So what is this Parliament? And why is it essential to represent the people of the United States?
Simple. We use ranked voting, which truly represents the citizens of our treaty county. While you read through our Rules below, you may find some of the ideas "absurd" if you are not a free thinker. Such as, declaring Roseanne Barr our Queen. You have to actually go to Parliament's website to fully understand what we are trying to accomplish. Roseanne Barr IS running for President in 2012. Many of our elected members of Parliament are also running for office, such as Sallie Elkordy of the Peace Party in New York. Take a look at the website, and sign up. It won't cost you a dime, nobody will rape you of your hard earned money, and you can have a say in what really needs to be said. Our website is located here: US Parliament
And now, the history of Parliament. While it may seem scattered, please read through and you will gain insight into Parliament:
-* FOUNDED ON AUGUST 1ST, 1995 *-
"The First, Third Party/Nonpartisan, US Presidential Mock Election" ~(2/5/95)
=================================================
There were approximately 125 candidates for US President
on the "eballot", and there were about 25 different parties/categories.
Harry Browne (Libertarian) - Wins the first election.
In the first election, a preference "eballot" was distributed on the
Internet, resulting in Harry Browne (Libertarian) winner, with Colin
Powell (independent) and Noam Chomsky (New) coming in 2nd and 3rd.
Although the preference voting (PrV) system was used, none of Colin
Powell's nor Noam Chomsky's votes single-transferred (STV) to Harry Browne.
-*-
"The First Internet US Presidential Mock Open Election" (ended on 7/4/95)
===============================================
In the first open election, web page eballots were distributed by Alan
Keyes supporters, and paper ballots were distributed by Jonah Gruber
(Seattle) and James Ogle (Monterey/Pacific Grove).
Alan Keyes won the single-winner contest by a few votes (proving that
eballots are effective). A 100-member
parliament committee was founded from the results of all the votes cast,
which gained recognition by the FEC on August 1, 1995. Election rules
were published on August 23, 1995.
A 100-member committee, as established on 8/1/95 with the FEC;
Member of Par-
Leader liament (MP) Party/Category Faction Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James Ogle Reform 26
Ross Perot Reform 8
34
Alan Keyes Republican 27
Harry Browne Libertarian 13
Randy Toler Green 5
Ralph Nader Green 1
6
Bill Clinton Democratic 6
Noam Chomsky New 4
Gary Geyer Artists 3
Gene Marsee' Hemp 3
Jonah Gruber Moderate 2
Howard Phillips US Taxpayers 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 100
-*-
See more about the recorded history at this link:
http://www.dccourier.com/messengers/mes ... 199606.txt
Here's a story James Ogle wrote about PR after a speech by John Cleese, in case
you've never read about this subject. The town is Santa Cruz, where
the "progressives" sided with the narrow-minded business interests,
in torpedoeing the contra-flow bike lanes downtown just after the
rebuilding from the '89 earthquake.
-----------------------------------------------five page essay
The Case for Proportional Representation
By James Ogle, after John Cleese
I'm very sorry to bore you this morning, but this is a political
speech and you know how boring those can be. This one is about (yawn)
proportional representation, so it will be especially boring.
Proportional representation! What's it all about? Let's look
at the 1992 Santa Cruz city council elections. On the chart below,
you can see the share of the votes cast;
| SCAN-51%
|
| | IND-39%
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | ENV-10%
| | |
| | |
--------------------
share of votes cast
The civic group called SCAN (Democrats) received 51% of the vote.
The independents (Republicans) received 39% of the vote. And the Environ-
mentalist Coaltion (a group of four from four different parties including
the Env Party) received 10% of the vote.
Now, let's look at the share of the seats they got;
| SCAN-100% of the seats
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| . .
------------
share of seats won
Oh? SCAN got 100% of the seats!? The independents and
the Environmentalist Coalition got no seats?
Or, look at it this way;
| SCAN-48,012 | SCAN-Won ALL seats
| |
| | IND-35,966 |
| | |
| | |
| | ENV-8716 |
| | | |
| | | | . .
--------------- ---------------
votes cast seats won
On the left, the number of votes cast. On the right, the number of
seats won.
This is ludicrous! Or as a child would say, "That's not fair!" It took
12,003 votes to elect each SCAN member, but with 44,682 votes, the
independents and the Environmentalist Coalition did not win a single seat!
This left a lot of people frustrated, unrepresented and wondering what to do
next.
Well, proportional representation, or PR, is about making
the representation proportional to the number of votes cast --
if you get twice as many votes, you get twice as many seats.
