Opposing Libertarianism.

Our argument opposing Libertarianism as an amoral conservative vote-splitter.

Opposing Libertarianism may seem counter-intuitive until you realize that it’s just another form of moral relativism.

Vic Biorseth, Friday, November 27, 2009
https://www.catholicamericanthinker.com/

Opposing Libertarianism does not mean opposing such things as individual Liberty, or Conservatism, by any means. My only real problem with the Libertarian position involves its complete lack of a fixed moral standard. The Libertarian approach says that the citizen is free to do anything at all so long as he dose not infringe on any other citizen’s rights or hurt any other citizen. And that is an idea that sounds fine, on its face. But we need to think about it a little bit.

This position is another move into moral relativism. It operates to oppose any commonly held fixed sense of right and wrong for a people and a nation. We call a commonly held cultural sense of right versus wrong an ethos; in America, the Judeo-Christian Ethos provides this fixed set of clearly recognizable moral standards. It forms the very foundation for our civil law and our Constitution. It was the guiding ethos of the founders, and it is the guiding ethos of the overwhelming majority in the current population of America.

We pointed to the need for a fixed, consistent, familiar national moral standard in the Definition of Pro-American Webpage, and again in the Definition of Anti-American Webpage. More than anything else, it is a distinct cultural ethos that defines a unique people, and it is a unique people who make a nation. Ethos is all wrapped up in morality. Morality is all wrapped up in religion. Whether anyone likes or not, whether anyone admits it or not, America is, overwhelmingly, a Christian nation. Our common sense of right versus wrong comes out of our Judeo-Christian religion.

The Libertarian defines many immoral activities as victimless crimes and therefore does not condemn them, and would legalize and un-restrain them. Many of these immoral activities are of a sexual nature, and many involve illegal drug usage.

It is my contention that totally de-criminalized and unrestrained immoral actions are bad, and not good, for the overall culture. We can examine some possible results, affecting you, via the exercise of thought experiments. Let us assume that the Libertarian position becomes the fixed law, and is now perfectly in place in America.

A teacher in a school, whether private or public, would feel perfectly free to smuggle your kid out of class, into an abortion clinic, and back into class, without your consent or even knowledge of the event. Your adult neighbor might feel perfectly free to help your kid shoot up with heroin for the first time. A disease-ridden hooker in the neighborhood might decide to give your kid a freebie.

You might be sharing the highways not only with the occasional drunk, but with someone who just dropped acid. Doped no-hopers might be staggering about or sleeping it off in the middle of the street, as they do in Holland, where it’s legal. Hookers may be jiggling and strutting their stuff in store windows, giving a whole new meaning to the term “window shopping,” as they do in Holland, where it’s legal.

The real question becomes, what kind of a people are we, and what kind of a nation is this? Are we pagans, are we atheists, or are we Christians and Jews?

State’s Rights are important, in accordance with the Rule Of Subsidiarity, and we see in America that the moral norm shifts geographically. States are and should be perfectly free to outlaw or legalize anything that suits the voters.

Las Vegas is a city that was virtually invented by organized crime families, and Nevada is as near as you can get to an anything-goes state. Prostitution is legalized, and the citizens seem to have no problem with that. ‘Vegas advertises itself to be Sin City.

On the other side of that coin, abortion as practiced today was illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, by legislated, representative law, before it was legalized by unconstitutional judicial fiat. The Court, and both other branches of Federal government, had no business whatsoever undoing representative State law all across the land. See the Abortion In America Webpage for the disgusting, un-Constitutional details of how this came about, in the face of the “represented” people.

I am so tired of hearing someone say how they personally despise homosexuality but that they see nothing wrong with it being someone else’s choice. If something is right, then it right for everyone. If it is wrong, then it is wrong for everyone. You are not and cannot be an island; a common sense of right and wrong, or the lack of one, will most certainly affect you, unless you move into a cave or something weird.

