Aggrad02

Charisma is in the eye of the beholder. Check his youtube.com site and watch his interviews and you can tell me if he is charismatic or not. Besides he is not running on his looks, he is running on an idea. http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom As far as reaching out to the libertarian community, from what I seen he has and they fully support him. And you may want to check your sites again, Paul is polling at around 3% now in "official polls" (People you have voted in the last two republican primaries and have a land line), while he has the most myspace friends, facebook friends, youtube.com subscribers, had more searches on the internet than paris hilton last month, has more visits to his website than any other republican candidate, has won every internet poll after the debates as well as the text message polls, wins numerous online polls has over 364 meet-up groups around the country (next in line is Al Gore with 100). Sportsbook.com (on-line casino, people who do statistically analysis and predictions for a living) has dropped Ron Paul from a 200 to 1 odds to 15 to 1 odds to win the presidency (not primary) and has him as the only Republican candidate favored to beat the Dems., he also has more supporters show up at events and debates than any other candidate. Hmmmm... By The way, to say that someone is running for President for their ego, when you clearly don't know anything about them is ridiculous. Watch the youtube.com interviews and tell me if he has an ego. I can't remember his name but a college student sent request to all of the Dem and Rep candidates to do a dorm room interview and Ron Paul was the only one to accept, (could you see Guliani having to answer real questions from real people). www.ronpaul2008.com Also if you are a fan of Ayn Rand you should be drooling over Ron Paul. Check it out, www.ronpaullibrary.com Dustan

You are counting on the fact that the countries whose citizens you propose to slaughter without mercy don't yet have the kinds of weapons with which they could effectively retaliate. But someday in the not too distant future, they will. Nuclear proliferation will ultimately prove to be unstoppable. And because the residents of these countries are going to have some real men just like you who are also ready to kill for their family, friends, and countrymen, and who will not forget that it was the United States that killed their families, we will all be their targets. The bloodthirsty lunacy of government officials who think just like you will get us all killed. Have a nice day. Martin I am counting on us making a preemptive attack. The next time the Wahabites do mischief on our soil, I am counting on the U.S. doing to them, what we did to the Japs back in the 1940's. If the right man is in the White House then he will go on the war path if we are attacked again. If the wrong man is in the White House he will figure we deserved what happens to us and will blubber and whine. Sort of like Jimmy Carter after our people were taken captive by the Iranians. A -real- man would have nuked Tehran. But Jimmy turned the other cheek and bit his lip. I don't want that happening again. Is Ron Paul the man to go on the warpath and kill our enemies? Ba'al Chatzaf If he comes to kill you, rise up early and slay him first -- Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72A. You answered none of the questions that I asked you, nor did you consider any of the facts/reasoning stated. I guess so much for reason. Any killer in the white house endangers our freedom and our safety. -Dustan

Here are some other quotes and statements by Ayn Rand on war and statism: The Ayn Rand Lexicon pg.527, from Ibid., 37: Statism-in fact and in principle-is nothing more than gang rule. A dictatorship is a gang devoted to looting the effort of the productive citizens of its own country. When a statist ruler exhaust his own country's economy, he attacks his neighbors. It is his only means of postponing internal collapse and prolonging his rule. A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors. Those who do not recognize individual rights, will not recognize the rights of nations: a nation is only a number of individuals. Statism needs war; a free country does not. Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production. Ayn Rand And another: The Ayn Rand Lexicon pg. 527, from Ibid. 42 If men want to oppose war, it is statism that they must oppose. So long as they hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some alleged "good" can justify it-there can be no peace within a nation and no peace among nations. Ayn Rand And another (this one is really erie): Remember that private citizens-whether rich or poor, whether businessmen or workers-have no power to start a war. That power is the exclusive prerogative of a government. Which type of government is more likely to plunge a country into war: a government of limited powers, bound by constitutional restrictions-or an unlimited government, open to the pressure of any group with warlike interest or ideologies, a government able to command armies to march at the whim of a single chief executive? Ayn Rand Concerning this last comment by Rand, what type of government do you think the Neocons subscribe to? (They crush our rights, start wars to take oil) They are not making us safe!!! --Dustan

