their opponents, I hate the Democrats."" -- Kevin Gutzman > > At 10:35 AM 3/1/2015, you wrote: > > Title VII is unconstitutional, "In Your Opinion"......Obviously the > Supremes and the Twelve Circuit Courts around the United States don't feel > that way. On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 2:45 PM, MJ < > [email protected]> wrote: > > The entire thing is nonsense. Title VII is unconstitutional. The CRA of > 64 is unconstitutional. Regard$, --MJ "The bottom line is that the true > test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he > allows people to associate in ways he approves. The true test of that > commitment comes when he allows people to be free to voluntarily associate > in ways he deems despicable. Forced association is not freedom of > association." -- Walter Williams > > At 11:02 AM 2/28/2015, you wrote: > > According to the 10th Circuit, (as Travis's article points out) > ÃÆ’‚¬â„¢â€š > > "Title VII requires that employers have explicit, verbal notice of a job > applicantÃÆ’‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’‚¢Ã’’¢‚¬™s > s s religious neus needs that may conflict with company > policy.ÂÃÆ‚ šÃ‚ ; Such > direct notice is required, ted, the appeals court decided, so that the > employer has ÃÆâ€â‚¬™ÃƒÆ’‚¢€œpar€œparticularized, d, > actual l knowledgeÃeÚÂڢ€ that > hat the applicant follows a specific faith practice and will need an > accommodation for it.ÃÆ’â€â„¢â€šÃƒÆ’Æ’‚  šÃ‚ > Becaucause Elauf did not provvide that in her crucial job interview, the > appeals court ruled, there was no Title VII violation in the refusal to > hire her." In other words, if XYZ Temps knew that John's religious > convictions would be in conflict with its workplace dress code, then then > XYZ Temps had no obligation to hire John. ÃÆ ’‚ > > br> > http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/02/argument-preview-faith-and-a-workplace-dress-code/ > On > Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:28 AM, plainolamerican < [email protected]> > wrote: Jon, a clerical worker who is an observant Jew, wears tzitzit > (ritual knotted garment fringes at the four corners of his shirt) and a > yarmulke (or skull cap) in conformance with his Jewish beliefs. XYZ Temps > places Jon in a long-term assignment with one of its client companies. The > client asks XYZ to notify Jon that he must remove his yarmulke and his > tzitzit while working at the front desk, or assign another person to Jon's > position. According to the client, Jon's religious attire presents the > "wrong image" and also violates its dress code prohibiting any headgear and > requiring "appropriate business attire." XYZ Temps may not comply with this > client request without violating Title VII. The client also would > violate Title VII if it changed Jon's duties to keep him out of public > view, or if it required him not to wear his yarmulke or his tzitzit when > interacting with customers. Assigning Jon to a position out of public view > is segregation in violation of Title VII. Moreover, because notions about > customer preference (real or perceived) do not establish undue hardship, > the client must make an exception to its dress code to let Jon wear his > religious garb during front desk duty as a religious accommodation. XYZ > should strongly advise its client that the EEO laws require allowing Jon to > wear this religious garb at work and that, if the client does not withdraw > its request, XYZ will place Jon in another assignment at the same rate of > pay and decline to assign another worker to the client.[9] 1. What is the > federal law relating to religious dress and grooming in the workplace? Title > VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. > ÃÆ’‚¬â„¢â€šÃƒÆ’Æ’‚§ ‚§ 2000e, , et seq., > as amended ("Title VII"),prohibits employers with at least 15 employees > (including private sector, state, and local government employers), as well > as employment agencies, unions, and federal government agencies, from > discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or > national origin. It also prohibits retaliation against persons who complain > of discrimination or participate in an EEO investigation. With respect to > religion, Title VII prohibits among other things: disparate treatment > based on religion in recruitment, hiring, promotion, benefits, training, > job duties, termination, or any other aspect of employment (except that > "religious organizations" as defined under Title VII are permitted to > prefer members of their own religion in deciding whom to employ); denial > of reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious practices, unless > the accommodation would cause an undue hardship for the employer; workplace > or job segregation based on religion; workplace harassment based on > religion; retaliation for requesting an accommodation (whether or not > granted), for filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC, for testifying, > assisting, or participating in any manner in an EEOC investigation or EEO > proceeding, or for opposing discrimination. There may be state or local > laws in your jurisdiction that have protections that are parallel to or > broader than those in Title VII. 2. Does Title VII apply to all aspects > of religious practice or belief? Yes. Title VII protects all aspects of > religious observance, practice, and belief, and defines religion very > broadly to include not only traditional, organized religions such as > Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, but also > religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or > sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or may seem illogical > or unreasonable to others. Religious practices may be based on theistic > beliefs or non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right or > wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious > views. Religious observances or practices include, for example, attending > worship services, praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying > religious objects, adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or > other forms of religious expression, or refraining from certain activities. > Moreover, an employee's belief or practice can be "religious" under Title > VII even if it is not followed by others in the same religious sect, > denomination, or congregation, or even if the employee is unaffiliated with > a formal religious organization.[1] The law's protections also extend to > those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they > profess no religious beliefs. For example, an employer that is not a > religious organization (as legally defined under Title VII) cannot make > employees wear religious garb or articles (such as a cross) if they object > on grounds of non-belief. Because this definition is so broad, whether or > not a practice or belief is religious typically is not disputed in Title > VII religious discrimination cases. 3. Does the law apply to dress or > grooming practices that are religious for an applicant or employee, even if > other people engage in the same practice for non-religious reasons? Yes. > Title VII applies to any practice that is motivated by a religious belief, > even if other people may engage in the same practice for secular > reasons.[2] However, if a dress or grooming practice is a personal > preference, for example, where it is worn for fashion rather than for > religious reasons, it does not come under Title VII's religion protections. 