”When the fit hits the shan, I’m not going to ask the guy in the foxhole next to me if he’s gay or not” Is the statement most frequently presented by someone who never served. Or if he did, he didn’t serve in the ranks. What about all the rest of the time? Might you ask that question before taking a shower with him? How about when using the buddy system in the field, where you pour cans of water over each other in order to bathe? How about before you crawl into your two-man pup tent with him? No; that question may only be presented by the Libertarian in the absolutely most inappropriate time for the subject matter. It is on the battlefield, and only the battlefield, where the issue has any importance whatsoever.

Have you ever noticed how commentators and editorialists and journalists always interview the homosexuals and never the heterosexuals in the service regarding issues of homosexuality? The heterosexual viewpoint is censored.

Morality, properly understood, is not a morality for me, but not for thee. Nor can it be a morality for thee, but not for me. We either have a fixed moral norm, or we do not. Liberty is not really possible for long in the absence of any fixed moral norm, any common sense of right and wrong that defines us as a people.

What kind of a people are we? What kind of a nation is this?

=====

Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the acronym and a detailed explanation; "Hover" the mouse over it just to see the simple interpretation.)

SLIMC¹ Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
GESGOEAEOT² Gradually, Ever So Gradually, Over Eons And Eons Of Time
PEWAG³ Punctuated Equilibrium's Wild-Assed Guess
TTRSTF⁴ Them There Real Scientifical-Type Fellers
TTRSPTF⁵ Them There Real Smart Perfesser-Type Fellers
TTRSJTF⁶ Them There Real Smart Journalistical-Type Fellers
SNRTACBT⁷ Surely No Right Thinking Adult Could Believe Today
STNSEACPB⁸ Surely Today No Serious Educated Adult Could Possibly Believe
WDN⁹ We Don't Know
BMDFP¹⁰ Baboons, Mongrel Dogs, Filthy Pigs and ...
HBAACOTE¹¹ Human Beings Are A Cancer On The Earth
ACLU¹² Anti-Christian Litigation Union
FLORMPORIF¹³ Flagrant Liar, Or, Mindless Parrot, Or, Innocent Fool
MEJTML¹⁴ Marxist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
IEJTML¹⁵ Islamic Ends-Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
MPAV¹⁶ Marxist Principles And Values
WBESSWG¹⁷ Wise, Benign, Elite, Super-Scientific World Governance
TRMITM¹⁸ The Reason Man's In This Mess
IYI¹⁹ Intellectual Yet Idiotic
TTRSCBTF²⁰ Them There Real Smart Catholic Bishop Type Fellers
IACMPVND²¹ Illegal-Alien-Criminal Marxocrat-Party-Voting Nation-Destroyers
PEJTML²² Palestinian Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
PSYOP²³ "Psychological Operation" Mind Trick
CDC²⁴ Covid Developmentally Challenged
LGBTQ+ Every Letter Represents A Serious Psychotic sexual Identity Disorder
HEJTML²⁶ Hedonist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
SEJTML²⁷ Scientistic Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar

Reference Material

[All Web Pages listed in Site Map by date-of-publication;
oldest at the top, newest at the bottom of the list.]

Culture=Religion+Politics;  Who Are We?  Vic Biorseth

The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA;  Vic Biorseth

Live Interviews

Return to the BLOG page

Return to the HOME PAGE

Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter

---

Date: Sun Nov 29 23:13:39 2009
From: Anonymous
Email:
Location:
Comment:

This is just a lot of divisive homophobic propaganda. Your type is always trying to force everyone into the same box, to behave in your approved way and to appear as you would have them appear. There are a lot more gays in the military than you know, and they are causing no problems at all, and they are living in fear of being outed, thanks to people like you. Why can’t you just leave people alone? Why must you bother them when they are not bothering you?

---

Date: Mon Nov 30 06:32:16 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Anonymous:

How heterophobic of you to point these things out.

Religion, morality and moral norms, ethos, politics and chosen ways of life are, precisely, divisive, and not inclusive. See the Definition of Pro-American page and/or the Definition of Anti-American page for a lesson in divisiveness vs. inclusiveness.

The shoe is on the other foot, my friend. I force no one to do anything. On the other hand, your position seeks to force others into close company they do not wish to keep, and into public acceptance of the unacceptable. By law, or executive order, or edict. Against our will. We are to have nothing to say about it.

And so I must return your question to you: why must you bother us when we are not bothering you?