I weep for the Republic Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al all I have seen you do is make snide remarks about Ron Paul, but given no reason why you dislike him, other then you want to blow up all of the former Ottman Empire. What are your objectivist/Rand views that make you dislike him? Dustan 0. My remarks are not snide. I have reasons for making them. Read on and see. 1. I am NOT an Objectivist. Objectivism is a Package Deal I do not buy in the entirety. Some things I agree with (like limited government with low or no taxes) and some things I don't agree with, like Rand and L.P.'s opinions on modern physics. We all love Capitalism, so that is not an issue here. 2. I don't think Ron Paul is a killer, so I will not vote for him. I will not vote for anyone who will not kill our enemies mercilessly and screw the collateral damage. I want our Fearless Leader to be bloodthirsty and ready to kill for us. Is Ron Paul that Leader? Where are General Patton or Admiral Halsey when you need them? Where is Bomber Harris and Curtis Le May? The mark of a man is one who is ready to kill for his family, his friends and his people and take pride in the killing. Is Ron Paul that man? Some day killers will make it possible for non-killers to live in safety. Ba'al Chatzaf I can respect the view that you don't support Paul because you are bloodthirsty. I can also understand that you are bloodthirsty because you want to protect our country. What then is your response to the problems in foreign policy that fuel the hatred of the US in the Mid-East that I posted on the Mid-East section? Or do you really buy the kool-aid that they hate us because we are good? If a policy that was non-interventionist (such as the one we had for the first 130 years of our Democracy) made us safer than a policy of bludgeoning the Muslims to death and was more moral, would you rather see that? What do you think the moral implications are? It is true that if we killed all the muslims and took their land we would have a problem anymore, but what would that make us? Here is Ayn Rand's take (which is Ron Paul has adopted) From The Ayn Rand Lexicon pg.526, from "The Roots of War", CUI, 38: Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interest, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war. Men who are free to produce, have no incentive to loot, they have nothing to gain from war and a great deal to lose. Ideologically, the principle of individual rights does not permit a man to seek his own liveilhood at the point of a gun, inside or outside his country. Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy, where wealth is privately owned, the costs of war come out of the income of private citizens-there is no overblown public treasury to hide that fact-and a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses by winning the war. Thus his own economic interest are on the side of peace. In a statist economy, where wealth is "publicly owned", a citizen has no economic interest to protect by preserving peace-he is only a drop in the common bucket-while war gives him the hope of larger handouts from his master. Ideologically, he is trained to regard men as sacrificial animals; he is one himself; he can have no concept of why foreigners should not be sacrificed on the same public altar for the benefit of the state. The trader and warrior have been fundamental antagonists throughout history. Trade does not flourish on battlefields, factories do not produce under bombardments, profits do not grow on rubble. Capitalism is a society of traders-for which it has been denounced by every would-be gunman who regards trade as selfish and conquest as noble. Let those who are actually concerned with peace observe that capitalism gave mankind the longest period of peace in history-a period from which there were no wars involving the entire civilized world-from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 to the outbreak of WWI in 1914. Ayn Rand -Dustan

Ron Paul needs your help!!!! Help! More room needed. Good news: The Ron Paul 2008 campaign is growing! Bad news: We’ve run out of space to work. The Ron Paul 2008 campaign started in the corner of a one-bedroom apartment. It then moved to a small office of 348 square feet, which is where we are now. But our present office has become too small to accommodate the fast-growing campaign...and we need your help to expand. Our present office is so small that we can't hire the much-needed additional staff for a national campaign. We even have to turn away volunteers because we simply don't have room for them. Office space in the D.C. area is expensive, and landlords expect tenants to sign at least a three-year lease; preferably a five-year lease. But after we canvassed the area by foot and called numerous leasing agents and watched the local classifieds and checked CraigsList each day, we found a place! It's a sub-lease situation with flexible terms that we just couldn't pass up. We will have the second floor of a modest, older, two-story building in Arlington, Virginia. It's only two blocks from a Metro station, making it convenient for staff and volunteers. The office is on a busy street; across from a very busy grocery store. Large windows will be perfect for a "Ron Paul 2008" banner! But most importantly, the new office will give us the space to build a national campaign. However, office space here is expensive regardless of how modest the building is. And most landlords require political campaigns to pay the total rent in advance. So we need your help. We plan to move on July 15th. To do so, we will need to give the landlord a check for $54,000.00. Will you help us write that check? Enthusiasm for Ron Paul's bid for the presidency grows by the day. Our goal: put Ron Paul in the White House. And we all know why. Help us write that check. Donate today by going to https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/ Thank you! Kent Snyder, Chairman Ron Paul 2008 http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/

