Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Assassination and the Vietnam War


Lynne Foster
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think that even Oliver Stone, who claimed that a fraud artist like Jim Garrison was a hero, could not avoid the conclusion about "why" Kennedy was murdered.

I really do not see a reasonable rebuttal about the obsession to murder JFK -it was astoundingly clear. For a modern day equivalent, you should perhaps read the thread about Senator Paul Wellstone's probable murder.

P.S. The claim that Kennedy was murdered because he threatened to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power, is plainly silly, and was originally floated to distract attention away from the real truth that you will find in the following link.

http://www.geocities.com/matwilson_2000/ch7.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think that even Oliver Stone, who claimed that a fraud artist like Jim Garrison was a hero, could not avoid the conclusion about "why" Kennedy was murdered.

Please, if you are a high school student, try to learn something before you post a rebuttal here:

I really do not see a reasonable rebuttal about the obsession to murder JFK -it was astoundingly clear. For a modern day equivalent, you should perhaps read the thread about Senator Paul Wellstone's probable murder.

******************************************************************************

If you are an educator, try being less condescendingly smug to those upon whom you are attempting to impart your pearls of wisdom. The book, Pedagogy Of The Oppressed by Paulo Freire may be a good read for you as well.

Below you will find another faction of equal culpability, possessing the power, money, and wherewithal to pull off the crime of the 20th century as well as the fourth coup d'etat to occur on U.S. soil within the span of a hundred years:

NSAM 11110 aka Executive Order 11110:

On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.

After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. As America's debt reaches unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that will further increase America's debt, one is force to ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, if so, is he willing to pay the ultimate price for doing so?

Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289

AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-

By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):

(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821 ), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption

and --

Byrevoking subparagraphs and [c] of paragraph 2 thereof.

Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4, 1963.

Of course, the fact that both JFK and Lincoln met the the same end is a mere coincidence.

Abraham Lincoln's Monetary Policy, 1865 (Page 91 of Senate document 23.)

Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national Government.

Money possesses no value to the State other than that given to it by circulation.

Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money.

No duty is more imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.

The available supply of Gold and Silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.

The monetary needs of increasing numbers of People advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit through the operation of a National Banking system .The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the currency and credit of the Nation.

Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy.

Government possessing the power to create and issue currency and creditas money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental work and public enterprise. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issueing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Governments greatest creative opportunity.

By the adoption of these principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.

Some information on the Federal Reserve: The Federal Reserve, a Private Corporation.

One of the most common concerns among people who engage in any effort to reduce their taxes is, "Will keeping my money hurt the government's ability to pay it's bills?"

As explained in the first article in this series, the modern withholding tax does not, and wasn't designed to, pay for government services. What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned Federal Reserve System.

Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves."

Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors.

Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:

Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).

The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is:

The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine.It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them.

As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is what the Fed is.

No man did more to expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. Constantly pointing out that monetary issues shouldn't be partisan, he criticized both the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations. In describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that:

Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the monied vultures who control it.

Some people think the Federal reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain an international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.

The Fed basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the Fed banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the Fed over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, both in the past and in the present, that speak out against it. One of these men was President John F. Kennedy. His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs' 1990 book, Crossfire:

Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.

Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks.

A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author has a five dollar bill in his possession with the heading "United States Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.

______________________________________________________________________________

The above is courtesy of the Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty Forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't impart pearls of wisdom.

Is there some point to your post -if you can summarize it in one or two sentences please.

Are you responding to my post or should you be starting your own thread?

You claim you have been a JFK assassination research student since 1964, if you haven't figured it out by now, give it up.

Edited by Lynne Foster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry,

Please see the article linked below as a counterpoint on the subject of JFK and E.O. 11110.

The URL where I originally found the article (entitled "JFK and the E.O. 11,1110 Conspiracy") is now dead, but I found a version tonight on McAdams's website.

I know little about economics, but the article makes sense to me. There is no author listed in the link, but the author of the article is Dr. Edward Flaherty, an economist.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/jfk.htm

Ron

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do not see a reasonable rebuttal about the obsession to murder JFK -it was astoundingly clear. For a modern day equivalent, you should perhaps read the thread about Senator Paul Wellstone's probable murder

Lynne

Many people "do not see a reasonable rebuttal" to their beliefs because they discount any information or arguments that contradicts them out of hand. That chapter you cited proves little and is hardly conclusive, much of it is undocumented speculation

As for the notion that Wellstone was murdered that was debunked long ago. That's why Fetzer fled two forums about his book and left many questions unanswered.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not want to use a link to the McAdams site, because I knew that someone would bring up McAdams if I did.

After posting, I found that the McAdams link is actually a link to Dr. Flaherty's own website. Here is Flaherty's URL for the article, and his website includes other material as well on the FED:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011117123435/...herty15/jfk.htm

So please forget that I brought John McAdams into this, as if that were relevant.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry,

Please see the article linked below as a counterpoint on the subject of JFK and E.O. 11110.