Take your chosen behaviors back to the gutter where they belong and leave the rest of us alone.

Regards,

Vic

---

Date: Sun Jul 4 12:32:51 2010
From: Buddy
Email:
Location: North Platte Nebraska
Comment:

I would like to make two points.

First point: While I agree with most of what you say, I’m not sure I want my grand daughter to grow up confined by rigidly fixed rules of some denomination of what you call Judeo-Christianity. You say Catholicism is the best, but someone else says that’s not so, and provides good reasons. I’ve looked at your site and it looks like you know that. There’s a lot to choose from. The Libertarian position seems to be the best all around way to go, making your own way so long as you don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights.

Second point: What do you think of the Constitution Party, or of changing the nature and the name of the Republican Party to the Constitution Party and acting accordingly?

Buddy

---

Date: Sun Jun 05 11:05:28 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Buddy:

Re your first point: The Libertarian position seeks to legalize all “victimless crime.” For the sake of argument, let’s say the they have been successful and there is no more victimless crime in America. You should be just as willing to allow your grand daughter to experiment with various drugs, sexual practices and so forth as you would grant to your unknown neighbor in some other state, some other locality or right next door.

So, you should buy your grand daughter her first crack pipe; better you than some stranger. You should learn what you need to know to help her correctly shoot up with heroin the first time so she doesn’t hurt herself. You should be there for her first acid trip. You should help her build a meth lab so she doesn’t poison herself or blow herself up.

Get her all the latest safe-sex and contraceptive paraphernalia, and introduce her to some fornicators and lesbians so she can experiment with her sexuality and see what she prefers. Introduce her to her friendly neighborhood abortionist for whenever the contraception might fail. Take her to a whore house to let her learn about a possible career choice. Maybe she could do an apprenticeship there.

Re your second point: The Constitution Party.

Recently a young man named Eric Deaton spoke to us at the Huber Heights Patriots meeting. He is running for United States Senate from Ohio on the Constitution Party Ticket. I liked everything about him; I liked every thing he said, every thing he stood for, and everything about his Party as he described it. His talk was a knock-out; everyone agreed he would make an excellent Senator and be not just a representative, not just a Senator, but an actual champion for us all and for our cause.

However, I had to tell him that, as much as I liked him and what he stood for, I could not vote for him. My only reason regards the fact that there is one and only one way that the Obamunists could possibly win anywhere in the upcoming November elections, and that is if they manage to split our vote. A third Party will do that very thing.

The time for new political Party building is not during an election cycle when so much is at stake. Our very national survival depends very much on this one election. I agree with every single thing I heard Eric Deaton say; he is the best candidate I have heard or read about; I am as pissed off as anyone at some of our Republican politicos; but I cannot vote for any national candidate in this election who is not Republican. Local, maybe; state level, possibly; national level – absolutely not. This election is just too important. I wish Eric Deaton had run as a Republican. What we need is a Republican Party with more candidates like Eric Deaton.

Regards,

Vic

---

Date: Mon Jul 12 21:15:16 2010
From: Monique
Email:
Location:
Comment:

It is cruel to say such things about someone’s grandchild. You know nothing about how the child is raised. And there is no difference between the two major political parties so the Republicans do not deserve to be in power. They have earned nothing but contempt.

---

Date: Tue Jul 13 06:18:19 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Monique:

If the grandparent embraces Libertarian “morality” then the grandparent needs to pass that “morality” on to his grandchildren. That means acceptance of “safe” fornication, “discrete” adultery and “open” homosexuality. And it means legalized dope. So long as the none of the grandchild’s actions infringe on anyone else’s life, rights or property, anything goes, so, if it feels good, do it.

The only possible chance that the solidly united and indivisible minority of American Marxists have of winning any national political office is to divide our vote against them. If you want a Marxist senator or a Marxist representative then vote for a candidate other than a Republican, and watch it happen.

As for me, I still align my moral standards with those of the founding fathers. Dishonoring your father or mother is immoral. The unwarranted taking of any innocent human life is immoral. Adultery is immoral. Stealing is immoral. Lying is immoral. Coveting another’s wife is immoral. Coveting another’s property is immoral. Fornication is immoral. Sodomy is immoral. Fraud, cheating, etc., is immoral. Being inhospitable or uncharitable is immoral. There is nothing tough about this. These things are immoral for ALL of us, not just some of us.

