We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Point 1. "When, in the course of human events,..."

      As opposed to inhuman events? Non-human events?

Point 2. "...it becomes necessary..."

      Necessary? Really?

      "Necessary" means "not optional," "no choice," "no alternatives."

      If you don't eat, you'll die. Eating is necessary, but what can you eat? Chicken, carrots, broccoli, apples and oranges, eggs, cheese and wine, bread and butter, tomato soup, snails? If you don't want to die, eating is necessary, but do you have to eat snails? Is that really necessary when you've got so many other things you can eat? Of course not. Eating is necessary, but what you eat depends on your personal preference.

      The same can be said of political activism. What you do depends on your personal preference. In fact, you could prefer to do nothing at all. Political activism isn't necessary. You don't starve to death of political apathy.

      Now, imagine you live in the American colonies in 1776. The so-called king of England and his cronies have been making a royal mess of the economy for their own benefit for years now. You and a significant number of your neighbors are dissatisfied with the situation. What do you do? What can you do?

      You could leave the colonies and go back to England. You could move into the wilderness. You could move to the Spanish or French colonies. Or you could move to some other part of the world.

      If you stay, what could you do besides declaring your independence? You could continue petitioning the king for change. That hasn't helped you so far, but it's one option. You could sit around and do nothing. That's obviously not going to accomplish much politically, but it's an option. I imagine most of the king's cronies were appointed, not elected, so voting them out of office and electing new representatives to pass good laws and rescind bad ones probably wasn't an option. You could, however, petition them directly, ask them not to enforce the king's unjust laws. You could seek an appointment yourself. Alternatively, you could engage in some civil disobedience, or dump some tea into Boston Harbor. You could engage in a combination of these options. The point is, you have alternatives. None of these particular options is really necessary, including declaring your independence.

      What you do depends on personal preference. If you declare your independence, you do so because you want to, not because it has "become necessary."

      Ok, so it wasn't really necessary. What's the big deal?

      "Language creates spooks that get into our heads and hypnotize us."

-- Robert Anton Wilson, Introduction to The Tree of Lies (by Christopher S. Hyatt. Ph.D.)

      Imagine you're one of these founding fathers and what you really want most is to declare your independence from England and take control of the economy yourself. But what's to stop the people you intend to govern from declaring independence from you? What's to stop the people from taking control of their own economic lives and refusing to recognize your laws and your president just as you refuse to recognize the king and his laws?

      "If there was nothing wrong with you guys declaring independence from the king," says the common man, "then there can't be anything wrong with us declaring independence from you.

      "Oh, I totally agree," you say, "some day it may become necessary again to declare our independence from domestic tyrants, but there are more important matters to consider today, and we have options they didn't have back then, other ways to safeguard our freedoms. It hasn't become necessary yet."

      It hadn't become necessary then. It hasn't become necessary now. It never has to "become necessary" ever. You're free to declare your independence whenever you want to, but if you get this "it-has-to-become-necessary" spook in your head, no matter how bad things get, someone suggests an alternative to making that declaration now and, poof! It hasn't become necessary yet. Things get a little worse. The other options become a little less desirable. But when will it ever become necessary to declare your independence from domestic tyrants?

      It never will, but it never has to. You can declare your independence whenever you feel like it.

Point 3. "...for one people..."

      The whole meaning of independence is lost if an individual is not free to act independently.

      "If [it] was a sound principle in favor of three millions of men, it was an equally sound one in favor of three men, or of one man. If the principle was a sound one on behalf of men living on a separate continent, it was an equally sound one on behalf of a man living on a separate farm, or in a separate house." -- Lysander Spooner, No Treason No. I. 1867.

      When it becomes desirable for me, when it becomes desirable for us, when it becomes desirable for YOU,... That is to say, when you feel like it, when you want to, when you choose to...

      We can shorten what we have so far from...

      "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary desirable for one people me ..."

      to

      "When I choose..."

