Posts Tagged ‘slavery

19
Jan
10

When Your Government Ignores You

There is an underlying presumption that if you are an American, you are free. Or, at least that is what we used to believe in, say to everyone, and go to war over. However, are we really free? What makes one free and one enslaved? Could freedom simply be American propaganda?

I wrote previously in I Can Prove That You Are a Slave in America that I think that we are enslaved while Josh S. argued that we were being theived from. I believe we are both right (maybe agree with Josh a little more now than before). Even if either case is true – we live here and are enslaved to the State by taxes or we live here and have to endure being stolen from every paycheck via taxes – I cannot truly say that I am free. Can you? In either of these cases we are forced to either not work (live in poverty) or work and give up money.

What or who gives our government the right to enslave or steal from its people? This surely wasn’t how America was envisioned to be when America was made was it? Wasn’t it the pilgrims that came here because they sought a more free life – free of government telling them what religion to practice, free from government telling them to give money to the king, free from the government quartering the army in their homes, free from the government tossing them in jail without due process, and free from being taxed without representation (among other things they tried to be free from).

So what then are we supposed to do in 2010 when we realize that we are not free? Sure, we have Representatives in the House of Representatives, but they not only don’t represent us… they don’t even listen to us. For the last two years I have written my Representatives (and Senators) and the most response I’ve received is a canned letter. More recently with my problems with a government agency, my Representative ignores me. So now the government agency ignores me and so does all three of my Congressmen.

So what is it that a “free” citizen to do when they realize that they are not free and ignored by their government? I assure you, a government that does not listen to it’s people is a government that is on the road that leads to absolute tyranny – and this is where I am afraid we are squarely heading.

This raises another point – where is everyone else? Where are my fellow countrymen? Why do I never hear anyone getting upset? Why do I feel like I am one of the few people who actually tries to communicate with my government (whether they listen or not is a different story)? I have been in numerous conversations with people over the ever increasing government encroachment in our lives and I never even get the time of day. People, in general, don’t care. It is obvious to me that the complacency of my neighbors is not only what allowed government to not care, it is what allows our government to continue to become more and more tyrannical.

When is it that you, my neighbor, says enough is enough? When is it when you say that your government can’t take 20% of your paycheck and give it to someone else or some company that failed to operate correctly? When is it that you stand up and say that it is your right to defend yourself by any means (gun rights)?

I know that I am personally tired of being beat down by my government and being ignored. I am tired of them calling me a fraud and then me asking what I’ve done to be a fraud and they only reiterate that I am a fraud (how is that for being constructive, fair, and logical?). I am tired of trying to read law that nearly makes no sense. How can I be a law abiding citizen if the law is written in such a convoluted way that only the loopholed politicians know what it truly means? Shouldn’t the law say what it means and mean what it says? YES!

What am I supposed to do when I am being hassled and have no way to get answers? Me vs government… and the government has the guns.

28
Oct
09

I Can Prove That You Are a Slave in America

When someone mentions “slavery” we immediately think of black people being forced to work for free. If they do not work for us for free then we beat them with fists, whips, or threaten death. Sure the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, but I contend that slavery still continues today and with even greater fervency than it did in the past.

The 13th Amendment reads:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Definitions:
Slavery:

Peonage:
18 USC 1581: (a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)
Forced Labor:
18 USC 1589: Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person— (1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person; (2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or (3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)

Involuntary Servitude:

18 USC 1584: Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)

So what the 13th Amendment outlaws is you forcing people to work for free for repayment of a debt. You cannot hold someone captive by phyiscal force, threats of physical force, or legal coercion to be bound into compulsory service against ones will. In Bailey v. Alabama 219 U.S. 219 (1911) it was decided by the Supreme Court that one could not be forced to refund money (link).