This is the basis – the very foundation – for our supposedly representative civil law. Go take a good look at the Ten Commandments all over the outside and the inside of our US Supreme Court building at the Church and State in Art page, and then come back here and tell me about the supposed superiority of Libertarian “morality.”

Regards,

Vic

---

Date: Fri Jun 29 14:55:06 2012
From: Jimmy
Email: jkozlowski219@yahoo.com
Location: Buffalo, NY
Comment:

Sorry for the late comment, may be a couple years late, but I hope you respond. I think you are misrepresenting libertarianism somewhat. There are victimless crimes, and there are crimes that may not have a victim, but still put others in danger. You mention driving on the road with someone who has dropped acid. Under most modern views of libertarianism, this would still be a crime. They are putting others in danger by doing so, and should be punished. Just as we do not ban alcohol for all just because some people abuse it, we should not ban narcotics for all because some abuse it. (I am not completely sure if you are against the banning of alcohol.) As long as someone does something that does not put others in harm, they should have the right to. And I have to disagree with you about your belief that one can believe something is wrong, but also believe that someone else should have the right to do it. I think you can believe this. I do not use illegal drugs, but if someone wants to smoke weed in their house, that is their business. I am not gay, but if somebody wants to have sex with someone of the same sex, that is not the government's business. I think it's wrong, but I do not want the government enforcing it. You mention Holland a few times, in a somewhat deprecating tone. They have achieved a more libertarian state. But let me give you a couple more examples, Portugal about a decade ago decriminalized drugs. They did not arrest anyone for using, but would arrest for selling as they had been. People made the argument that more people would use drugs in Portugal than ever before. But you know what? With drugs decriminalized, crime went down, and drug abuse went down. The government decriminalzed it, but they did not say it was ok to do. Rather, they spent more money on allowing for voluntary rehab centers, and things like needle exchange programs for heroin users, and the country is much better off for it. I can think something is immoral, but I think forbidding it for all of society is even more immoral.

---

Date: Sat Jun 30 06:00:14 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jimmy:

Terminology such as “most modern views of Libertarianism” is too vague to apply to a whole nation. A thing is either wrong or it is right. Most if not all of the victimless crimes Libertarians speak of are already covered, or not covered, under local law and/or state law. The legislative powers of the federal government are limited and enumerated; the federal government has no constitutional business legislating on these topics.

Case law appealed to the Supreme Court should be simply adjudicated based upon the existing law in the jurisdiction in which the event occurred, and not make new national law through precedent. The Court has no constitutional business making new law through judicial decisions that may affect the whole of the United States. Laws, or “constitutional principles” affecting the whole nation that have been established in such a manner should be reversed, set aside or otherwise voided by legislative action, because new law is the exclusive constitutional domain of the Congress.

If a Libertarian doesn’t like the local law or the state law where he lives, he can either work to change it, or he can move.

Regarding what’s right or wrong for you versus what’s right or wrong for me, I’m sure you will agree that we both should operate under some common sense of predictable behavior as neighbors. The test for me is this: If it is deemed to be acceptable for someone to regularly get stoned in some manner on some substance in his own house, then it should be deemed acceptable for me to teach my children that it is acceptable for them to do that behavior too. The same test should apply to prostitution, to various sexual perversions, to abortion, etc., etc., etc.

The problem is that right and wrong is a simple black and white issue that is most frequently overly complicated by people looking for excuses to justify some abuse of it. History has shown and we have seen where Western culture goes after God is divorced from the conversation, in Nazi Germany, in the Soviet Union, in Red China and eleswhere. Liberals are seldom satisfied with a behavior being made legal for them; they eventually want that behavior forced on the rest of us too. We must be made, by law, to approve of it and not oppose it, and not even speak ill of it.

That I reject entirely.