http://clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3626275 Ron Paul is getting more visitors to his site than any other Republican candidate. -Dustan

I weep for the Republic Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al all I have seen you do is make snide remarks about Ron Paul, but given no reason why you dislike him, other then you want to blow up all of the former Ottman Empire. What are your objectivist/Rand views that make you dislike him? Dustan

Wikipedia says that the Taliban was a splinter group from with in the Mujahideen. Basically the US/CIA trained any and everyone in Afghanistan to fight the Russians. There was no central organizations to the fighter but mostly local organizations. After the war, the different Mujahideen warlords fought each other for control and the Taliban won out. So we didn't directly fund/train the group called the Taliban, but we funded and trained all of the people who formed the Taliban. Also Osama used a lot of his own money, but was trained and supported by the CIA, just like everyone else in that region at the time. Dustan

I think you are unrealistically optimistic. The Muslims have been in the Dark for the last seven hundred years. I expect they will be in the Dark for the next seven hundred years. In short, I do not think the possibility exists. You do, I don't. I am guided by the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72a -If he comes to kill you, rise up early and slay him first-. Attack first, apologize later. Ba'al Chatzaf How do you apply your little Talmud quote when we attacked them first? --Dustan When and where? Ba'al Chatzaf Example 1: One example would be Iran. After Britain left the Middle East after WWII, they carved up the Middle-East into countries of their choosing (basically gerrymandering). In Iran they put into power a member of the Royal Family, the Shah (I know real democratic, but those Brits still have a thing for royalty). The Shah was favorable to the West (i.e. anitcommie and gave oil contracts to British Petroleum), which is the reason he was put into power. In 1951 the Iranian people (through Parliament) elected Mohammad Mossadeq as Prime Minister. Mossadeq nationalized the oil industry (taking it away from BP) upsetting the British. The British recruited the US, by telling the US that Iran planned to sell the oil to Russia instead, to help them over through Mossadeq. The Shah flies to Britain, Kermit Roosevelt Jr. flies in with the CIA and with money and weapons provided by the US, kills people and overthrows the democratically elected Mossadeq. The Shah flies back in and implements a brutal totalitarian state, but keeps the commies out the oil flowing west. Until a little known cleric, Ayatollah Khomeini, ignites the hatred of the dictator Shah and the American government that supports him, and overthrows the Shah and implements a shi'a Islamic Republic in 1979. The extreme Islamist would have never been able to get control over Iran if it wasn't for the US/Britain intervention on behalf of big oil interest. Now they not only hate us for our policy but look to Islam to solve their problems because we killed democracy there. Example 2 (cont. of Example 1): At the same time in 1979 a suni baa'thist general rises to power in Iraq (neighbor to Iran). Iran has our hostages and Saddam Hussein is a sunni and an enemy of the shi'a and the Ayatollah himself (political differences from when the Ayatollah was exiled to Iraq when Iran was under the Shah), and he conviently is anitcommie and vows to sell oil to the west. Then in 1980 with money, weapons and technology from the US, Saddam invades Iran to try and overthrow the democratic Islamic government. (Why would Saddam do this, the Islamic revolution was a threat to his power and the US wanted access to the oil back, so they basically made a deal?). This is when he used the chemical weapons provided by the US against the Kurds who saw an opportunity to revolt while Saddam was in such a hard fought battle with Iran. The war ended in a stalemate with over 1 million dead in 1988. After the war Iraq was bogged down in debt. It requested a loan forgiveness from Kuwait who it owed $30 billion to. Kuwait refused. Iraq then requested through OPEC for Kuwait to limit oil production (remember the cheap gas of the early '90s). Kuwait, through pressure from the US, refused. Saddam gets angry, figures that the US is still his friend, and digs up old disputes about Kuwait being apart of Iraq and invades Kuwait. The US who has supported Hussein for the entirety of his rule, decide to support Kuwait, which has just as much oil as Iraq. See we funded Iraq and gave them weapons, then they invaded Kuwait and because of oil relationships, had to fight Saddam and the weapons we gave him. Millions more died at the hands of US weapons. Example 3 (cont. of Example 2) 2002, our embargo of Iraq (of anything but food coming in and oil coming out), has killed Millions of Iraqis and Saddam is now confused and angry. Bush the second and VP Halliburton, still covet access to oil in Iraq. Using trumped up charges of Islamic extremeism and WMD (how Saddam would ever attack us no one knows) invades Iraq killing more civilians and causing a three way civil war that we are still in. This is only part of the puzzle. It does not include the Israeli-Palestinian-Egyptian intervention or the Syria-Lebanon intervention (do you realize that historically Lebanon was part of Syria but Britain wanted a Christian nation to deal with in the middle east, similar to having a jewish nation in Israel) or our bases in Saudi Arabia or our intervention in Pakistan/Afghanistan In every single case we have provided money and weapons to despots who would either fight the commie or give us cheap oil or both, to the determent of democracy and human rights. It is still going on in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan as well. So if you were a citizen of one of those countries and had to live under a totalitarian state because the west wanted cheap oil, how would you feel? --Dustan