The URL where I originally found the article (entitled "JFK and the E.O. 11,1110 Conspiracy") is now dead, but I found a version tonight on McAdams's website.

I know little about economics, but the article makes sense to me. There is no author listed in the link, but the author of the article is Dr. Edward Flaherty, an economist.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/jfk.htm

Ron

*******************************************************************************

"In the introduction to his book, Marrs advises the reader not to trust his book. This appears to be good advice."

Hi Ron,

I respect your work as a researcher, therefore I find this intro of Marrs' quite disturbing to say the least.

What was his reasoning behind the dissemination of false information, or was he using this as an example of such? I haven't read Crossfire, therefore I wasn't aware of this passage in the introduction. I can't say that I'm a follower of his writings either, because I'm not a believer in the UFO phenomenon. And, not being a fan of McAdams, leaves me non-plussed as to the credentials of Dr. Edward Flaherty, as well.

As you already know, I lean toward a conglomeration of players involved in the assassination culminating from the top on down. I believe Donald Gibson was on the right trail regarding Wall Street, as well as the involvement of the oil cartels. Yet I don't see one entity, in and of itself alone, as having the power to pull off a major coup of this magnitude. The tentacles reach far and wide with respect to whom and/or what may have had the power to orchestrate the cover-up, which I consider to be the major issue here, aside from the murder itself. I don't believe Castro and the Russians were physically involved in any of this, although they probably heard rumblings about it through their own intelligence sources. Organized crime had their beef, and the Cuban aristocratic community of plantation owners were another entity themselves with their United Fruit connections, and the money they subsequently stood to lose if Castro could not be unseated. But to try and pass the buck to Castro and the Soviets is ridiculous. I agree with the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam as having a major hand in it because of the government contracted deals with Northrup, Grummond, McDonnell, Douglas, Hughes, Bell, and the assorted sub-contracting companies employed by the M.I.C. which I also link to the financial houses of Wall Street, like Morgan, along with the oil companies, such as Standard Oil aka Rockefeller, as being substantial losers in the event of their war efforts being thwarted. But, that's merely the tip of the iceberg. And, also why it's been so difficult to pin it down to one faction or the other when there are so many variables at work here.

I also take offense with snotty individuals who resort to leveling derisive and subjective comments about people who are no longer around to defend their actions or their honor. Then, proceeds in stooping to the use of underhanded tactics such as upbraiding a forum member for challenging her retorts, simply because he happens to be a bright high school student. And, you know to whom I am referring. But, thanks again Ron for posting this from McAdams' site. I always took Col. Prouty at his word, and thus believed I could count on his better judgement as far as what he allowed to be presented on his site. Forgive me for not updating my facts in a more efficient and timely manner.

Warmest regards,

Ter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry,

The first line in Marrs's preface is "Do not trust this book." What he means, as he goes on to explain, is that no single fact or author's statement in the JFK assassination should be accepted uncritically, since there has been so much misrepresentation in the case. One should review all information, which Marrs has sought to bring together in his book, then apply common sense to reach a judgment.

I don't know where Marrs got his information regarding E.O. 111110, but the document is easy to misinterpret because of all its legalese, particularly when someone else tells us what it says without one's own close reading and without knowing the context, with which Flaherty seems clearly familiar. I think Flaherty states the case well that what Prouty and others have said is there is simply not there. (Or as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, "There is no there there.")

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynne, your Post #1 would be clearer if you posted your "reason" for the assassination in the article rather than simply in the title to the thread--although your intent is clear.

Historian Stanley Karnow, who wrote an important book about US involvement in Vietnam, is one of many who dispute the claim that it was Kennedy's intention to pull out of Vietnam. I will dig up what he wrote about this later.

Even if Kennedy had intended to pull out of Vietnam, therefore providing a motive for those who would oppose such an action to want to assassinate him, motive by itself is insufficient to prove that it was that group who killed him.

There were many groups who arguably had a motive to kill Kennedy, including the Mafia, and both pro-and anti-Castro Cubans.

It is certainly not wrong to consider motive as a stepping-stone to resolving the issue of who orchestrated the assassination. I presume police often start off a murder investigation by considering persons who had a motive to kill the victim. But proof of motive is insufficient to convict anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynne, your Post #1 would be clearer if you posted your "reason" for the assassination in the article rather than simply in the title to the thread--although your intent is clear.

Historian Stanley Karnow, who wrote an important book about US involvement in Vietnam, is one of many who dispute the claim that it was Kennedy's intention to pull out of Vietnam. I will dig up what he wrote about this later.

Even if Kennedy had intended to pull out of Vietnam, therefore providing a motive for those who would oppose such an action to want to assassinate him, motive by itself is insufficient to prove that it was that group who killed him.

There were many groups who arguably had a motive to kill Kennedy, including the Mafia, and both pro-and anti-Castro Cubans.

It is certainly not wrong to consider motive as a stepping-stone to resolving the issue of who orchestrated the assassination. I presume police often start off a murder investigation by considering persons who had a motive to kill the victim. But proof of motive is insufficient to convict anyone.