Later on in 1988 in the Supreme Court case of United States v. Kozminski it was decided that you could not place someone in [psychological] fear of involuntarily servitude. The Court held that, “[a] holding in involuntary servitude occurs when an individual coerces another into his service by improper or wrongful conduct that is intended to cause, and does cause, the other person to believe that he or she has no alternative but to perform labor.”

With this said, what does that make of the taxation scheme of America?

We are told that we must pay taxes. The good old saying of “Two things in life are certain, death and taxes” is familiar to many Americans. But, why are taxes so certain? If the 13th Amendment does not allow us to be forced into physical labor and the courts have ruled that you also cannot be forced to believe that you have no option of working against your will, then why is it that you are working against your will?

If you don’t think that you are enslaved, then try to tell the IRS or the government that you are not going to pay taxes anymore. They are going to threaten you with penalties, fees, court, levying on your paycheck, coming and taking your property, and lastly… putting you in prison. Back in the “slave days” if a salve said they were not going to work for free, they were beat. Today, if you say that you are not going to work for free, the IRS threatens and sends the dogs after you. Same thing but different methods of accomplishing the same thing – salvery.

In United States v. Warren, 772 F.2d 827, 833-834 (CA11 1985) the court specifically said, “Various forms of coercion may constitute a holding in involuntary servitude. The use, or threatened use, of physical force to create a climate of fear is the most grotesque example of such coercion.” (link)

Ask any American, do you fear the IRS and they will probably say “yes” or they will say “no, because I do everything they say.” I plea now to you, how is this not a “climate of fear”? Either you pay the government out of fear or you do whatever they say out of fear (i.e. highway robbery).

It is important to note at this point that I am not against taxation itself. But, I am against forced taxation. If you tell me that I must pay taxes on every dollar I earn, then how is that not slavery? Would it be any different if the government told you that you can keep 100% of whatever you make at Job A and then you have to come to Job B (government factory or something) and work for free? I contend, no. Just because the government does not force you to work in a certain location, them demanding a percentage of your earnings is still them forcing you to work for free – is it not? If you do not understand what the difference is between forced taxation (direct) and voluntary taxation (indirect), I suggest you read up on each and decide what type of taxation the Federal/State Income Tax really is. (Crash course: Direct taxation is a tax that you cannot avoid and essentially says, you are a human so pay it. Indirect taxation is a tax that you can avoid, such as a tax on liquor which you can circumvent by distilling your own, buying from someplace that does not have tax [Indian Resevervation maybe?], or simply by not buying liquor.).

If you disagree with me, then I’d be happy to entertain your thoughts. I’ve yet to find anyone that can rebutt my case above. Even if you feel that paying taxes is your duty then that still does not answer my question of whether or not taxation as it is now is slavery or not. The issue is, does the government force you to give them a cut of your labor pay otherwise they threaten you?

Furthermore, if you agree with me then why are you continuing to be a slave – either by choice or by your silence. Is this what you want of your children, friends, and neighbors – to be enslaved in fear? Is it somehow OK for your government to enslave you instead of an individual? As I started out, slavery can no longer be considered just for black people – it is for everyone. You are living it now and have been for some time…

22
Jul
09

Forced Health Coverage

Excellent! Mandated (read: forced) health coverage, whether or not you want it or need it!

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s dream of dramatically remaking the nation’s health-care system is still a long way from reality. But if lawmakers can reach an accord, one thing is virtually certain: For the first time ever, every American would be required to carry health insurance.

The requirement, known as an individual mandate, is among the most far-reaching changes envisioned this year by those pushing for health-care reform. And it is one of the few common threads running through all three bills being considered in Congress, greatly increasing the likelihood it will survive the legislative process. Obama continued Tuesday to push lawmakers struggling with the large costs and scope of health legislation to move forward, pronouncing reform to be “closer than ever.”

Just as drivers must purchase auto insurance, the medical system of the future would put responsibility for health coverage first and foremost on every adult.