Point 4. "When I choose to dissolve the political bands which have connected them [me] with another,..."

      Bands? These aren't "bands," they're "chains." If they were "bands," we'd be free to dissolve them unilaterally whenever we wanted to without someone coming after us with guns.

      These aren't political "bands" they're talking about, they're political "chains." And political chains ought to be dissolved as soon as they manifest themselves as such.

      We can leave all this entire phrase out.

Point 5. "When I choose and to assume, among the powers of the earth,..."

      What are these "powers of the earth"? Geothermal? Tectonic? Gravitational? Meteorological? Electromagnetic?

      Or were the founders using "powers or the earth" in the same sense that we use "powers that be" today? The world was full of kings and emperors that they wanted to be independent from and equal to. The question is whether they wanted every individual living within the American colonies to be equally sovereign, or did they want to set themselves up as the leaders of the colonies and control the economy themselves?

      Some of them probably wanted the former while others wanted the latter. It doesn't matter. We can leave all of this out except for "to assume..."

Point 6. "When I choose to assume, the separate and equal station..."

      Change "the" to "a," leaving us so far with this...

"When I choose to assume, a separate and equal station..."

Point 7. "...to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitles them,..."

      I'll spend more time talking about the "Laws of Nature" in a moment. It doesn't add anything meaningful to the first paragraph so we can leave the entire phrase out.

Point 8. "...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind..."

      As opposed to an indecent respect?

      Why should I respect the opinions of people who think it's alright to take my belongings from me without my consent, to imprison me because of the lifestyle I wish to lead, or to injure or even kill me if I resist their unjust attempts to control me?

      This entire phrase can be left out as well.

Point 9. "...requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

      Requires?

      This is another "spook" to hypnotize us.

      Imagine you wake up in the morning and discover that you've been elected dictator of the world, or at least dictator of your little part of the world. You get to make all the laws and everybody within your domain has to follow them. You're going to have people breaking the laws, so you hire a police force, but individual law-breakers aren't a serious threat to your power. What you really have to worry about are the people who threaten to topple your regime. What do you do about them?

      First, you have to identify them. What's the best way to do that?

      Here's a neat trick. Convince everyone that before they mount a rebellion that could topple your regime, they're required to give you a heads up, declare their independence openly.

      Sure, you might want to make a declaration and share it with those who you think you could persuade to join you, but an open declaration could potentially do more harm than good. Like Sergeant York's gobbling to make the Germans poke their heads up from behind their cover, the open declaration could make you an easy target. (and if you haven't seen the movie, check it out. It's a classic.)

      In any case, what is it that you're really required to do if and when you choose to assume your rightful station of equality with every other human being on the planet? Answer: Nothing beyond simply making that choice.

      So, summing up the first paragraph...

"When I choose to assume a separate and equal station, I am free to do so."

Points 10, 11 and 12. "We hold these truths to be self evident..."

      Point 10. We?

      The Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by hostile Indians. The Lone Ranger turns to Tonto and says, "It looks like we're about to die." Tonto turns to the Lone Ranger raising his bow and says, "What you mean 'we,' Kemo Sabe?"

      My point is, be careful when you use collectives. To whom does this "we" actually refer? Did we elect a new president? Who was it that actually voted? I didn't. Who actually voted for this particular president? I sure as hell didn't. Did we drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Who actually piloted the plane? Who actually pushed the buttons to release the bombs? Who actually gave the orders to drop the bombs? Did we support slavery? Did we fight a civil war? Are we Christians? What principles and doctrines do we believe? Who's "we"?

      Point 11. "Truths"? I don't know. Some things must be true, but philosophers have been debating "truth" for millennia with little agreement. In the interest of avoiding that debate, let's just accept them as "principles" instead of "truths."

      Point 12. Are they really "self-evident"?