I think you are unrealistically optimistic. The Muslims have been in the Dark for the last seven hundred years. I expect they will be in the Dark for the next seven hundred years. In short, I do not think the possibility exists. You do, I don't. I am guided by the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72a -If he comes to kill you, rise up early and slay him first-. Attack first, apologize later. Ba'al Chatzaf How do you apply your little Talmud quote when we attacked them first? --Dustan

Question for you, Michael: Suppose your proposed solution doesn't work, and it is found that it can't work. Suppose your only choices are to wipe out the enemy tribe completely or to see that tribe take over yours, with its way of life. What would you choose? Judith Judith, How many Muslims do you think the American/British policy of controlling Mid East oil has killed since oil was discovered there the early 1900's. By your logic they are justified in trying to wipe us out. I am not saying they are justified though. As fan's of Ayn Rand, can't y'all see that we have been violating their property rights and liberty for more than 70 years as well as directly or indirectly killing millions of them . Maybe it is our foreign policy of interventionism that has caused the hatred and not our freedom. I think it is funny that we call them fascist but go to war to take their oil from them for our corporations. We must confront the Muslims with reason about their beliefs but we must also apply the same litmus test to our own government actions. Dustan BTW: Saying such things as wipe out their tribe sends shivers down my back as that is as collective as it gets.

I am sure ther are numerous sources I could find, and if this one is not credible enough I can look for more later, but this site is from an author who is writing a book about this. I usually wouldn't use such a site because of the possibility of bias, but he quotes National Security Directives. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4 --Dustan

Well said. The bit about Israel especially made me choke. Judith I hate to inform y'all of this but were are on both sides. We provide weapons and subsidies to both Israel and Palestine, we trained and funded Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and only went after them when we no longer need them. We subside Saudi Arabia, a huge welfare state, who then uses the money from oil to pay their people who in turn give their money to madrassahs and imams who give it to Osama. We supported the Taliban and then overthrew the Taliban. We give money and weapons to the Turks who use them against the Kurds and give money and weapons to the Kurds who are supposed to use them against Al-Qaeda, but who also use them against the Turks, who are using our weapons. We subside Russia and China and they in turn subside Iran and North Korea. We subside Pakistan which frees up the money in their economy to subside Bin Laden and Al-Qeada through their people. If we brought our troops home, spent the money on self-defense and border security we would be way better off and safer. Dustan

