Tea Party Montana Style--Nullification, Secession, and a Pistol in Every Pocket
"With each new bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future.
"Their state would be a place where officials can ignore US laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff's OK before arresting anyone, ban abortions, limit sex education in schools and create armed citizen militias. It's the tea party world." Matt Gouras, Associated Press, quoted in The Washington Spectator April 15, 2011.
Lou Dubose editor of The Washington Spectator, examined the Tea Party's agenda in Montana where the Republicans attained a 68-32 majority in 2008. Representative Krayton Kerns is a Tea Party leader. He's the author of on of several "nullification" bills filed this session. They claim that it is within the constitutional authority of the "sovereign states" to nullify federal law. To assert that state right Kerns filed a bill that would nullify the Endangered Species Act which blocks access to "huge natural resources." Failure to comply with the ESA would require Montana to absorb a loss of $500 million in federal funds.
Representative Michael More filed a more expansive 17-point declaration of sovereignty which asserts "the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right to govern themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state...and that right may never be delegazted to the United States." Any federal transgression would dissolve the compact with the United States and would dissolve the Union. Moore's resolution establishes a process for the creation of a new republic. After the Union is dissolved, a new nation can be created by a three-fourths vote of the states seeking to form a federal government. The vote shall not be binding on any state not seeking to form or join a federal government. More says "This is not just my thinking. It reflects the perspective of concerned constitutional groups here in Montana, citing the Tea Party and the Oath Keepers, policemen, fire fighters, military active and reserve and National Guard who pledge to refuse to obey any law or executive order they deem unconstitutional. They cite an opinion by Antonin Scalia in Mack v. United States which upheld a sheriff's refusal to comply with a federal law that required him to conduct background checks on handgun buyers. Scalia said that "there is dual sovereignty at both the state and federal level."
Another 10th Amendment bill that passed the Montana house would strip the EPA of it's authority to regulate green house gas emissions. (The EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases was affirmed by the US Supreme Court in 2007. Another bill introduced by Rep. Joe Read states that "global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana...and is a natural occurrence and human activity has not caused it." Read said "There was a lunatic side that battled me on it and there was the support side that just recognized that science is junk." Stripping the EPA of authority in Montana is intended to stop federal bureaucrats from inpeding the minerals-extraction permitting process.
Republican Rep. Derek Skees filed a bill that would allow Montana to reclaim federal land within its boundaries.
Other Tea Party bills that easily passed the Montana house conferred the full benefits of citizenship on fetuses; a required that all state transactions be conducted exclusively in gold or silver; dozens of gun bills, including one that allows anyone who is not a felon or mentally incompetent to carry a concealed weapon without a licensing process; a bill that would require FBI agents to pre-clear operations with county sheriffs; and a bill that would create and arm a state militia.
[Source: Lou Dubose in The Washington Spectator.]
Admittedly this is a rhetorical question, but seriously - is the country losing its mind? I am in my mid-40's and I really feel like I am caught in a bad dream.
yeah, Florida has recently made it legal to pay off legislators, with Rick Scott running the state. He won the election because he's part of the billionaire Koch Brothers anti-Obama agenda. He promised jobs in a state with double digit unemployment, and then turned around and slashed and eliminated jobs. Now, many Floridians who voted for him, and trusted him, (why I'll never figure out) are so angry with what he is and isn't doing. People need to turn off the propaganda and get involved with local political efforts.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/s … le/1159953
Montana has got it right. The TEA Party is right, correct, and your radical ideology has been discredited long ago.
You are the radical, so far out in right field that you're out of sight, and I'm the conservative by comparison.
Why would you say that? You are trying to reverse 300 years of legislative and Supreme Court case history. Your views are extremely radical. I say perfect what we have, discard what doesn't work and what's not needed. You want to throw the babies out with the bath. Your views are those of a tiny minority among educated, thoughtful Americans. Uneducated, uninformed Americans are being manipulated to slit their own throats by the oil billionaires, insurance parasites, and banksters, et al.
You are wrong about absolutely everything. I have never seen someone so fanatically determined to ignore reality, and embrace fanaticism, idiocy, and radical ideology as you.