Now, I suppose that you'd like to know how it works? I will
now give you a twenty second explanation:
[Right now, many of the listeners are leaving the room for a Bud]
Instead of placing an X by your choice, you get to rank several
choices in order of preference. Your first choice, you put a one.
Second choice, a two. Third choice, a three -- up to as many choices
(or as few) as you'd like, like this:
SAMPLE BALLOT
Candidate's Name Party
--------------------------------------
9 Nader Green
2 Brockman Environmentalist
1 Ogle Labor
5 Perot Reform
Clinton Democratic
6 Swing TAO Are Frauds
4 Lyttle Pacifist
8 Hollis Socialist
7 Browne Libertarian
3 Chomsky New
10 Keyes Republican
--------------------------------------
That's it! The rest is up to the computer!
I'd like to welcome you all back from your beer! I've just
completed a political dream for a mean clean voting machine! OH!!
There'll be singing and dancing in the streets tonight!
In the example of a Presidential election shown above,
the voter can rank a candidate regardless of party, race or gender.
When the same method is applied to a multi-candidate election, the
threshold for winning a seat is lowered with each additional open
seat to be filled. For example, to win a seat in the Santa Cruz
race, one/ninth of the votes (plus one vote) would be required for any
candidate to win one seat on the nine-member body.
So, had Santa Cruz used nonpartisan PR elections in 1992,
the results would have looked something like this;
| SCAN-51% | SCAN-5 seats
| |
| | IND-39% | | IND-3 seats
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | ENV-10% | | | ENV-1 seat
| | | | | |
--------------- -------------
votes cast seats won
There! Much fairer. Not only more fair, but more constructive
too! Since each candidate wants to win over the other candidates'
support for 2nd choice, there's more discussion, listening, debate,
respect and positive campaigns. Newspapers sell better, too.
So, if PR gives you fairer results and positive campaigns,
what are the objections?
--First objection) Some people say "PR is a weird and abnormal idea."
On the contrary, a vast majority of the world's democracies use PR
and most emerging democracies are using it too. It's our pluralty
elections that are out of the norm.
There are several forms of PR, from the extreme Israeli example;
which is like one large district with 120 members; to the moderate
9-member districts in Scandinavian countries. The US-style,
winner-take-all, single-member district system is considered to be
an extremist example of democracy, when compared to the moderate forms
of PR such as those that exist in the Scandinavian countries.
In Italy's case of PR, government-financed elections led to
corruption, so their elections were replaced by an innovative
new compensatory PR system in which 75% of the seats are elected in
single-member districts and 25% of the seats are elected by PR in
both houses of Italy's Parliament.
In the US, the Federal Elections Commission presently finances
the two largest parties much like Italy's case, and this tends to
perpetuate the two-party system.
Of the democratic countries that use PR, certain correlations
(with no causative connections) exist;
- All democratic countries that use PR, have a lower trade deficit
than the US.
- All democratic countries that use PR, have a lower national debt
than the US.
- All democratic countries that use PR, have a lower per capita
energy consumption than the US.
- All democratic countries that have greater reserve assets than
the US, use PR.
- All democratic countries that have a greater per capita GNP than
the US, use PR.
Within the past year, South Africa, New Zealand,
Russia and Mexico have adopted PR or semi-PR in their national
elected governments. Most of the world's emerging democracies
are adopting PR.
In the US, forms of PR such as preference voting (PrV), cumulative
voting (CV), and limited voting (LV), are used to elect the city councils of
Cambridge MA and Peoria IL, as well as officials for
scores of New York City School Districts, five Texas school districts
and supervisors in several counties in Alabama. And most corporate boards
of directors use CV in the USA. Hundreds of other kinds of organizations
have adopted PR in some form.
In the majority of the world's democracies in which PR is used,
there is a greater voter turn-out, and the election systems
are supported by all parties because PR gives "universal coverage".
--Second objection) Some people say "Why change the old system,
it will lead to instability?" I disagree. One of the primary
reasons for advocating PR is that the present system discourages
change and forces you to conform to the two-party system. You
can only choose between right and left, liberal or conservative,
and when change does occur, it's so severe that it makes long-
range planning difficult. In addition, the winner-take-all,
or first-past-the-post (FPTP), US system gives the winning majority
a false mandate, and leaves the minority parties with no
representation at all. Perhaps we are too stable, and perhaps
moribund.
--Third objection) Some say coalition governments are weak
and indecisive. Oh? Norway, Switzerland, Japan? Poor wretched
and weak things! Sweden, Austria, Portugal? They make your
heart bleed! Germany, Australia, Spain? They're on the scrap
heap too! If only they could get rid of their weak and indecisive
governments, they too could have a system of gridlock where parties
spend more time bickering than they do running the country.