      If I were to say, "gravity makes things fall down," you couldn't reasonably argue with it, right? Gravity is a pretty self-evident concept. If you were holding something in your hand a second ago and you felt it slip from your fingers, you'd look... up or down? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. There are a few things in this world that are pretty self-evident, the fundamental principles of "Natural Law" ain't one of 'em.

      Try this experiment. Go up to anyone, hold a ball in your hand, palm facing left or right, and ask, "if I let go of this ball, which way is it going to fall, up or down?" Unless you're name is David Blaine, most people will either say, "down," or they'll just look at you strangely, shake their heads and walk away. Nobody is going to say, "up," except maybe as a joke.

      Once the person answers, let go of the ball and, sure enough, it falls down.

      Then, ask them one more question. "Is equal freedom a fundamental principle of 'Natural Law'?"

      What kind of responses do you think you're going to get? Agreement? Disagreement? "I don't know"? Requests for clarification? Blank stares?

      The fundamental principles of "Natural Law" may be easy to understand once they're explained clearly, and it's even possible that if you explain them clearly, you'll get almost universal agreement, but they certainly aren't "self-evident."

      So, to rephrase the beginning of this second paragraph...

"I hold these principles to be fundamental..."

Point 13. "...that all men..."

      And women and children too...

Point 14. "...are created equal,..."

      Creation is a religious concept and not relevant to the issue of independence.

      Are all human beings equal? Of course not. We have different bodies and minds. We have different strengths and weaknesses. We have different likes and dislikes. We grew up in different families. We went to different schools. We worked in different jobs. We each spent our time and money differently. Of course we are not equal.

      Nevertheless, equality is central to the issue of independence. Not physical, emotional, intellectual or even economic equality, but equality in terms of freedom, equality under the law, and by that I mean under the "Law of Nature," (which we haven't really defined yet,) equality in terms of justice, equality in terms of rights. In short, moral equality.

"...that all every men human being are ought to be created equal equally free in terms of conscience and subsequent conduct,..."

Point 15. "...that they are endowed by their creator..."

      Again, we can leave out the notion of "creation" and other related religious doctrines. They aren't really relevant to the issue of independence.

Point 16. "...with certian unalienable rights,..."

      Alienable or inalienable, a right is a right. We can leave the term "unalienable" out.

      What is a "right"? This is where we get into the essence of the issue. What is "Natural Law"? And is it really natural?

      Imagine you're watching a game of chess and you don't know anything about the rules. You're just trying to figure out what the rules are by watching the game. After a while, you get the idea that the bishop moves diagonally, the rook moves straight up and down, the queen can move both diagonally and up and down, and so on. Once you're confident that you've seen every possible move that can be made, you can describe all the rules of the game and call them "laws" if you want. That's how we come up with the laws of nature. We observe and describe.

      When it comes to the laws regarding animal behavior, the law that best describes what animals actually do is "the law of the jungle." The lion chases down, kills and eats the antelope. By doing so, it doesn't violate the antelope's "right to life." The lion must kill and eat to survive. The antelope must run and escape to survive. The law of nature is survival. It's an amoral law. What the lion does and what the antelope does is neither right nor wrong. It simply is what it is, force, threat and deception. That's nature.

      To be fair, we also observe a lot of voluntary interaction, but it's almost always on the backdrop of force, threat and deception. Wolves in a pack cooperate in apparent voluntary association, but they do so in order to hunt, kill and eat other animals. What matters in nature is greater strength, greater agility, greater numbers, a more convincing threat, a more clever deception. If it works, it works. And whatever works best, works best. That's the law.

      The law of nature IN nature is simply whatever works.

      Human society is different. This is because human beings think in terms of "right" and "wrong." Human beings are moral animals, and human society is moral. This is somewhat confusing because to say human society is moral doesn't necessarily mean it's moral as in good. Evil is also a moral concept, and human society can also be moral as in evil. If you say human society ought to be moral, what you mean to say is that human society ought to be moral-good, not moral-evil. But whether it's moral-good or moral-evil, human society is moral. So, whether we're talking about the amoral jungle or moral society, we're talking about something that is, not something that ought to be.