Foreign language teachers aren't in high demand- believe me, I know.
Was this really unexpected? The federal government has expanded its scope and reach beyond the boundaries of the constitution and no longer rules by the consent of the people. According to the Declaration of Independence:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
In other words if you don't govern by the consent of the people then the people will have a right to form a government that will.
"The federal government has expanded its scope and reach beyond the boundaries of the constitution and no longer rules by the consent of the people. "
No, it hasn't. The federal government has developed in response to changing conditions and needs of it's citizens through legislation adopted by our duly elected representatives. The constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to determine what laws are constitutional, not a bunch of jackasses running around in the woods with military weapons, or ignorant Montana Tea Tard legislators.
In some ways, it has, in others it hasn't. The Fed can and does (but shouldn't!) listen to our private phone conversations if they think we might maybe be talking to a terrorist without showing probable cause and getting a warrant. That's clearly beyond the scope of their power. The Fed is trying to regulate the amount of pollution that a corporation is allowed to emit into the environment. This is a Good Thing, as it defends the populace from the excesses of folks who have more to gain by dumping their waste on strangers rather than carefully (and expensively) disposing of it.
Some of what the gov't does is excessive; some is necessary and proper. The trick is being able to tell the difference. Neither the far right nor the far left can tell the difference.
The Supreme court has the power to decide if legislation is constitutional or not. It doesn't have the power to reinterpret the constitution using case law precedent and its own political views to justify those decisions. An example is the recent decision to throw out years of case law involving the commerce clause in a decision to prohibit the sale of body armor to certain individuals. This ruling gives police powers to congress which essentially gives them the right to outlaw anything like french fries for example.
These kinds of decisions are the ones that will force states to exercise their constitutional power and nullify laws passed by a government out of control as they did with real id for example.
It's the Apocalypse!
And they know it (Beckles,etc).
They are trying to usurp it for their Cult.
"They cite an opinion by Antonin Scalia in Mack v. United States which upheld a sheriff's refusal to comply with a federal law that required him to conduct background checks on handgun buyers."
----Something just like this was in one of the riders the GObaggers attached to the CR!
Scalia is a Tea-Bag, as is Thomas! Can we say Conflict of Interest?? Can we say NON impartial??
Can we say....get em outta there!!!
They rule for the Kochamamies! The Kochamunga's. The Kochs*ckers.
This is absolutely brilliant! Let all the Tea Partiers move to Montana. It's a big state. There's plenty of room for them all.
Since Montana is declaring itself sovereign, they don't get any federal protection or benefits. No problem. Let them decline. More money for the rest of the USA.
I've said this before and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I am NOT a Constitutional scholar.
But, it doesn't tak a genius to understand the meaning of UNITED. As in, the UNITED States of America. It doesn't say the 50 individually sovereign states of America. It says UNITED states.
In order to form a more perfect UNION (another "u" word that means collective, together, whole is greater than the sum of its parts, etc.).
So why then, are the very people who claim to uphold the Constitution, being selective about upholding it?
Well Mighty Mom, you are one of the very FEW on the forums who aren't, among other things, constitutional lawyers, economists, and captains of industry.
No kidding! All them baggers know the Constytution! Why they read it erry night fore bed-time.
"Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord to get rid of the 14th and 17th amendments. Amen"
ps: This is my Clampett imitation (sincerest form of flattery): Jethro, to be exact. Or maybe Granny??
You left out world-travelling and thus an expert on what all other countries in the world think about America! But hey, when you're already as inadequate as I am in the other areas, who's counting??
"Since Montana is declaring itself sovereign, they don't get any federal protection or benefits. No problem. Let them decline. More money for the rest of the USA."
Its always about money for you libs.
Get a job.
Another state says "Thanks but no thanks" to federal money (channeling AK Gov. Palin and the bridge to nowhere?)
How much are they turning down? $54 million, to be exact, for a mandate they will still have to implement, but now using only state-private funding. Oh, and like so many other states, OK is brOKe!
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Gov. Mary Fallin reversed course Thursday by rejecting a $54.6 million federal grant to help create a health insurance exchange for uninsured Oklahoma residents that is required by the new federal health care law.