California! Thank the Lord! Where government is effective,
the economy is strong and stable, voters feel good about represen-
tative democracy! Opportunity and fairness for everyone! NOT!!!
--Forth objection) Some people say that PR is too complicated -
they say that Californians won't understand it. Well, yes,
I'm afraid that if you cannot count up to five, you'll find it
a teeny bit complicated!
--Fifth objection) Some ask, "What will happen to our local
representative?" A perfectly good question! In Santa Cruz
49% of you wasted your vote anyway, because that's the percent
of the vote that went for the independents and the Environmentalist
Coalition, who won no seats in the last election.
With PR, everyone will have representation, and
the highest vote recipients in each self-defined interest group
will be the winning candidates. Very few wasted votes.
Do you know how unrepresented women are in
all levels of government? In the nationally elected US bodies
alone, less than 12% are women legislators. But with PR,
there will be more women in government. For example, in three
Scandinavian countries which use the Sainte-Lague PR system
there are more than 26% women legislators in all three
countries' national legislative governments. Today, 41% of Sweden's
national legislators are women because of PR. Studies show that PR
is the most important positive factor influencing fair representation
for women.
In the US Congress, there is only one independent Congressman
out of 435 Congressmen, even though more than 19% of Americans consider
themselves to be an independent. The 19% of the voters which
voted for independent presidential candidate Ross Perot in 1992
realize that he did not get one single electoral vote!
At the very LEAST, we need proportional electoral votes.
Perhaps we should do away with the electoral college system altogether!
Years after women were given the right to vote and before PR
was adopted there, Kate Sheppard, leader of New Zealand's suffrage
movement had written; "The crudity and the unfairness of the present
method of election ... our clumsy system of voting, still goes on
sending men to Parliament for whom only a small number of their
constituents voted, leaving the majority quite unrepresented. As a
representative system, it is sham, a delusion, a snare to the
unthinking."
In summary;
-- PR is used by a vast majority of the world's democracies and is
supported by all parties.
-- PR is change, yes, but change for greater stability and a more
open government.
-- Coalition governments do better and have better economies with
PR.
-- More diverse representation will be achieved for all parties,
so you will more likely have a representative to talk to that you
like.
-- PR solves the vote-split problem and brings more positive campaigns.
It's *still* one-person, one-vote -- THAT COUNTS! Fair taxation with
FAIR representation!!
-- PR is too complicated for Californians ... Ha .. ha .. ha.
The greatest advantage is that it will reflect the will
of the people instantly. It will give greater diversity in
government. As a melting pot, we Americans find strength in
diversity. Perhaps we can rediscover that strength?
As Thomas Paine put it, "The right of voting for representation
is the primary right by which other rights are protected." Without
PR, our rights are not being protected.
If you find some truth to what I've written, please, join
the movement to bring fairer elections to our government.
Thank you very much for your time.
Very truly yours,
MP James Ogle
USA Parliament
To order an excellent book on PR:
_Real Choices/New Voices - The Case for Proportional Representation
in the United States_ by Douglas Amy, cost $29.50 plus $3. shipping.
Columbia University Press
136 South Broadway, Irvington, New York 10533-2599
phone (914) 591-9111, fax (914) 591-9201
So what prompted me, Joshua-Paul Angell to seek office in Parliament and create change? Simple. Roseanne Barr, and the essential legalization of HEMP.