For the vast majority of Americans who have health insurance, the change would mean little more than submitting a form with their tax returns proving that the plan they carry meets certain minimum standards. Many of the nation’s 47 million uninsured people, however, would be required to purchase a health policy or face financial penalties, though waivers or discounts would be provided for lower-income Americans.

The concept is modeled after a requirement instituted in Massachusetts three years ago as part of that state’s broad health-care overhaul. And like the Massachusetts law, the individual mandate proposed by congressional Democrats would be paired with a much more controversial new requirement that nearly every employer contribute to the total cost of care.

‘More affordable for everyone’
“Without an individual mandate, you’re never going to get to universal coverage,” said Bradley Herring, a health economist at Johns Hopkins University.

Bringing everyone into the insurance pool — particularly young, healthy customers — spreads the risk and lowers overall costs. “That will make it more affordable for everyone,” Herring said.

Some proponents of a European-style, nationalized single-payer approach say an individual mandate places an unfair financial burden on lower-income consumers. Some conservative analysts argue that such a requirement forces individuals into an overpriced, underperforming health system.

Yet in a nation that prides itself on having freedom of choice, it is striking that such a wide and diverse coalition has formed around the individual mandate. Labor unions, economists, the medical industry, big business, some prominent Republicans and Obama all support the requirement, which has its roots in the conservative philosophy of self-reliance.

In the debate over Massachusetts’s measure, then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican with presidential aspirations, touted the approach as a “personal responsibility system.”

Ferocious lobbying
Hospitals, insurers and drug manufacturers — salivating at the prospect of up to 50 million newly insured customers — have lobbied ferociously for the federal provision.

Obama, after sparring last year with his Democratic presidential primary opponents over the concept, is a convert, as long as there are “hardship exemptions” for those least able to pay.

“I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was, the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they will come,” he said in a recent interview with CBS. “I’ve been persuaded that there are enough young, uninsured people who are cheap to cover, but are opting out. To make sure that those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down.”

Nearly one-third of the uninsured in the United States in 2007 were between the ages of 19 and 29, and 42 percent were between 30 and 54, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. A fair number of young, healthy workers choose not to purchase insurance, believing they do not need it.

Advocates of universal coverage want to lure that group into the insurance pool because they tend to use fewer medical services and help keep premiums down. If only the sick buy coverage, premiums will be high. And visits to emergency rooms by uninsured patients increase premiums for the insured — by $1,000 per person per year, according to some estimates.

The Massachusetts experience with an individual mandate has provided a model, as well as some unexpected results.

“Massachusetts changed everything in the policy community and the political arena,” said Karen Ignagni, president of the industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans.

The penalty for Massachusetts residents who do not carry health insurance was $220 in late 2007 and rose to about $1,020 this year. Still, relatively few residents have balked at the idea — and an additional 432,000 people have signed up for health coverage.

Today, less than 3 percent of Bay State residents lack health insurance, compared with about 16 percent nationwide.

Out of the 3.9 million people who filed taxes in Massachusetts in 2008, 86,000 paid the penalty, and 71,000 were exempted because they did not meet the minimum income levels.

One of the great surprises is how many more people — an additional 148,000 — have enrolled in plans offered through the workplace, most likely nudged by the individual mandate.

“It’s worked out better than I would have guessed,” said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who serves on the board of the Massachusetts program. “We didn’t anticipate the increase in employer-sponsored insurance.”

Last year, the average price nationwide for health insurance purchased through an employer was $12,680 for a family plan and $4,700 for an individual, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

In Congress, lawmakers are weighing slightly different proposals. A bill being debated in the House this week would charge individuals a penalty of 2.5 percent of income above $9,000, up to the price of the average premium sold nationwide. The fines would begin in 2013.

A bill passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week would set the penalty at $750 per person. Individuals earning less than 150 percent of the poverty level, or about $16,245, would be exempt.

Negotiations are continuing in the Senate Finance Committee, where Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has argued for months that an individual mandate is central to achieving Obama’s goal of near-universal coverage and cost controls.