      Morality is a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct. When the lion chases down, kills and eats the antelope, it's neither right nor wrong. When one human being kills another, it's either right or wrong, depending on whether the killer initiated the confrontation or retaliated in self-defense. That's what makes moral society different from nature. That is the basis of the so-called "Natural Law."

      I say "so-called" because the term is confusing. "Natural Law" is not really a law we observe in nature, it describes behavior in human society, moral society. A better term would have been "The Law of Human Society," or even better, "The Law of Moral Society," but the term "Natural Law" or "Law of Nature" was coined centuries ago and we seem to be stuck with it.

      In human society, in moral society, the definition of "right" and "wrong" depends partly on individual conscience and partly on whether the conduct in question is an initiation or retaliation of control in the form of force, threat or fraud. What we're really talking about is control.

      For example, whether it is "right" or "wrong" for you to smoke a cigarette depends on your own individual sense of "right" and "wrong," your individual conscience. But to say that you have "a right" to smoke a cigarette means that you do not initiate "a wrong" against any other individual when you smoke it. According to "Natural Law," "The Law of Moral Society," to initiate control over another individual, whether by force, threat or fraud, is "a wrong." To prevent you from smoking a cigarette or punish you for having smoked one is "a wrong."

      "...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"

      To say that you have a right to life means that it is right for you to control whether you live or die, and wrong for anyone else to initiate control over you, meaning it is wrong for anyone else to initiate force, threat or fraud either to take your life or prevent you from taking your own life. According to "Natural Law," "The Law of Moral Society," it is wrong to initiate this kind of control and right, depending on individual conscience, to retaliate against it.

      To say that you have a right to liberty means that it is right for you to control your own behavior, and wrong for anyone else to initiate control over you, meaning it is wrong for anyone else to initiate force, threat or fraud either to compel you to behave a certain way or to prevent you from behaving the way you choose. It is wrong to initiate control and right, depending on individual conscience, to retaliate against it.

      You have a right to liberty so long as you do not initiate control over any other individual.

      To say that you have a right to the pursuit of happines is to say nothing more than what has been said about your right to liberty, which includes both the right to pursue happiness as well as the right to pursue unhappiness, so long as your pursuit does not initiate control over any other individual.

      The conception of wrong, according to "Natural Law," according to "The Law of Moral Society," is any conduct by which one individual initiates control over another to deprive him or her of freedom of conscience and subsequent conduct.

      According to the "Law of Nature," in moral society, no one can ever rightfully be enslaved, and that includes every form of control that one individual exercises over another, be it in the name of a government or acting independently.

      So, while it's important to understand the notion of "Natural Law" and "rights," all that really needs to be said has already been summed up under point 14 above...

      "I hold these principles to be fundamental, that every human being ought to be equally free in terms of conscience and subsequent conduct,..."

Point 17. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men,..."

      What, what, WHAT?!!!

      Oh, first of all, we're not talking about "rights" anymore, we're talking about equal freedom, so we can begin this part with...

      "That to secure these rights equal freedom, Governments are instituted among men?!!!

      What, what, WHAT?!!!

      Governments are instituted "among men" to control things and people. Period.

      That's what "government" means, "to govern," "to control."

      When you wake up in the morning. You think about opening your eyes. Electric impulses travel from your brain to the muscles of your eyelids. You open your eyes.

      That's government! That's all it is.

      If you're like me, one of the first things you think about when you open your eyes in the morning is getting to the bathroom. Billions of minute electrical impulses originating in your brain travel through your nervous system to the various muscles of your body, you roll out of bed and stumble to the bathroom.

      You control your body. You govern your "self." That's what "government" means. Of course, you don't institute "a government" to control your body, you just do it, but all other forms of "government" are derived from this first principle of government, "self-government," your thoughts governing your body.