Here are 2 Youtube presentations of her declaration of Candidacy that Roseanne made on capital Hill, as well as her outspoken appearance on "The View":
The View:
Capital Hill, Part One:
Capital Hill, Part Two:
Here is our current list, of the chosen 97:
The Eighth US Parliament
8/6/2008 to 8/5/2012
Prime Minister: Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian]
Secretary: James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
Prime Minister: Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]
Secretary: Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist]
Prime Minister: Charles Bruce Stewart [Green Libertarian]
President: Ron Paul [Republican]
Vice President: Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian]
MPs' Votes for Executives • THE CABINET • Executives' Votes for Cabinet
100 Elected Members of the Parliament (MPs)
Libertarian Party – 20 Members of Parliament (MPs)
Gail Lightfoot, Michael Badnarik, Starchild, Ned Roscoe, Richard Winger, Gary Nolan, Cory Nott, Lawrence Samuels [Purple Libertarian], Kristi Stone, Doug Tuma, Aaron Starr, Gabriella Douglas, Mark Hinkle, William J. Wagoner, Dwight Bailey, Aarde Atheian, Alex Plewniak, Howard Stern, Bob Barr, Zachary Scott Gordon [American Libertarian]
Parties with One Seat – 15 MPs
Vanessa Morley [Defender of the Republic], Darryl W. Perry [Boston Tea], Pat Buchanan [Reform], Orion Karl Daley [Balanced], Noam Chomsky [New], Mike Bogatirev [Environmentalist], Michale Treeplanter [Co-Operative], Michael Davis [Natural Law], Mark P. Steele [Discordian], Eric Charles [Orwellian], Michael Looney [Houseless], Eric Stevenson [Pizza], Lloyd Llewellen [Flying Saucer], John Coffey [Unity08] and Mike Banon [Skateboard]
Green Party – 13 MPs
Winona Laduke, David Cobb, Medea Benjamin, Mike Nelson, Susan Estes, Kevin Clark [Green/Libertarian], Thomas Leavitt, Mike Rogers, Tad Robinson, Michael Grazian, Gary Swing, Brett Johnsen, Dinah Coffman
Republican Party – 9 MPs
Ron Paul, Jim Doyle, Colin Powell, John McCain, Lani Guinier, Arnold Swarzenegger, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Peron, Ralph Hoffmann [Republican]
Independent – 9 MPs
Arianna Huffington, Rob Elliott, Dale Gieringer, John Anderson, Kat Penisten, Michael Moore, Casper Leitch, Ralph Nader, David Frey [Independent Socialist]
Democratic Party – 8 MPs
Dennis Kucinich, PRAVDA McCroskey, David Olkkola, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, John Edwards, Jerry Brown, Victor Cantu
Pot Party – 5 MPs
Nate Brown, Myra Fourwinds, Sister Somayah [Pot / Nigritian Kief], Brandon Garcia, Scott Comings
Free Parliamentary Party – 4 MPs
Laura Booth, Marcellius Smith [Parliament], Daniel Penisten [Free Parliament] and James Ogle
Marijuana Party – 3 MPs
Sabrina Melicia, Kelly Russell, J. Roach
Peace and Freedom Party – 3 MPs
Jan Tucker, Maureen Smith, Stewart Alexander
Comedy Central - 2 MPs
Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart
Info. Not Avail. – 2 MPs
Clint Eastwood, Woody Harrelson
Radical Revolutionary Party – 2 MPs
Annie Garner, Jennifer Perkins
Constitution Party – 2 MPs
Michael Peroutka and Don J. Grundmann
Total: 97 Members of Parliament (MPs)
Updated on 8/4/2011
And now, let me attempt to explain Parliament in the United State. We are set up as a ranked voting system. If you visit Parliament's website, you will be able to click on different areas and Super States etc, to gain further understanding. In the meantime, here is a picture for you to look at:
Platform Ranks:
The USA Parliament's Three Platform Planks 6/24/2011
1) 1) Whenever a new name is nominated for full cabinet minister,
the new name gets the #1 spot and the current #1 full minister as
well as every other consecutively ranked ministers thereafter are
moved down by one ranking: #1 to #2, #2 to #3, #3 to #4, and so on.
There are 60 full ministers elected by the five executives
(three PMs and two Secretaries), and all full ministers who are
replaced by a new nominee, automatically become a deputy
minister in the same ministry.
So, What does the US Constitution have to do with this?
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President."
And the 12th Amendment;
Twelfth Amendment - Election of President
Amendment Text | Annotations
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.--The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
How does the voting system under 1/100th's work?
Commentray from before 2008, by James Ogle
The approved rules, #s 29 and 30, are as follows;
29. HOW THE VOTE-COUNT WORKS: Majority Preference Voting (MPV) for the PM and other single-winner elections. Everyone's vote goes initially to his or her 1st choice. If no candidate has a majority, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated, and each of his ballots goes to its next choice. This process of elimination & re-distribution continues until 1 candidate has a majority of the ballots.
30. THE SAINTE-LAGUE seat allocation for the USA Parliament. 1. Divide the election's total number of votes by 100 (number of seats). This is the 1st quota. 2. Divide this quota into each candidate's votes, and round off to the nearest whole number. That's that candidate's seat allocation. 3. If, due to rounding, this awards a number of seats different from the desired number of 100 seats, then adjust the quota slightly up or down, till, when paragraph 2 is carried out, it will award exactly 100 seats.
Commentary
In most all US style single winner and multi winner elections,
the voter makes a “check” or “x” by the choice(s), and the results are
added up using addition, and the one(s) with the most votes wins.