Stuart Butler, a vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation, agrees that bringing everyone — especially young, healthy patients — into the risk pool would be advantageous.

But he advocates beginning with a voluntary “opt out” approach similar to automatic enrollment programs for retirement accounts. If policies are reasonably priced, he expects that few will turn down the coverage.

The challenge, said Butler and experts in Massachusetts, is designing a basic benefits package that is affordable. Writing a law that requires individuals to purchase something they cannot afford is “inhumane,” Herring said.

When Massachusetts approved its individual mandate, proponents of the new law braced for a modern-day Tea Party. It never materialized.

“I don’t see people revolting over having to have a driver’s license or insurance to drive a car,” Gruber said. “And we haven’t seen it with the mandate.” (link)

Important or interesting parts bolded by me. So this is what I get out of this whole idea. Regardless of who you are, regardless of what care you need, regardless of what you choose to do… you are going to have to enroll. What the article does not tell you is that there are plenty of people that are enrolled and that don’t use their coverage – like me. I am covered by a nice plan and go to the doctor probably once every five years. Hell, I don’t even take medicine – OTC or perscription – unless I am near my deathbed. I do not use my medical coverage and never really will. It is my individual and personal choice to not participate in the system – partly because I prefer eastern/homeopathic medicine over western medicine and also because I have faith in my body to naturally recover from whatever ailment.

Quite frankly, I am not sure why I have not opted out of my coverage and pocketed the money.

So, why should I be forced into remaining in a plan? The answer they give is that people like me will help lower the cost for everyone. I doubt it. Like I alluded to above, I doubt that I am the only one that has coverage and does not use it. Yet, the coverage remains the same. The real answer is that the government wants to play games with us. They want to control what we can and cannot do. What a better way to control us than to control our health? As the article says above, they will require some sort of minimum coverage. So what does that mean? They will take care of you if you have the flu, but not if you need emergency surgery to remove your appendix? Or maybe that cancer that just popped up, well, that isn’t included in the minimum… but hey, thanks for paying anyways, schmuck.

History has shown and continues to show that the only way to drive prices down and quality up is to do it through competition. You read it right – free-markets. I’m not talking about this molested “free-market” we have now either, I am talking about free free-markets. When people are directly exposed to the prices of a product or service, they are directly responsible for the demand (and indirectly, the supply).  This balance is what gives us progression of products and service, not the enforcement of government to participate.

Furthermore, multiple studies have been shown that there is a large amount of people that are uninsured, can afford it, they just don’t want to enroll. If you don’t understand what I just said, then go watch the videos on my old posts, “Who is uninsured in America?” and “Gillespie Plan: If you want health insurance, get some.”

Wake up America.

27
Mar
09

HR 1444: HR 1388’s friend in Slavery

They are breaking this mandatory stuff out into it’s own bill!

Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds. (here)

MANDATORY!

26
Mar
09

HR1388 Senate Vote: Mandatory slavery pushes on

HR1388 – the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act or the GIVE Act – still is pushing on.

More goodness in this bill…

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS. (link)
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities;
(1) Attempting to influcence legislation
(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing
(4) Impairing existing contracts or services or collective bargaining agreements.
(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office
(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.
(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.
(8) Providing a direct benefit to —
(A) a business organized for profit;
(B) a labor organization;
(C) a partisan political organization;
(D) a nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 except that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and
(E) an organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7) unless Corporation assistance is not used to support those religious activities.
(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.
(10) Such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit.