      In the strictest sense of the term, an anarchist ("without" + "ruler") wouldn't even get this far. An anarchist, in the strictest sense of the term, would be anyone who doesn't think, anyone in a coma, anyone sleeping, anyone with no head or brain.

      Autarchists ("self" + "ruler") have at least their own feet to stand on, but their self-rule falls apart as soon as they try to brush their teeth.

      Back to the bathroom, you look in the mirror and think about brushing your teeth. Billions of minute electric impulses travel from your brain to... the toothbrush? Telekinesis?

      An autarchist ruling only his or her "self" wouldn't be able to control that toothbrush because it's not part of the "self." In order to brush your teeth, you first have to control your own body, and then with your body you have to pick up and control that toothbrush. In fact, to do anything, other than walk around for a while until you starve and die of exposure to the elements, you have to use your body to control all sorts of things beyond your "self." You have to gather and eat food, hunt animals, make clothing, build shelters, and so on.

      This is why the notion of property is so important. Without controlling at least some things beyond your "self," you die. If you do have a "right to life," then you must remain free to control both your body and at least some things beyond it, your things, things that belong to you, your belongings, your "personal private property."

      You can control these things individually or you can "institute government" to more easily control them. That is to say, you can combine with others organizing yourselves to systematically gather food, hunt animals, make clothing, build shelters and roads, etc., etc. That's why people "institute government," to systematically control things and people, to facilitate controlling things and people.

      Governments can be instituted "among men" to secure "rights," that is, to secure equal freedom. People can combine with others organizing themselves to systematically ensure that people don't deprive others of their freedom of conscience and subsequent conduct. But that's only one thing that governments can be instituted "among men" to do. Governments can also be instituted "among men" to build boats, cars, homes, roads, Tonka toys. We just don't refer to these "instituted governments" as "the government." We call them "private companies" or "private enterprises."

      There's "good government" and "bad government."

      Governments can also be instituted "among men" to deprive people of their "rights," their equal freedom. People can combine with others organizing themselves to systematically initiate control over other people and their belongings. Typically, we call these sorts of institutions "mafias," "gangs," or "criminal organizations," but they are nevertheless forms of government instituted "among men."

      Coincidently, the term "government," as it is commonly understood, refers to exactly this type of institution. The fact that we use the term "the government" instead of "the criminal organization" to refer to this monstrosity is evidence that a "spook" has gotten into our heads and hypnotized us, blinding us to reality.

      Governments are instituted "among men" to facilitate the control. The grocery store is a government instituted by the store owner and his employees to facilitate the distribution of food for profit. The mafia is a government instituted by the mafia don and his cronies to facilitate the wrongful control of other people and their property.

      But getting back to the Declaration of Independence, how can we facilitate the securing of equal "rights" and equal freedom?

      The important thing to remember is that it's wrong to initiate control over the persons and property of others, and it's not necessarily wrong to retaliate against those who would initiate control over the persons and property of others. To say you have a right to defend yourself against an aggressor doesn't necessarily mean that it's right for you to do so. If you choose, you may remain passive. It depends on your personal individual sense of conscience. To say that you have a right do defend yourself against an aggressor means merely that it's not wrong if you choose to fight back.

      The term "retaliate" is derived from the Indo-European root *tele- meaning "weight, scale, balance." Retaliate means to return things to a state of balance, a state of equality. It is the initiation of control that throws the balance off creating a state of inequality between aggressor and victim. Depending on individual conscience, a person may retaliate against an aggressor individually or he or she may combine with others to institute a private retaliatory organizations to prevent would-be criminals from violating individual rights, or punish them and compel them to make restitution for the crimes they commit.

      To secure equal freedom, people may institute private retaliatory institutions to facilitate the work of preventing aggressors from initiating violence, of imprisoning people who have proven themselves dangerous to others, and of compelling criminals to make restitution to their victims.