The Republican, who previously said she would accept the money, said legislative leaders have agreed to consider using state and private funds to create the Health Insurance Private Enterprise Network.
[So they're going forward with a health insurance exchange anyway, but refusing money from the feds. And this is fiscally responsible to Oklahomans HOW???]
Fallin noted that legislation adopted by state lawmakers in 2009, before the federal health care law was passed, authorized a health insurance exchange to help reduce the state's uninsured population. [18 percent of Oklahomans have no health care coverage and the exchange will outline their health care options.
"We believe that an Oklahoma network is good public policy," Fallin said. But they opposed to the federal health care plan, saying, "We're going to take care of our own problems."
[Oh yes, with the full support of the INSURANCE INDUSTRY!]
New Republican Insurance Commissioner John Doak praised Fallin's action and said he was returning a $1 million federal health care grant. "This is a fulfillment of my campaign promise to oppose Obamacare every way I could," Doak said.
With every post you reveal your fanatical obsession with absolute control by the federal government.
That's right. Dig your head in the sand a little deeper.
New evidence every day.These newly minted TP governors are making policies that HURT their states financially AND make no sense.
Scott Walker -- stripping unions of their collective bargaining rights will not save Wisconsin a penny.
Mary Fallin -- Health insurance exchange already approved in 2009. It's going to happen ANYWAY. But even though we don't have the money to implement it, we won't take any federal GRANT money to help us do so. We'd rather let the 18 million Oklahomans without insurance die.
I will admit I have an obsession. And it does have to do with control. It's to return control to the American people and away from the greedy pupeteers who control the Tea Party.
Do you actually think that wasting money in vast amounts by the federal govenrment, is in the interest of anyone, including the states?
Why the fatally myopic point of view?
"Do you actually think that wasting money in vast amounts by the federal govenrment, is in the interest of anyone, including the states?"
I worked in a major corporation, the federal government and in a state government--the ability and dedication of employees and the waste was similar in all three.
Enabling uninsured Americans access to affordable healthcare is not wasting money. Two unfunded wars is wasting money.
Since I was one of those uninsured for many years (even had kids during that time) please stop pontificating to me that you have even the faintest clue what you're talking about, nor have you any workable answer. You have only one knee-jerk response to everything and it's "take what you want by force from those who have it". People who hold other humans in such contempt don't really deserve respect.
"Enabling uninsured Americans access to affordable healthcare is not wasting money."
They have access to health care, they just have to put the beer down long enough to find a job to pay for it.
The "reality" of right-wing la-la land, yes.
The reality of the sad mess this country is in, no.
You don't even know what reality is. I'll ask you again... What are the numbers? What tax rate will have to be employed JUST to fund medicare, medicaid, and social security, in just 20 years?
The reality is that balancing the budget is much more complex than simply raising the tax rate. The reality is that we don't have to eliminate ALL of our debt now or in the future.
The reality is that you are incredibly rude and I don't know why these nice people bother with you.
Is there a single person espousing a taxe increase-only solution?
Everyone recognizes that changes to these programs are required.
A voucher system run by the states is NOT it.
I used to try to be diplomatic with people like you, then i found out it was a waste of time. You will never stop advocating tax increases along with "adjustments", no matter how obvious it gets that the whole fundamental idea is unsound and unworkable.
You said in another post "wanting health care for people is hate?" Of course not. Everyone wants that. But, when you insist on poisoning all debate with that kind of nonsense, I see no point in trying to be accomodating, when really, you just hate people like me. I am the kind that stands between you and your emotional fulfillment, which is to take everything everyone needs, from the people you think have it, and then you get to feel emotionally fullfilled and without guilt.
And, I look at the economic damage that whill happen from the things you want do, which hits the very people you claim to want to help the worst and the most, and wonder why I bother with people who demand things that hurt others, while claiming virtue for themselves based on their claimed emotions.
Then, it occurs to me... I remember why it is people adopt the "force" method. They like power over others. It is addicting and eventually that addiction leads to wholesale corruption... Which is why we have a saying that "power corrupts and unlimited power corrupts absolutely".