Regards,

Vic

---

Date: Mon Jul 02 13:59:43 2012
From: Jimmy
Email: jkozlowski219@yahoo.com
Location:
Comment:

Thank you for your response. You state that: "The test for me is this: If it is deemed to be acceptable for someone to regularly get stoned in some manner on some substance in his own house, then it should be deemed acceptable for me to teach my children that it is acceptable for them to do that behavior too." I think you are blurring the line between acceptable and legal. Currently, it is legal for a person to get belligerently intoxicated within one's own home. I do not think that this would be viewed as acceptable, but it is certainly legal. You may teach your children that it is wrong to do so, and I will to, but it is still legal. Now I do not smoke weed or use drugs, besides the occasional indulgence in alcohol or tobacco, but I think people should still have the right to use them. Do I consider drug use wrong? Yes, but I think that the government intervention in what someone puts into their body does more harm than good. Obviously there are laws that currently govern these things such as drug use, prostitution, etc... But I as a whole the laws as wrong. Legalized prostitution and legalized drug use has made other countries safer. Legalized and regulated prostitution allows for STD checks, which makes all parties safer, and allows for police dollars to be spent not on the prostitutes who willingly are working out there, but allows the police to help those prostitutes being abused by pimps or allows prostitutes that are forced to do it to be helped by police. I do not think the government's role to be should to legislate what is goes into my body, your body, or anybody else’s body. I do not think it should legislate morality (I am Catholic btw, and do have a sense of morality). As long as something does not hurt another party, or put them in danger, I do not think that the government should legislate it. Thanks for the response, and have a good one. -Jim

---

Date: Mon Jul 02 19:38:34 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jimmy:

I am not blurring any lines; I am talking about straight up morality, and representative civil law in a land of moral people. I’m sure you will agree that representative law should be based on a commonly held community sense of right and wrong. Otherwise it would be dictated law, and we would not be a free country. The basic, fundamental question is, always, what kind of a people are we?

As I’ve said a blue million times, in a blue million places on this site, in a blue million ways, the Constitutional power, authority and governing ability of our federal government is limited and enumerated, by the Constitution. If it isn’t in the Constitution, the federal government should not even be addressing it. Our system of federalism insists that the governing power that affects the citizen the most must reside at the most local levels of government, and that those government representatives who wield that power should reside in the area affected.

If an American loves prostitution, for instance, he can move to Nevada. If he loves the idea of open, in-your-face public faggotry, he can move to San Francisco. If he likes to smoke dope, there are many local jurisdictions where he can do that. I don’t know where you got your statistics, but I tend to doubt that San Francisco or Nevada or any of the dope-smoking jurisdictions are any safer than any place else in America. I would almost bet the opposite, for the simple reason that immoral people are less predictable than moral people.

For my take on legislating morality, see the On Legislating Morality page. What else should we legislate?

Regarding STD prevention, there is one and only one cause of STDs, that being illicit sex. There is no other cause. The way to eliminate STDs is to practice chastity. Very simple; nothing to it.

The real problem here in America is that the shoe is on the other foot. It is always – always – the Liberals, not the conservatives, who are trying to force their chosen behaviors on the larger community, and always involving the highest levels of government. Most areas and most people in America won’t put up with that, and the Constitution is supposed to protect us from it.

We have had over a hundred years of Leftist nibbling away at that Constitutional principle, and here we are, looking at the Obamacare Court decision.

God help us.

Regards,

Vic

---

Date: Tue Jul 03 09:32:43 2012
From: jim
Email:
Location:
Comment:

"It is always – always – the Liberals, not the conservatives, who are trying to force their chosen behaviors on the larger community, and always involving the highest levels of government." That is not true. The prohibition of alcohol, and prostitution, is a large result of the neo-cons, not Goldwater conservatives, taking a view and forcing it down people's throat. Prostitution is the only crime where the motive is the only reason that something is illegal. Sex in and of itself is legal(though I respect your decision to life a chaste lifestyle), so why should sex for money between two consensual adults be illegal? I understand that you make think of it as wrong, and I kind of think that too, but I do not think we should spend government resources fighting consensual prostitution. And Mr. Biorseth, I disagree with you when you say "I’m sure you will agree that representative law should be based on a commonly held community sense of right and wrong. " I think the government's role, especially the federal government, should be to allow for the most freedom possible, as long as your freedom does not physically or economically harm someone else. If you do something that harms someone else, arrest them, but if you are not doing anything to hurt anyone, and are only hurting yourself, the government should not be forced to stop it. I will probably let you go after this comment, so I just want to say that though we disagree, I have enjoyed this brief sharing of ideas, and though I do not agree with a lot of what is on your website, I do enjoy listening to your arguments, which are very well laid out.