      In fact, having competing private retaliatory organizations is an excellent way to set up checks and balances, to prevent any one of these organizations from becoming too big, too corrupt and initiating control over others instead of functioning in a purely retaliatory manner. Allowing one organization to have a monopoly will almost certainly guarantee that, in time, it will initiate force, threat of force and fraud against otherwise peaceful individuals. Many such monopolistic organizations (modern governments and law enforcement agencies) are so corrupt that they make admitted mafias seem benevolent by comparison.

      "That to secure these rights freedoms people may institute Governments private retaliatory organizations..."

Point 18. "...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--"

      Consent of the governed occurs only when individuals govern themselves and their own property. Whenever any individual initiates control over the person or property of another, he or she does so without the individual's consent, because if the individual consented he or she would simply be combining with others to control his or her own property.

      "The above named document [The Declaration of Independence] declares that 'governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.' It therefore follows that, when any individual is governed by a government without his or her consent, that the government is exercising unjust powers."

-- Benjamin Tucker, "Anarchism and Consent," Liberty, December 9, 1882 (II:5, #31), p. 2. (emphasis added)

      There are criminals out there who associate for the purpose of initiating force, threat of force or fraud against other human beings. They certainly do govern others, but they do so unjustly. They don't derive any power from the consent of their victims.

      A private retaliatory organization could be instituted for the purpose of imposing retaliatory control over criminals, punishing them for their crimes, imprisoning them if they are a danger to others and compelling them to make reparation to their victims. This is JUST power, but the thought that people derive just power from criminals is ridiculous.

      Just power is derived from your natural "right to retaliate," to defend yourself against the initiation of control, or your natural "right to redress wrongs and compel reparation from wrongdoers." Nothing is derived from consent except cooperation.

      I would delete this part entirely.

Point 19. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,..."

      If one of many private retaliatory organizations becomes corrupt and begins to commit crimes, you could go to one or several competing retaliatory organizations to abolish it. But what happens when you give one retaliatory organization a monopoly on force? Where do you go to find competing retaliatory organizations to abolish it?

      Once that retaliatory organization becomes a corrupt mafia initiating crimes against the people, why would you want to simply alter it? And does it sound like a good idea to try to abolish it? It would probably be easier to abolish an admittedly criminal organization than to abolish any prevailing government.

      So, we we can't alter or abolish the criminal organization that has become "the government," what can we do?

      Grassroots competition and withdrawal of support where that's possible would seem to be the answer.

      Study and embrace the principle of equal freedom, the non-aggression principle. Apply those principles in all your dealings with others. Don't appeal to the mafia to resolve your disputes, stay out of the courts whenever possible. Combine with others and organize yourselves systematically to facilitate the administration of justice through private retaliatory organizations.

      Stop supporting corrupt politicians. Stop lobbying the mafia. Start shaming those who continue to support it. They ought to be ashamed. Get a camcorder and expose their crimes. If you work in "law enforcement," quit your job and find some honest work in the free market.

      Stop supporting the mafia financially. This step is probably the most difficult.

      "All political power, so called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a 'government'; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with government, as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. So these villains, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money.
      "For this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a 'government' (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against him, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will. 2. That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the future. 3. That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take a man's money without his consent, for any such object as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for why should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so? To suppose that they would do so, is just as absurd as it would be to suppose that they would take his money without his consent, for the purpose of buying food or clothing for him, when he did not want it. 4. If a man wants 'protection,' he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to 'protect' him against his will. 5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury. 6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support."

-- Lysander Spooner, No Treason VI, The Constitution of No Authority, 1870.

Point 20. "...and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      "...and to institute new Government private retaliatory organizations, laying its their foundations on such principles the principle of equal freedom and organizing its their powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness, or abiding by that fundamental principle, remain separate, equal and free.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

© 1996 [email protected]