That’s called first past the post, or FPTP, the results are unpredictable,
rarely proportionate, and the majority's choice rarely wins.
A single winner majority is 50% plus one vote, which is guaranteed
Under instant runoff voting, but not under FPTP.
Fox example, in dual district FPTP elections two candidates
can win 100% of the representation by winning 20% of the votes cast, while
the 80% majority could be split among 12 candidates with 6.5% each,
all who lost. In that example the 80% “losers” are the majority,
and the majority won no representation at all.
FPTP also attributes to racial districts, gerrymandering and the
"split vote problem", causing a suppression of many nominees.
The results in FPTP elections are always unpredictable,
and not proportionate to the votes cast.
Dual member districts that use ranked voting however,
under 1/100ths, guarantees that 66.66% plus two
of the votes, elect the two nominees within each category
in your elections under IRV in every
dual candidate election. Because the first two candidates win with 33.33% plus
one vote, and that leaves less than 33.33% of the ballots not electing anyone, so the third choice isn't elected.
The way it works, is once one nominee garners 33.33% of the votes,
plus one vote, they are declared winner.
In no candidate received 33.33% plus one vote, then the nominee with the fewest #1 marks on their ballots is eliminated, and the ballot is transferred over to the voter's #2 choice. That’s called the “single transferable vote”, or STV. Each "round" takes place, eliminating the lowest vote getter and single transferring the ranked ballot to the voters' next choice(s) until eventually the first candidate passes 33.33% by one vote. After one candidate wins, then the “rounds” continue until the second person receives the next 33.33% of the votes plus one vote, and they are declared winner.
The remaining number of rounds and stack of ballots will be less than 33.33% (hence the "plus one vote" earlier in the count),
and the remaining candidate (once all lowest ranked vote getters are eliminated), will have less than 33.33%,
and will not be elected. As the threshold is 33.33% and 66.66% plus two votes had been used to elect the two winners, the balance will be less than 33.33%.
This system will guarantee that 66.66% of the voters get representation every time in two member districts, while
however less than 33.33 percent of voters did not get representation under IRV in the dual member district.
The more the members per district,
the more exact and proportionate, the better the
"portrait of the people", via the results.
In a two member district, the first two with 33.33% plus one vote are elected.
In a three member district, the threshold is 25% plus one vote. (Satisfaction level = 75% + 3 votes.)
In a four member district, 20% plus one vote … satisfaction level is 80% plus four votes.
In a five member district ... 16.66% plus one vote is the threshold for five people to win.
In a 100 member district, the first 100 names that recieve 1/101ths (or .99%) plus one vote are elected, and the last name with 1/101ths of the votes (not plus one vote) is not elected.
Satisfaction level is 99.% plus 100 votes.
The 100-member district is called “full representation”, and that’s how the US Parliament's voting system works.
* * *
If elected, what are my responsibilities?
There are no responsibilities required. However, everyone may contribute in any capacity they wish.
People who recognize that the results of the stack of ballots cast, as counted under a voting system based on 1/100ths and proportional representation, while electing the three prime ministers, two secretaries and the approval of the rules by 50% plus one of voting members, may speak on behalf of the US Parliament to promote the project. As an elected member, they may make known their “MP’s Ballot” to elect the Prime Ministers and Secretaries, and contact other MPs to organize a block behind election of the executives and the rules.
The five executives, three prime ministers and two secretaries, are expected to elect
twelve full cabinets, and when all nominees get a ranking by each executives, then
each of the twelve executives are guaranteed to elect 1/5th their own nominees
for the twelve Ministries, including Deputy Ministers.
* * *
To conclude, and I know this is a lot to think about and digest, I encourage you to ask questions, to visit Parliament's website, to follow myself on Twitter @simple__living, to follow Roseanne on Twitter @therealroseanne and to sign up for Roseanne's blog located here: Roseanne World
It is important that you sign up for Parliament. You can do this in about 2 minutes on Parliament's website, under the "sign up" link/tab.
Also, feel free to ask any of us questions. You'll find links to our fan pages, websites, blogs, etc. on Parliaments website, and also on Facebook on my fan page, located at: Simple Living Radio- The Joshua-Paul Show, on Roseanne Barr for 2012 Facebook page located at: Roseanne Barr for President 2012 on Facebook , and especially on US Parliament's official Facebook page located here: The USA Parliament Official Facebook Page
I'll be posting much more about the fight to legalize Hemp and the benefits thereof as well. I'll also be broadcasting about this and other issues on the show.
~ Joshua-Paul Angell
No comments:
Post a Comment