4. > What if an employer questions whether the applicant's or employee's > asserted religious practice is sincerely held? Title VII's accommodation > requirement only applies to religious beliefs that are "sincerely held." > However, just because an individual's religious practices may deviate from > commonly-followed tenets of the religion, the employer should not > automatically assume that his or her religious observance is not sincere. > Moreover, an individual's religious beliefs - or degree of adherence - may > change over time, yet may nevertheless be sincerely held. Therefore, like > the "religious" nature of a belief or practice, the "sincerity" of an > employee's stated religious belief is usually not in dispute in religious > discrimination cases. However, if an employer has a legitimate reason for > questioning the sincerity or even the religious nature of a particular > belief or practice for which accommodation has been requested, it may ask > an applicant or employee for information reasonably needed to evaluate the > request. On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 8:02:09 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote: While > they are at it, I hope the Supreme Court will make decisions regarding > dress codes for work, school and home......after all they don't have > important issues to deal with! ÃÆ’‚¬â„¢ÃƒÂ¢€š In a message > dated 2/26/2015 5:36:56 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] > <http://??> writes: > > > BareNakedIslam posted: "Supremacist Muslim women, encouraged by > designated terrorist group CAIR, have been engaging in a sneaky scheme to > go on job interviews without wearing a bag on their head, only to start > wearing it at work AFTER they have been hired. If the company fires t" > > > *New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Can you believe the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether employers > have the right to fire Muslim women who decide to defy the > companyÃÆ’‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’‚¢Ã’’¢‚¬™s > ¢s s dress ress code after beingÃÆ’â¬â„¢â€š hired? > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/>* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by BareNakedIslam <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?author=1> Supremacist > Muslim women, encouraged by designated terrorist group CAIR, have been > engaging in a sneaky scheme to go on job interviews without wearing a bag > on their head, only to start wearing it at work AFTER they have been hired. > If the company fires them, they take the company to court. A business has > the […] > > Read more of this post > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/> > BareNakedIslam <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?author=1> | February 25, > 2015 at 4:38 pm | Categories: EnemyWithin-America > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?taxonomy=category&term=enemywithin-america> > | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-1cf4 > > Comment > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/#respond> > ÃÆâ€â„¬â„¢‚ ÃÆâ€â¢â‚¬â‚¬™‚ ÃÆâ†> ’â€Ã¢€™ÃƒÂ¢‚¬â„¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢‚¬š ââ¢â‚¬š ¡ See all comments > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/#comments> > Unsubscribe > <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=eaced905935c28c895fe4e47a2730614&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com&b=LLV%26%5Bh1%263RKK8ZmsWEM%25L%26i.nOxKfqimvY%5DVB%2BceJCVX42TPCkU> > to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM. Change your email > settings at Manage Subscriptions > <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=eaced905935c28c895fe4e47a2730614&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com>. > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/ > -- > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For > options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > ÃÆ’‚¬â„¢ÃƒÂ¢€š > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > <http://www.politicalforum.com/> * It's active and moderated. Register > and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You > received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving > emails from it, send an email to [email protected] > <http://??>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For > options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > ÃÆ’â™â€š > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's > active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest > breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are > subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe > from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to > [email protected]. For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Thanks for being part of > "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see > http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * Visit our > other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and > moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking > news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed > to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this > group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to > [email protected]. For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Thanks for being part of > "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see > http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's > active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest > breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are > subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe > from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to > [email protected]. For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Thanks for being part of > "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see > http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * Visit our other > community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. > Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and > more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and > stop receiving emails from it, send an email to > [email protected]. For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Thanks for being part of > "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see > http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * Visit our other > community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. > Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop > receiving emails from it, send an email to > [email protected]. For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For > options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's > active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest > breaking news, and more. > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop > receiving emails from it, send an email to > [email protected]. For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For > options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * > Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active > and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking > news, and more. > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop > receiving emails from it, send an email to > [email protected]. For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For > options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * > Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active > and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking > news, and more. > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop > receiving emails from it, send an email to > [email protected]. For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