I look at the corruption in our government, and realize it's because we have given it too much power and money to control. And then a certain small faction of political ideologues come along and claim that it's all due to failure to give the corrupt far more power and money.
So, no point in being diplomatic, really. They have no respect nor concern for their fellow man, especially not me, whom they despise for standing and blocking thier addiction. So, why should I offer any deference to them?
I don't know Stephen Colbert. But I guess you can imagine whatever image lets you feel justified in your animosity.
If you ever turned your TV off Fox news you might discover there's a whole world of thoughtful -- and humorous -- political discussion happening.
The Colbert Report is a prime example.
This is why you're not a serious person. And, you have no serious thoughts worth listening to. You operate in la la land, knowing nothing about the people you pre-judge, abut operate on the prejudices just the same.
For your information only... About the only tv channel watched in my house signficantly are a couple of food channels. I rarely, if ever, watch tv. I get my news directly from the wires, aggregators, etc. I learn more in 10 minutes of news gathering than you'll know in a whole week of watching the propaganda networks on TV.
Yes, Comedy Channel is one of the most insidious propaganda networks.
Filling our heads and homes with laughter.
Shame on them!
Imagine, brainwashed by jokes!
Obviously, really serious people like WHTT don't watch tv like us plebes. Their incredibly large heads are only suited for the intellectually demanding task of posting on political forums populated by inferior know-nothings. Why does he bother, anyway?
You have to struggled to deflect, don't you? After all, it turned out your stereotype wasn't true. So, you have to make up a bunch of really stupid nonsense to try to divert attention.
You operate on stereotyping and prejudices... and you're wrong about all of them.
He's right on this one, PP!
That post about only watching the food channel and getting more from 10 minutes of news-gathering than I get from a week's worth of watching my news channels was supposed to be "more MY information only."
So technically, I guess you weren't supposed to see that or comment on it
You're absolutely right about this particular post. I gave you back what you've been dishing out. Feels good, huh?
La La Land - that's an interesting term. And I suppose living in a country without taxes, without any kind of public service - fire, police, street, etc etc, is a realist's view? Libertarianism, Tea Partyism is about as idealistic as the fantasy of a communist state - everyone doing his best for the utter good of the community. Let's flip that idea on its ear - put it into the Libertarian model. Every business doing its best to not screw its customer, every man a country unto himself - welcome the 18th Century and enjoy your stay. That's an equal fantasy Mr. Tea Party.
You know it's a nice theory. But there are many nice theories that don't hold up when put to practice. Try to remember that our international competition doesn't buy into the Tea Party philosophy. Why is that important? Well if we were still an isolated nation of say about 200 years ago, it wouldn't matter much. But the truth is, for better or worse, we are intertwined with a vast network of international trade and banking; the edges of America are blurred. And if you want to compete in the world then you can't play on some Colonial playground and hope to succeed.
Stephen Colbert reminds you of weholdthesetruths?
That is an insult to Stephen Colbert! Just the thought of that is icky!!!
He's a brilliant comedian who plays at being a right-winger.
He's actually best friends with Jon Stewart.
Stephen Colbert rocks. If he ran for president I would vote for him in a heartbeat! !!!
Yes, I LOVE Stephen Colbert so of course I was referring to his O'Reilly-inspired caricature of a right-wing pompous horse's hiney.
This almost happened in Boston once....
The African-American community was considering becoming independant of the state gvt, incorporating or something,and calling it Mandela....
It never happened, but Gene Burns, radio-host du jour, had a lot of radio play on it.
Actually, it might be an interesting experiment.
As long as they keep their experiment there, don't try to make others go along...
But what OF those who don't want to go along? Will they have to leave Montana?
That doesn't sound fair.
In fact, it sounds like they would be forced to go with the will of the majority....meet the new boss, same as the old boss!!
But, Vermont is taking the opposite tack...they are going to have Single-Payer healthcare!!
So, why not try something new?
JUST--if you go it on your own, you are on your own...in fact, now that I think of it, that may have been why the AA community decided not to after all....
Be careful what you wish for, mom always said.
Montana is doing nothing but asserting what it has always had... It's rights under the constitution.