Thanks, -Jim

---

Date: Tue 03 20 18:29:SS 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jim:

You’ve got your history wrong. Prohibition sentiment was stirred up by the vandalism and near terrorism of one Carrie Nation, who, if she had been a man, probably would have been shot by someone. But she was a woman, and she was able to inject an anti-liquor sentiment into the public argument to such a degree that Congress was moved to submit the 18th Amendment prohibiting alcohol in America, in a bi-partisan but Democrat-dominated House. Wilson – a drinker – vetoed it; Congress over-rode his veto. Maybe you call that movement conservative; I don’t.

As I said before, the most important principle of our Constitution is that it protects the American citizen from the government. The 18th Amendment, like all Liberalizing laws, did the opposite – it put the government more in charge of the citizen and his private activity, with negative results to show for it. It was done “for the good of the people” and it grew the government, migrated power from the people to the government, and limited liberty. That is not conservative.

The only federal level laws against prostitution on the books involve human trafficking, importation of aliens for immoral purposes, coercion and enticement for immoral purposes, interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering enterprises, and prostitution near military and naval bases. Any other anti-prostitution laws are state or local laws or ordinances, as they should be.

In America, the Conservative motive is to adhere to original intent in the simple English wording of the Constitution. And, in America, the Liberal motive is to impose something deemed “good” on all the citizens, regardless of any existing Constitutional limitations or restrictions. Sometimes with the best of intentions followed by negative unintended consequences, sometimes with evil intent followed by a purposeful and intended migration of power from the people to the government.

Liberals, for instance, would like to legalize prostitution and drugs everywhere, and to hell with what the citizenry thinks about it. Conservatives would never do that.

Libertarians only think they are conservative. They are Liberal. They seek to impose their favorite vices on all the rest of us at the federal level. It is never enough for them to just satisfy their own desires; they need to involve all the rest of us. They want everyone else to, at the very least, approve of their chosen behavior and not speak ill of it, under force of law.

Liberalism thus opposes individual liberty while claiming to champion it.

Regards,

Vic

---

Date: Tue Jul 03 22:50:51 2012
From: Jim
Email:
Location:
Comment:

You say "The 18th Amendment, like all Liberalizing laws, did the opposite – it put the government more in charge of the citizen and his private activity." Laws against prostitution, drugs, and gambling, puts government more involved in a citizen's private activity.

---

Date: Wed Jul 04 07:20:29 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jim:

Happy Independence Day.

Your statement is quite correct; that is why such laws properly belong at local and state levels of government. The Constitutional problem is that people like you want to impose legalization of those activities, and more, over every square inch of American territory, involving the highest level of government, and you don’t particularly give a damn what the rest of us think about it or what our Constitution says about it.

You don’t even seek to use any legitimate, legal, representative method to do it. You corrupt the legislative process for your purposes, as was done in Obamacare I, or, you go around the legislative process and use the courts, as was done in Obamacare II and in the legalization of Abortion in America.

And then you accuse us of restricting your liberty? And you oppose even our bringing these topics up as political issues? You seek to legally redefine marriage all across America, and you think we are somehow the immoral ones for resisting your efforts?

You may label that position Libertarian, but I call it anti-Constitution, and therefore flat out anti-American.

Read the Rule of Subsidiarity page, Jim. Then, you might want to read the American Constitution.

Regards,

Vic

---

Monday, March 11, 2013
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0. 

---

Date:   Thu Nov 20 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

Changes pursuant to changing the website URL and name from 
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.

Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages.  . 

Regards,

Vic

---

This Form cannot be submitted until the missing fields (labelled below in red) have been filled in

ADD COMMENT

Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.

Name / Pseudo-Name:*

E-mail Address:

City / State / Country:

Comment:*

Please enter the word that you see below.

Copyrighted Material