I know this is alot of Ron Paul information in short period of time but as I continue to read his book, it is amazing how dead on his predictions are. Here is the closing of his speech to congress on January 28, 1998 concerning the state of the Republic. This was in '98 before Bush was elected and 911. Ron Paul, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, pgs74,75 Earlier in the speech: Most recently, the Congress almost unanimously beat the drums for war, i.e. kill Hussein. Any consideration of the facts involved elicited charges of anti-patriotism. A couple of paragraphs later: The fact that, of the original 35 allies of the Persian Gulf War, only one reamains-Great Britian-should make us question our policy in that region. This attitude in Washington should concern all Americans. It makes it too easy for presidents to start a senseless war without considering dollar cost or threats to our liberty here and abroad. Then Later: There is much to be concerned about our current approach to foreign policy. It is dangerous because it can lead to a senseless war, like Vietnam, or small ones with bad results like Somalia At the end: Our policy in the Middle East is totally schizophrenic and driven by Arab oil, weapon sales, and Israel. This is especially dangerous, because the history of the West's intrusion into the Middle East for a thousand years in establishing the artificial borders that exist today has created a mindset among Islamic fundamentalist guaranteeing friction will persist in this region, no matter how many Husseins or Ayatollahs we kill. That would only make things worse for us. As much as I fear and detest one-world government, this chaos that we contribute to the Middle East assures me that there is no smooth sailing for the new world order. Rough sears are ahead for all of us. If the UN's plan for their type of order is successful, it will cost American citizens money and freedom. If significant violence breaks out, it will cost American citizens money, freedom and lives. Yes, I fear a biological attack, even a nuclear accident. But I see our cities at a much greater risk because of our policy than if we were neutral and friends with all fractions, instead of trying to be a financial and military ally of all fractions depending on the circumstances. The way we usually get dragged into a shooting war is by some unpredictable incident, where innocent Americans are killed after our government placed them in harm's way and the enemy was provoked. Then the argument is made that once hostilities break out, debating the policy that created the mess is off limits. Everyone then must agree to support the troops. When I read this about 15 minutes ago I was blown away. He predicted 911, the Iraq war, the underplanning of the cost of the war, the outcome of the war, the war hysteria, the lack of coalition (going it alone) the blow back and the patriot act, and finally the republican bullying of people who were outspoken of the war. I almost can't believe this was a speech from '98. Who was listening, apparently no one. WOW Dustan

Actually Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote Infidel, not Maryam Namazie.

Also it is very interesting that both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Oriana Fallaci both came to the conclusion independently that the only way to combat Radical Islam was with reason, never did they mention Christianity or Democracy. --Dustan

I just got finished reading Infidel last week, and it is a really incredible book. She talked a lot about the books that she read when she was a child/teenager and they were mostly cheap romance novels and Nancy Drew type stuff, she didn't mention any political/historical/philosophical type books, just novels that the Christian girls in Nairobi passed around. But she said that it gave her insight into American culture, and showed how women were free to make their own decisions. It became a fantasy for her to be able to live in such a free culture. Another women who spoke out against Radical Islam and the passive invasion of Europe was Oriana Fallaci of Italy. She was never a Muslim, but was also very courageous, had death threats against her, and also came to live in New York. Dustan

Here is a quote I found reading Ron Paul's new book A Foreign Policy Of Freedom that I thought all objectivist could appreciate: Ch4, pg 13: From a speech he gave on the House floor on June 9, 1982 concerning a NATO Resolution What will it take for us to learn the lesson of history? When will we come to realize that a free nation-unhampered by government intervention, personally, economically, and internationally-is far superior to a coercive state? And if the people of the world are to eat, be housed, and be clothed, we must recognize the value of productive effort, sound money, and a free market, and a foreign policy dedicated to strength with determination to defend our freedom while minding our own business.

All that is very nice. For me the Main Question is this: Will Ron Paul do war and kill our enemies? If the answer is not or probably not I want nothing to do with him. Any one I vote for to be POTUS -must- be a killer. Ba'al Chatazaf What do you mean by "do war against our enemies" and who are our enemies and why? Ron Paul voted for authorizing president Bush to go after the people responsible for 911, but against the Iraq war. --Dustan

For those of you who don't know much about Rep. Paul you can go here: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/06/...0621_a_main.asp And listen to a 50 minute interview that he did with NPR Radio. If you go to the 31:30 mark he talks about the books that he read when he was young and still forming his ideas. He credits Austrian Free Market Economic Philosophical books as wells as novels such as Dr. Zhivago by Pasternak and Ayn Rand novels as his inspiration. www.ronpaul2008.com Listen to it, it is really good, Dustan

One thing that I worry about is extent that the Qur'an is moderate. I am right now reading the Qur'an to find out. I also recently read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography Infidel and it was very revealing. She talks about the extent to which Islam is radical and talks about how most of the people that are "moderate" Muslims are not very familiar with the Qur'an since it is taught in Arabic, and most places with Muslim populations do not speak Arabic. It would be if all of the Christian factions taught in Latin or Italian, all over the globe. I will let you know what I find out. On a side note, it was interesting to find out how Mohammad received his vision of the Angel Gabriel. He went into the dessert near Makkah, in the month of Ramadan (the hottest month of the year), found a cave a meditated for a month while fasting. I am sure anyone will tell you that if you go into the dessert and stay in a cave with temperature hovering around 100 degrees and you do not eat or drink anything during the day and only the bare minimum during the night you are going to have hallucinations. Also Mohammad did not believe the visions until he went home and told his wife about them. At which point she declared that he must be a prophet.

I can see the weight loss commercials now. Go to sleep for three months and wake up skinny. Next they will have hibernation spas. On the other hand this is good results from research, hopefully it can be usefull. Dustan

If you paint like a photograph than you better offer more than the photograph. Art is not about skill alone. These pictures do not offer much more than their picture. --Dustan

http://www.theeagle.com/stories/061207/texas_20070612039.php This article is from my local newspaper. I talks about the coming water shortage in west Texas (and most of the west for that matter). Texas considers the water underneath a property (groundwater) to be apart of the property. This has led to formations of water marketing companies who buy up the "water rights" (same as mineral rights, but for water instead of oil and gas), and plan on pumping and selling the water once it becomes too scarce. Texas passed 'capture' rights more than 100 years ago, which allows property owner to pump unlimited amounts of water below their property. Some of these companies have vast rights over the Ogallala Aquifer (the world's largest including 8 states) and the Gulf Coast Aquifer. So here is the problem. One one hand, property rights state that the companies can pump unlimited amounts of water. And they have paid for this property. So should they be allowed to capitalize on their investment and start pumping as much water as they can to the highest bidder? On the other hand, when these water laws where passed, there was no scientific evidence that water is limited or determination about its origins. Since the passing of these laws we have learned that water in these aquifers is limited and that even though they renew themselves, they are not renewing themselves at the current rate of extraction, which means at the current rate (and increased rate once these marketing companies find a buyer) the water will eventually run out. Also, does the unlimited pumping rights of the people in Texas infringe on the water rights of other people from other states that may not use as much water. If the companies in Texas pump extraordinary amounts of water, this will be "taking away" from the water under other people's property. Would a law that limits the annual amount of extraction of water to a ratio between annual renewal volume of the aquifer and acreage of land over an aquifer, be seen as infringing on the rights of the companies that have invested under the old rules. Also whether these companies are able to keep their pumping rights or not, how are they going to handle the negative public opinion of increasing water prices? People would go out of their mind if they had to pay as much for water as they do for gas. And if farmers in Kansas and Nebraska couldn't pump anymore water because of the unlimited pumping of the water marketers how would that effect the economy? Let me know your thoughts, Dustan

I am planning on sending a letter. Here is the address: Mailing Address: Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 --Dustan