Not everyone thinks the Tea Party ideas are good ones...
Tea party vision for Mont. raising concerns
By MATT GOURAS, Associated Press Matt Gouras, Associated Press –
HELENA, Mont. – With each bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future.
Their state would be a place where officials can ignore U.S. laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff's OK before arresting anyone, ban abortions, limit sex education in schools and create armed citizen militias.
It's the tea party world. But not everyone is buying their vision.
Some residents, Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer and even some Republican lawmakers say the bills are making Montana into a laughingstock. And, they say, the push to nullify federal laws could be dangerous.
Schweitzer is watching, describing many of the proposals from the new majority as simply "kooky," such as a plan to make it legal to hunt big game with a spear.
Hardly a day goes by, however, that the merits of "nullification" aren't discussed.
Proponents draw on Thomas Jefferson's late 18th-century argument that aimed to give states the ultimate say in constitutional matters and let them ban certain federal laws in their borders.
Supporters are not dissuaded by the legal scholars who say the notion runs afoul of the clause in the U.S. Constitution that declares federal law "the supreme law of the land."
House Minority Leader Jon Sesso (D) stood in the House Chamber, exasperated. He peppered Republicans with questions: Who decides if the federal government is acting unconstitutionally?
Republican Rep. Cleve Loney rose. A man of few words, the tea party organizer replied: "I don't intend us to secede from the union. But I will tell you it is up to us. We are the people to decide."
Some Republicans have turned against the more aggressive tea party ideas.
"You are scaring the you-know-what out of them with this kind of talk," veteran Republican lawmaker Walt McNutt said. "This needs to stop and stop now. Stop scaring our constituents and stop letting us look like a bunch of buffoons."
"It would be hard for anyone to top what is going on here in terms of the insanity of it all," said Lawrence Pettit, a retired university president and author living in Helena. "One could be amused by it, except it is too dangerous."
Schweitzer, meanwhile, got a new cattle brand from the state livestock agency that reads "VETO."
"Ain't nobody in the history of Montana has had so many danged ornery critters that needed branding," he said.
Ain't that the truth!!!
Scheitzer can count his days to the end of his career real fast. Start insulting the people and you as a politician are DONE in the TEA Party world.
Oh, and yeah, those establishment types? They all need to go, as well. They're the reason why we're in the shape we're in. TP messengers bring the answers that must be implemented.
TP messengers bring the answers that must be implemented?
TP elected officials are showing their true colors and at the Congressional level and state level (Gov. Kasich of OH, Rick Scott of FL, for two) the PEOPLE are disenchanted.
Disenchanted in record time, actually.
Here's some interesting food for thought. From
Americans have dim view of Congress, GOP leadership
Raleigh, N.C. – Just a few months after giving them a majority in the U.S. House, American voters are having second thoughts about the Republican congressional leadership. 43% think John Boehner and company are doing a worse job than Nancy
Pelosi and the Democrats did when they were in charge.
Independents say by a 44-30 margin that Republicans have been doing worse.
Further, 48% trust President Obama more to lead the country in the right direction, while 42% have more faith in the
GOP. The sentiment with independents is 49-37 for Obama.
As a consequence, if an election were held today, Americans would vote for the Democrat in their district by a 46-41 margin. The two parties are polarized, but independents split the tie, siding 42-33 with the Democrats after voting heavily for the GOP last year.
“The conventional wisdom is that Democrats will have a very hard time winning back control of the House next year,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling.
“But that may be wrong- voters have soured on the new Republican majority in record time.”
PPP surveyed 532 registered American voters from April 7th to 10th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.3%.
"voters have soured on the new Republican majority in record time."
They have soured on republicans who wont change to the new wants of the American people.
Don't worry, they still hate democrats.
What numbers are you reading? I'm not seeing a lot of hate against the Democrats here.
Only four months in and the honeymoon's over.
Boehner's gotta be pissed. He's being dragged down the drain by these "my way or the highway" freshmen TP congressmen who don't have a clue.
The same buyer's remorse is happening at the state level as well. The tea is getting weaker and weaker every day.