Does everyone see this crap? I mean, really. So if you get swept under this umbrella and get tossed in the Corps or “volunteer group” or whatever, you no longer have the right to

(1) Attempting to influcence legislation – No more writing your Representative… because that is influcencing legislation.
(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes – Can’t sign any petitions. Can’t join any sort of rally or anything! In general, you cannot show any sort of grievance you have with the government because you can’t write them (above) and you can’t do anything with your signature or your body.
(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing – So does this mean that you can’t cross the pickett line to go to work? Or does this mean that if the union comes to your work, you have to join it. Because if you don’t join it, then you are against them.
(4) Impairing existing contracts or services or collective bargaining agreements – Not even sure what this means exactly. It sounds like if any contract is given out then you can never challenge it in any form.
(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office – So… you can’t volunteer in any campaign. No VOLUNTARY work for a candidate that you believe in. Hell, are they going to nail your ass for having a sticker on your car?
(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials – Again, you can vote, and that’s it. I bet you could even get in trouble for encouraging your friends to vote for a candidate.
(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization – So you can’t be any sort of religious leader? Or you can’t ask a group of people to say the Pledge of Allegiance? Can’t work for any sort of volunteer place where they help less fortunate by handing out goods but happen to start their work by a prayer?
(8) Providing a direct benefit to — (A) a business organized for profit; (B) a labor organization; (C) a partisan political organization; (D) a nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 except that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and (E) an organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7) unless Corporation assistance is not used to support those religious activities. – What? So you can voluntarily donate money or something to non-profit groups? Is that what this is saying? This crap is getting weirder and weirder…
(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive – Does this include ACORN?  And can I no longer go our and canvas my neighbors to try to get them to vote or what?
(10) Such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit – Like WHAT? Whatever such action that whoever doesn’t like me or my positions or my beliefs deems to be… whatever, I can be deemed to be in violation of the law?!

Am I the only one out there that realizes that this is horrible stuff? In general, this piece seems to be made so that a very wide array of people fall under this mandatory slavery plan… for various reasons, and then when you are in, you can’t be political anymore. You can just vote, and that’s it. Just listen to the mainstream media and their spin and rhetoric and vote for whoever they like best.

Can someone please remove the [R] from Senator Olympia Snowe’s name? I’m getting really tired of her caucusing with the Democrats on everything.

I could be totally wrong about this section applying to individuals, and if so, please let me know.

20
Mar
09

Mandatory Volunteerism = Free Slave: HR 1388

Interesting. I thought that America was the “Land of the Free,” but it appears that I was wrong. On 18 March 2009 the House of Representatives voted on HR 1388 – the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act or the GIVE Act with a vote of 321 to 105. (See how your representatives voted here).

Now let me make one thing clear. I am all for people volunteering their time to the community. I have long said that if everyone quit being so selfish that we would be better off. It is our neighbors that make life good, not the government. Even in my life, I can remember having neighbors who looked out for my siblings and me. And that is the way it should be;  the government should not look after people. But, I digress. I like volunteer work, but mandatory volunteer work. Um, no….

With this new bill it is possible that any able bodied person will have to volunteer their time to some sort of service of which the government will determine. This is interesting because as I remember it, we have the Thirteenth Amendment, which reads:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What part of “involuntary servitude” does not make sense here fellas? Hell, they even have a “Senior Corps” built into this plan for people over 55!

Let’s also look at amendment 12 to this bill, which reads:

Amendment to prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing. Proposed: Mar 18, 2009. Accepted: Mar 18, 2009.

Hello? First Amendment? Please notice that this Amendment was ACCEPTED!

Moving on Section 1710 reads:

STUDY TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A CENTRALIZED ELECTRONIC CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION SYSTEM.
(a) Study- The Corporation for National and Community Service shall conduct a study to determine the effectiveness of a centralized electronic citizenship verification system which would allow the Corporation to share employment eligibility information with the Department of Education in order to reduce administrative burden and lower costs for member programs. This study shall identify–

A WHAT? A centralized electronic citizenship verification system? Is this the National ID? Or the RFID chip? Or what? C’mon now…

Scaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyy….. On the bright side, thank you to Congressman Flake for voting Nay on this monstrosity!




Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories