http://www.infowars.com/amazon-staff-government-ordered-us-not-to-sell-confederate-flag/
Amazon.com staff are telling irate customers that the company was ordered by the federal government not to sell items featuring the Confederate flag in the aftermath of the Charleston shooting.
Amazon made the announcement this week, along with eBay, Sears and Walmart, that it would no longer sell products bearing the rebel flag, but according to a conversation posted on YouTube between a customer and an Amazon sales rep, the decision could have been made as a result of pressure from the government.
At first the Amazon staffer claims that the items were banned because they were deemed to be offensive, but when pressed by the customer, the sales rep tells a different story.
“Is this a political statement by Amazon.com or is this a directive that you’re following, that the government said you know we want you guys not to sell these anymore?” asks the caller.
“The government is not allowing us to sell this Confederate flag,” responds the staffer.
“So the government is not allowing you….to sell it?” asks the caller, to which the sales rep responds, “yes.”
“So Amazon is not making a political statement, this is something the government told you to do?” questions the caller.
“Exactly,” responds the staffer.
In addition, when customers queried Amazon’s decision to stop selling Confederate items via the company’s official website, they were told by another Amazon representative that the items were no longer available as a result of “federal law” and that Amazon was “instructed to remove all Confederate flags from sale.”
This of course makes the entire story far more sinister. As a private company, it is Amazon’s right to sell what it likes, no matter what people feel about the decision, but if the federal government has ordered the retailer not to sell Confederate flags (while Nazi memorabilia is still freely available), this clearly represents an egregious act of censorship that has no basis in law.
Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-j-reid-jr/confederate-ideology-and_b_7649488.html
But we should go deeper than asking for symbolic change, as important as that is. I’d like in particular to call attention to a troubling development found mostly in deep red, Republican states, and that is the unholy marriage between Confederate ideology and the Second Amendment.
The bond that unites Confederate ideology and the Second Amendment is the idea of “nullification.” This is the belief that the states are the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not constitutional and that the states are thus always free to ignore federal law. States and not the courts, on this warped view of the Constitution, judge what is or is not constitutional.
This ideology has a long and deep and ignoble history. We might begin with John Taylor of Caroline (1753-1824), whom Garry Wills called “the principal theorist of nullification.” He was a lawyer and a planter who sought to insulate his home state of Virginia from what he feared as early as the 1790s to be the growing, threatening powers of the national government.
The best way to defend Virginia, Taylor proposed, was to ensure that the states were the final word on what the Constitution meant. States, he argued, always retained the right, if not the responsibility, to disobey the federal government where they believed the federal government overstepped constitutional limits. Taylor meant by this doctrine to strengthen and make secure the system of slavery, from which he personally profited, since Virginia and the other Southern states would always be free to declare null and void any federal law infringing on slave-holders’ “rights.”
In the 1820s and 1830s, this proposal was worked into a full-blown constitutional theory by John C. Calhoun (1782-1850). Calhoun opposed the federal tariff that was then threatening the profitability of South Carolina’s plantation-based way of life. Fearing the implicit threat to the slave-based economy, Calhoun insisted that South Carolina might declare the tariff unconstitutional.
South Carolina tried to do just that in 1832, but backed off this ledge when confronted with federal military intervention. South Carolina climbed back onto that ledge in 1860/1861 when it — and other Southern states — seceded from the Union.
These states acted as they did because they believed that the states might judge the federal government and withdraw from the Union as a last resort. Nullification, in other words, was a prominent feature of the constitutional theory that justified the Confederacy. It was a doctrine finally repudiated by the Civil War and by the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
What does this history have to do with the Second Amendment? Simply this: Nullification, a concept that should have died a century and a half ago, has been resurrected from the tomb by gun-rights extremists and is triumphing in legislature after legislature in America’s deep-red states.
Consider Kansas. Kansas under the leadership of Governor Sam Brownback, is well-known for its extremist politics. Brownback’s fiscal policies have wrecked the Kansas economy, Kansas education, and much else. Brownback has sought steady reductions in the state income tax, substituting for it “the highest tax on food in the nation.” And what does Kansas have to show for its regressive fiscal policy? While most regions of the United States are enjoying economic recovery, Kansas is not. In May, 2015, a report showed that Kansas lost “nearly 4,000 jobs … trailing the national trend.”
That is bad enough, a tragedy for the Kansans who are suffering under Brownback’s misrule. But just as bad is the gun legislation he has signed. In 2013, the state legislature enacted the “Second Amendment Protection Act.” By its terms, the legislation ostensibly prohibits the federal government from enforcing federal gun control laws on Kansas soil with respect to certain classes of weapons.
Alright, you might say, Brownback is an unrepentant extremist. But, unfortunately, Kansas is not an outlier. In recent years, other red states have followed a similar path. Bruce Otter is the 70-something governor of Idaho. He has spent a lifetime in Idaho politics, he is a staunchly conservative Republican in tune with his constituents, but he has never caused anyone to question whether he is tethered to reality. He is not typically prone to conspiracy theories or the other fever dreams that haunt the far right.
But even Bruce Otter has recently felt politically compelled to sign nullification legislation declaring that the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to enforce gun-control legislation within Idaho’s borders. And, really, he had little choice. The Idaho nullification statute passed the legislature unanimously.
For sure, in any constitutional showdown, neither Kansas, nor Idaho, nor the other red states that have embarked on this fool’s errand will prevail. The federal government has the authority to ensure that the laws it enacts are duly enforced in all 50 states.
The neo-nullificationist movement, however, represents a dangerous trend. Grassroots conservatism is no longer part and parcel of mainstream American life. For there is nothing about nullificationist ideology that represents American values. It is the failed constitutional theory of a treasonous movement — Southern secession. Its modern-day resuscitation can only be seen as a kind of existential alienation on the right.
I am grateful to see Nikki Haley and Mitt Romney and other Republican leaders finally take a stand on the Confederate flag. It is an unambiguous symbol of hate and sedition and needs to be retired to a museum where its true place in American history might be explained.
But Republicans must go beyond the flag debate to confront the simmering ideological stew on the far right. The idea of nullification in its own way is equally odious. It is a failed constitutional theory that should likewise be banished to a museum of legal antiquities. It has no place in modern-day America. It is frightening that such an idea has captured the imagination of so many Republican legislators. It is an idea that the national GOP leadership should repudiate, and soon. Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and the rest of the candidates, we’re talking to you.
I am refusing to vote in the next election if the elitist Republican jerks force Jeb Bush on us as the Republican General Election candidate. I for one have had it up to here (Imagine) with these dictators and Ivy League losers. What a waste of education funds, training up Globalist phony FREE TRADERS who sell America out at every turn. They need to hear us loud and clear - NO BUSH - NO WAY. Dumb @$$ Democrats will vote for Hillary Clinton no matter what. If she went Lizzy Borden on new born babies - These Morally Bankrupt Democrats would still vote for her… Republicans better wake up! On Jeb Bush - Call, write letters to the editor of your newspapers… Tell them you will NOT SHOW UP if Bush is their man in 2016
.
Posted in Christianity, Clintons, Communism, Constitution, eDUCATION, Government, Hillary Clinton, Phony Right-wing
Tagged communism, constitution, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Obama, TPP, trade agreements
WALLACE: How do we stop the violence?
ROVE: I wish I had an easy answer for that, but I don’t think there’s an easy answer
We saw an act of evil. Racist, bigoted evil, and to me the amazing thing is that it was met with grief and love. Think about how far we’ve come since 1963. The whole weight of the government throughout the South was to impede finding and holding and bringing to justice the men who perpetrated the [Birmingham] bombing.
And here, we saw an entire state, an entire community, an entire nation come together, grieving as one and united in the belief that this was an evil act, so we’ve come a long way.
Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen.
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged constitution, political correctness, Politics, Second Amendment
By Reverend David Whitney
June 14, 2026
NewsWithViews.com
While I was in California a little over a month ago I became aware that the well publicized drought there is largely man-made. Not that there isn’t a lower than average rainfall, but the truth is there is plenty of water. The real problem is the governmental policies which will not allow the people to have access to that water. Instead, the Governor of California is simply going to dump billions of gallons each year into the Pacific Ocean.
Video of the Sermon:
“On Wednesday April 1, 2015, Gov. Jerry Brown declared via ‘executive order’ that mandatory water restrictions would be imposed upon all California residents, farms, businesses, cities, and towns reducing water usage by 25%. Notice what’s missing in Gov. Brown’s solution? What’s missing is the most common and well-proven way to store winter rainwater (much of which is not required to maintain fish and wildlife, and just runs into the sea) for mankind: construction of new dams!
But what some people don’t realize is that Gov. Brown is in a real jam; how can he possibly talk about the best single solution (more dams) for creating more available water (and jobs, by the way) when he is currently supporting the removal of several perfectly good dams in Siskiyou County? And adding insult to injury, California taxpayers will foot the bill for this insane dam removal project, costing approximately one billion ($1,000,000,000.00) dollars, which could be used to build more water storage dams instead.
These particular dams hold approximately 135,000 acre-feet of fresh water; that’s nearly 44 billion gallons of fresh water that” will simply run into the Ocean “at a time when California desperately needs more water, not less! These dams also produce about 150 megawatts of clean-green electrical power for Californians… California needs more dams (and the water they can provide), not fewer.”[1]
So the Governor of California wants to dump 44 billion gallons of water into the ocean, not allowing farmers to water crops, citizens to drink or use that water for any of the other myriad of uses water can be put to, all the while demanding everyone reduce their consumption by 25%! Talking with the citizens while I was there, they informed me of another scheme pending – to tax them on the water they pump out of their own wells on their own property. The government then claims it owns all the water and will restrict, control and tax everyone who uses its resource all the while proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is not a steward of water but biggest and most inconsiderate waster of water.
What the situation in California poignantly illustrates is that the environmental agenda is an anti-human agenda. This raises the question, as disciples of Jesus Christ how should we think about Stewardship of the Earth? What actions should we engage in as God’s caretakers of this world?
Surveying the scene it is apparent that this green agenda has been very effective in getting its anti-human message across. For example, you can do your own survey of millennials by asking them if they agree with the attitude towards children called “one and done” philosophy. One and done claims that having more than one child is an ultimate act of selfishness, and act which consumes more of the world’s limited resources than it is proper for any family to do. It is amazing to me that so many people have bought into this lie. In effect what we see in America is China’s one child policy voluntarily self enforced by the next generation.
In China they had to enforce that policy at gunpoint, but American’s have been so successfully indoctrinated they voluntarily self-enforce the agenda for world depopulation. These are but two illustrations of the power and effect the green agenda has on every aspect of life. What most people, including most Christians are not doing, is thinking critically, that is thinking Biblically about that green agenda. We have been swayed by the incessant propaganda to accept an anti-human philosophy.
Today I would like to encourage “thinking critically,” that is thinking Biblically about that agenda as we continue in our series of building a Biblical Worldview. I would like to approach the subject by asking three questions, Are humans the problem or the solution? Is wilderness the ideal which God designed, and are children a curse or a blessing?
Turn to Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Now ask yourself, are humans the problem or the solution?
Learn more about your Constitution with Pastor David Whitney and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.
© 2015 Rev. David Whitney - All Rights Reserved
Footnotes:
All Scripture is from the KJV unless otherwise noted.
1. The Inconvenient Truth About The California Drought.
By: Larry Greenley for the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY
Help stop TPA by asking your congressman to vote NO on TAA.
After Friday’s votes in the House, you’re probably confused about the status of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). The confusion arises from the fact that a TPA bill was passed by the House on Friday by 219-211. Since the Senate had passed TPA on May 22, this would ordinarily mean that the next stop for TPA would be President Obama’s desk where he would sign it into law.
However, when the Senate passed TPA on May 22, it was part of a package that included Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) legislation. TAA provides job-training assistance to workers who have lost their jobs due to trade agreements. House leadership decided to separate the TPA and TAA portions of the Senate trade package and have standalone votes on them last Friday. Since the Senate had passed both TPA and TAA as a package, the House would have to pass both TPA and TAA to avoid having to open negotiations with the Senate, coming up with compromise legislation, and then voting again in both House and Senate on TPA and TAA legislation.
Before the House voted on TAA last Friday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi gave a speech on the House floor in which she asked her fellow Democrats to vote NO on TAA in order “to slow down” the “fast track” TPA legislation and give Democrats the opportunity to amend it. When it came time for the TAA vote, 143 Democrats joined her to defeat the bill overwhelmingly, 126-302. This meant that TPA would be temporarily derailed. Click here to see the details of that vote.
How confusing! However, one thing is clear. The House is expected to hold another vote on TAA on Tuesday, June 16, or if not on that day certainly sometime soon. If the House passes TAA, then they will have matched the Senate in passing a TPA/TAA package and that would mean the next stop would be President Obama’s desk where he would readily sign the TPA and TAA legislation into law.
Our job is to convince enough of our representatives in the House to vote against TAA this coming week to derail the TPA/TAA package temporarily. If we succeed, then we’ll have some additional time to convince a sufficient number of our fellow Americans to pressure Congress to stop TPA permanantly.
Due to last Friday’s vote on TPA in the House where it passed by 219-211, you can click here to see where your representative stood on TPA as of that vote. If you click to see the details of the vote, don’t be confused by the description of it. This was the TPA vote on Friday. This information will help you to understand how your representative might vote on TAA this coming week, knowing that a vote for TAA will be a vote for the TPA/TAA package.
Please phone your representative’s Washington, D.C., office and local office on Monday, June 15, and tell them (click here for phone numbers):
Please also email your representative now with the same message.
Next, spread the message of this alert to as many others as possible by posting the link for this article on social media, emailing the link to others, etc.
| Seven Reasons to Vote No on TPA
For the last several years, the Obama administration, with the enthusiastic support of most congressional Republicans, has been negotiating two mammoth trade partnerships that would put our nation on the path to economic and political integration with eleven Pacific Rim nations (including eventually China) and the 28 member states of the European Union.
Of course, the congressional supporters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) never mention the threat to our independence and freedom represented by these two partnership deals.
On May 22 the Senate passed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), aka fast-track authority, which restricts Congress to only an up-or-down vote (with no amendments or filibuster allowed) on trade agreements. The House is expected to debate and vote on the Senate TPA bill sometime during this week or the next.
The House vote on TPA is so crucial because the highly dangerous TPP and TTIP partnerships very likely cannot gain approval from Congress without the TPA restrictions in place. If we stop TPA, we’ll be making it much more difficult for TPP and TTIP to be approved.
Here are 7 reasons why the House of Representatives should vote NO on TPA (as stated in “7 Reasons Why Trade Promotion Authority/Fast Track Must Be Defeated.”
Please phone your representative and tell him or her or someone on the staff a few of the above 7 reasons to vote NO on TPA. Click here for the phone numbers for your representative’s various offices. Make a phone call to both your rep’s DC office and the local office as phone calls have a greater impact.
Then, please send an email for additional impact.
The House will take up TPA either this week or next week. Contact your Representative now!
|
| Would the New Trade Deals Supersede the Constitution?
JBS CEO Arthur Thompson answers the question of whether or not the Constitution is superseded by trade deals. He also mentions U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions’ letter to Obama (The New American covers that here) regarding Sessions’ legitimate concerns.
|
| HuffPost IDs 5 “Most Extreme [Common Core] Claims”
And congrats to The John Birch Society! Two of the top five mention JBS affiliates FreedomProject Education and The New American. No surprise here though as this originated from an online report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
Click here for our reporting on the SPLC and Common Core posted about a month ago.
Would these Common Core protesters agree with the HuffPost and SPLC’s broad-brush smearing?
|
| Staking Claim in the New World Order: Newest Issue From TNA
Alex Newman of The New American exposes how, with the help of Western globalists, China is actively pursing a leading role in the New World Order. He also makes the case of how a Westernized China is a myth.
In the same issue (June 22, 2026), William Jasper sums up his research of the upcoming trade agreements, which are a must-read for any American interested in protecting American independence and sovereignty.
All of this and much more in the newest issue now available for immediate download or as a physical copy mailed directly to you.
|
Posted in Politics
Tagged constitution, FAST TRACK BY SENATE, NO TPA, TPP, trade agreements, Trade promotion authority, TTIP
The International Code Council has developed a large number of international codes which are intended to replace existing building codes all over the United States. The following is a list of these codes from Wikipedia
1) The Code Official anybody the jurisdiction calls a Code Official is the sole interpreter no due process Gestapo!
2) Every day an offense occurs is a separate mandatory misdemeanor $555/day and/or a month in jail in Charleston, W.Va. They can fine you out of your home and jail you at their whim!
3) Anything the Code Official says is not in good working condition sticky window, dented or plugged gutter, torn window screen whatever he says is not in good working order hundreds of dollars of fines per day and/or jail time usually a month for every day the offense occurs.
4) Any unsanitary condition whatever the Code Official says is an unsanitary condition empty pop cans puddles dog droppings on your property same deal same fines and/or jail time every day.
5) Any plant that the Code Official says is a noxious weed same deal same fines and/or jail time every day. He can steal raw land.
6) He can fine you out of your home and jail you with no due process. Any court proceedings are window dressing as there is no remedy associated with this code.
7) It can be adopted just by an administrative decree.
WITHOUT COURT ACTION OR NOTICE THE CODE OFFICIAL CAN:
1) Enter your house whenever he the sole interpreter deems reasonable.
2) Prevent you from entering your house.
3) Tear your house down with your stuff in it.
4) Bill you for the demolition.
5) Place a lien on it for fines and/or demolition charges steal it.
6) And best of all, no insurance I know of will cover your losses.
Posted in Agenda 21
Tagged Code Council, Code Official, Codes, constitution, international codes, property rights
by JBS President John F. McManus
The organization known as Convention of States (COS) wants a constitutional convention although its advocates claim that they want only a limited Convention of the States. Altering the terminology used for a constitutional convention, however, does not alter what is being sought by COS advocates. And the claim by COS or anyone that a constitutional convention can be limited to a single amendment, or to several named amendments, cannot be supported. Article V says that a convention may be called by the states “for proposing Amendments.” No number is given. Once a convention is underway, the number of amendments it produces can be limitless, and the current ratification method by the states could be altered or even abolished.
In addition, a recent COS release entitled “John Birch Society Denies Its History and Betrays Its Mission” accuses the Society of reversing the stands taken by JBS Founder Robert Welch and former Chairman Larry McDonald relative to The Liberty Amendment. It also claims that current John Birch Society President John McManus (this writer) has misrepresented Founder Robert Welch and former Congressman Larry McDonald. This is completely erroneous and irresponsible.
In August 1963, Robert Welch urged JBS members to ask legislators in Alabama to approve a resolution favoring the Liberty Amendment. In his urging, Robert Welch made no mention of the Constitution’s second method for gaining amendments, the constitutional convention. He favored the first choice mentioned in Article V which seeks two-thirds approval of both Houses of Congress before a measure is sent to the States where ratification by three-quarters would be needed to complete the process. This method for adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution happens to be the only method ever employed. For over 200 years, fear of a runaway convention (as occurred in 1787 during deliberations at a convention called to repair the Articles) has kept the amendment process strictly through the first method.
Similarly, Congressman Larry McDonald favored adding the Liberty Amendment to the Constitution. On October 9, 1973, his interview about the matter was published in the Congressional Record. In it, he mentioned that the Amendment was being “advanced in both ways” but he never advocated the convention route. As a member of Congress, he introduced the resolution containing the Liberty Amendment for passage by Congress in the traditional manner. He mentioned but did not favor the existence of the amendment route that would involve a constitutional convention.
Several years before he was slain in 1983, Larry McDonald wrote the 1976 book entitled We Hold These Truths. In it, Larry McDonald capably noted the two routes spelled out in the Constitution for adding amendments. How could he or any constitutional scholar (McDonald was indeed such a scholar) fail to note the existence of these two procedures? But, in the portion of his book discussing amendments, Congressman McDonald expressed explicit choice for neither. To claim that he favored one or the other when he was simply noting both is a complete misrepresentation of what he wrote. The COS release has engaged in misrepresentation, not The John Birch Society.
The COS release notes that, in 1983, Congressman Ron Paul joined with Congressman McDonald in introducing the Liberty Amendment in the House of Representatives. The two men obviously favored the route calling for the amendment to be passed by Congress. They had already introduced the resolution calling for Congress to pass the amendment several times. On no occasion did they express any favor toward the route of a constitutional convention.
On April 30, 2009, Congressman Paul and two co-sponsors again proposed that Congress pass the Liberty Amendment. There is no mention of the constitutional convention route to amend the Constitution in that move.
It is true that state resolutions calling for the Liberty Amendment mentioned the constitutional convention route. And it is equally true that Liberty Amendment author Willis Stone counseled state legislators to call for a constitutional convention on behalf of the Liberty Amendment. But during my own very friendly relationship with Willis Stone, the Liberty Amendment author clearly bared the strategy he was employing. Fearing that such a convention might actually occur if sufficient number of states (34) made the convention call, I asked him point blank, “Do you actually want a constitutional convention?” His very prompt and forceful response to me was, “No, I don’t worry about that because no one would be stupid enough to want a Con-Con.” He was relying on fears of many – including members of Congress – that the existing Constitution would be in jeopardy similar to what befell the Articles of Confederation in 1787. He further explained that if his work among the various state legislatures succeeded in getting close to the number 34 (the number that would trigger a convention), members of Congress would move quickly to pass approval of the measure themselves in order to keep a constitutional convention from becoming a reality.
In 1963, the Liberty Amendment Committee headed by Willis Stone published Action For Americans: The Liberty Amendment, a book promoting the Liberty Amendment. No book on this topic could be issued by the Liberty Amendment Committee without Willis Stone approving of every word. In their book, authors Lloyd G. Herbstreith and Gordon van B. King stated:
Some people have expressed fear of what a Convention might do. They point to the fact that the 1787 Convention was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation; however, it did not do this. It wrote an entirely new Constitution. A convention called now might similarly re-write the entire Document, instead of merely proposing an amendment….
As soon as twenty or more State Legislatures have approved the Liberty Amendment, Congress will approve it, and return it to the States for ratification.
There you have the opinion of the chief promoters of the Liberty Amendment, certainly including Willis Stone. What Mr. Stone told me of his plan is what these two authors, both friends and supporters of Mr. Stone and the Liberty Amendment, have confirmed.
Conclusions:
1. Neither Larry McDonald nor Robert Welch ever favored the route of a constitutional convention for adding amendments to the Constitution. Both merely knew that the Constitution allowed such a method.
2. Larry McDonald’s book We Hold These Truths does not place him in the camp of those favoring a constitutional convention.
3. Willis Stone’s strategy is clear. He wanted to force Congress to act to pass the Liberty Amendment resolution in order to prevent creation of any constitutional convention.
4. The book by Herbstreith and King confirms the Stone strategy.
5. An apology for accusing The John Birch Society for denying its history and betraying its mission directed to me and to the memory of Robert Welch, Larry McDonald, and Willis Stone should be issued by COS. It would be received with gratitude.
Learn of other false accusations made by Con-Con supporters here.
Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news by signing up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.
A former U.S. Marine officer, Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.
Cathy
chulai1968
Truth Prevailing
Publius Huldah
Freedom Rider
kathleen
Christian Zionist
radioroger2015
revaustinmiles
Steve
truckjunkie