That's not entirely true, maybe wishful thinking on your part. remember, alot of independents voted for these guys, now they've seen their true colors.. they will not be voting Rep. next election, especially if somehow Trump gets the nomination.
Are there some democrats ready to call for less government and less spending?
I'm sure there will be a conservative shift in their ideology before the next election.
But we won't fall for it again.
Liberals/democrats lie to get elected.
When countless millions are spent to demonize them, and no money is spent in their defense, you act surprised that public emotion could be swayed.
You didn't win in WI, and you won't anywhere else, either. For though the emotional reaction to polls might change, the basic ideas that the TP is a response to has not changed in the slightest, and has, in part, been both hardened and strengthened. Libs beware, there are no longer any vast crowds of support for big government.
Interesting comment lolll "When countless millions are spent to demonize them..." I wonder if you can acknowledge that same "fact" with the healthcare reform bill? Or doesn't that count? You know all that lobbyist money spent by the Insurance Industry (I work for them by the way)... How about all those millions funneled to the Tea Party by Americans for Prosperity? That runs both ways..
But seriously - keep on with the insanity. It's like buying the Democrats an insurance policy that pays out in 2012.
very disenchanted. He is as unpopular as the Florida legislature. His ratings have plummeted.
You don't elect a corrupt CEO to run a state. It just doesn't work.
An old pal and I had a great discussion about the deficit the other night. He's a brilliant college professor, author (if you watch the History Chanel, you've probably seen him on TV), historian, and liberal Democrat. He's worried about the deficit, just as I am. He's researched federal programs exstensively and says that there's about 20% waste and fraud across the board. He and I agree - wouldn't that be a great place to start saving $$ instead of stopping programs that are helping those like needy children, the blind, the poor, etc?
The problem is, the TP'ers don't want an improved gvt...they want a GONE gvt!
Starve the beast.
That way--business can do whatever it likes.
People do not need to pay any taxes.
No gun regs at all.
Dog eat Dog.
Madd Maxx, Beyond the Thunderdome kind of world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8W4DEMU … re=related
"and says that there's about 20% waste and fraud across the board." Even so the money goes back into the US economy and to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Israel,
Egypt and on ad infinitum.
"In other words if you don't govern by the consent of the people then the people will have a right to form a government that will." Good luck with that.
The ghost of Ayn Rand is haunting the Sam Rayburn House Office Building.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/opini … ef=opinion
Vermont was going to do this when Bush was president....don't know whatever came of it, and why they didn't.
As I said before, some in Boston wanted to do the same, but it never materialized either.
I have no problem with it, but the thing is....you are bound to have people in Montana who don't want to, and what will you do with them? Make them move? Or force this decision on them? In which case, how are you any better than what you claim to want to get away from?
Seems like you would really be in the EXACT same position as the federal gvt.....trying to please a whole lot of people of different mind!
"These kinds of decisions are the ones that will force states to exercise their constitutional power and nullify laws passed by a government out of control as they did with real id for example." Agree.
Guys like Roberts and Scalia wouldn't know what a law means even if it put them in jail.
Oh really? Then why is it such a huge deal when a POTUS gets to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice?
The SCOTUS reinterprets case law all the time using their own political views.
If Thomas & Scalia retired and were replaced by Obama appointees you'd see a very different complexion on Supreme Court decisions.
by TheSituation 8 years ago
What do you all think about this one? Seems like some good fodder for my fellow hubbers.
by tbHistorian 4 years ago
The Georgia state legislature passed a measure calling for a Convention of States to amend the U.S. Constitution. This would establish a Continental Congress composed of citizens that would work to achieve solidarity for amendments to the Constitution to restore the power to the people. ...
by My Esoteric 3 years ago
... are trying to encourage those who fall in the Medicaid gap they created to move out of their State? Hospitals in those States are reporting increased unpaid (meaning you paid) emergency room visits from this group.
by mintinfo 5 years ago
Why is a sovereign citizen considered an extremist?If you know what a soverign citizen is do you agree that they are considered a threat to society by the FBI?
by egiv 9 years ago
And also to those who claim liberals don't argue with statistics:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opini … ref=global
by Arthur Fontes 8 years ago
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2219776820100322What is this going to do to the country?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|