True, many groups had motive, but only one group had the power to cover it up through the Warren Report.

Let's get serious here, why do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald was on the cover of the newspapers on November 23nd 1963, and Rchard Nixon claims that he called J. Edgar Hoover, to learn that a Communist had murdered Kennedy? Do you actually think that Richard Nixon was curious?

We're not talking about ANY group here, we are talking about the one that ordered the murder of the President of the United States and used a patsy and all these "groups" to divert attention away from the truth.

You can think that "ANY" group is responsible if you want, but that is not true.

Edited by Lynne Foster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of what makes this a fascinating topic is the multitude of potential 'reasons' why JFK was killed.

Seeking an end to the Viet Nam war, which he apparently was.

Seeking an end to the oil depletion allowance.

Accepting the influence and aid of organized crime, and then unleashing his brother on them. "Rule #1, you take our money, you leave us alone".

The failure to support the BOP with the US military.

Apparently seeking reconciliation with Cuba.

Apparently seeking to lower tensions with the Soviet Union.

Lyndon Johnson's overpowering ambition, and fear of indictment.

The described changes to the Federal Reserve board, which could have had a huge impact on wealth and the economy.

And gawd know's how many more. Which of the above was the straw that broke the camel's back? At what point did a comittee of powerful people say "enough, he's got to go?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shutting down of the Federal Reserve is one of the best explanations for the assassination of JFK.

A non-governmental CORPORATION, in private hands, prints our money. For the mere price of materials needed to produce this "money" (actually promissory notes) the Fed "loans" us this "money", which cost only the price of materials to them, at face value plus interest, which we are then to re-pay to this corporation.

The corporation is ruining America. What else do you expect when one company can produce billions of dollars worth of wealth for a mere thousands of dollars?

We are a nation of fools for allowing this practice to have continued since 1913, the year the Federal Reserve Corporation was enabled, via act of Congress, in direct violation of our constitution, to manufacture and therefore control our nation's money supply.

Every time a "loan" is made for a mortgage, a car or what have you, our national debt is increased and the banker's reap the profits while we are left with less and less money in our system with which we can pay our bills.

The "money" for these "loans" is created by the promissory notes we sign. Contrary to what you may think, this is not a loan given by the bank.

The "loan" is funded by a deposit account created in your/my name by the depositing of the note you sign for the mortgage into that account. The account is used to obtain money from the Fed, the bank puts that money into it's asset account, not your deposit account.

The result? The bank gets paid twice for the note. You and the Fed pay the bank the principle named in the note to the bank's asset account. Then interest on the loan is a bonus, usually 3 times the loan value itself, which the bank is essentially stealing from you.

The catch which will nail the bankers is that they stamp the note for deposit to the account. This is altering YOUR NOTE, which is illegal for anyone but you to do, and is the only evidence available to prove the fraud.

This note is returned to you after the note is payed off by you.

Look on the back of any returned note, you will find, "for deposit without recourse to", this is the bank stamp which contains a wet ink signature of a bank official who deposited YOUR NOTE, after altering it, into an account made in YOUR NAME, to obtain funds for the notes value, from the Fed.

Please don't direct your objections to this post to me. Educate yourself first by reading or researching the subject yourself.

This is one of the primary reasons for our astronomical national debt. Money is created for the notes, but, money for the interest on the notes is not created, resulting in a money shortage which will never disappear.

Think about it, 180k interest on a 60k loan. The money is not allowed to be printed for the interest on the note. It is a lose-lose system for us and a win-win for the bankers.

It is time for change if we are to save our country from this privately run corporation.

JFK knew what was going on and he sought to put an end to the ruin he saw waiting for us further down the road. The wars do not get fought unless the bankers give the loans. This is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg? I know the banks fund wars.

Your argument of it being a silly idea that JFK was killed due to the federal reserve is silly in itself if you ask me.

Chuck Robbins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If David Ferrie worked for the Federal Reserve Chairman, I'll change my mind.

I think it's absolutely preposterous, silly was too mild a term -I was trying to be kind.

Hey, why didn't they just threaten the Federal Reserve Chairman or kidnap his family, or ...

JFK was murdered because of his planned, out by 65, Vietnam policy, and Johnson proved it when he reversed HIS POLICY --CASE CLOSED.

IF POSNER CAN SAY IT, SO CAN I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If David Ferrie worked for the Federal Reserve Chairman, I'll change my mind.

I think it's absolutely preposterous, silly was too mild a term -I was trying to be kind.

Hey, why didn't they just threaten the Federal Reserve Chairman or kidnap his family, or ...

JFK was murdered because of his planned, out by 65, Vietnam policy, and Johnson proved it when he reversed HIS POLICY --CASE CLOSED.

IF POSNER CAN SAY IT, SO CAN I.

I repeat myself. There would be no war without a Federal Reserve, with the ability to create money out of nothing, who would then loan the money to us to fund that war.

You do not have to change your mind. Your approach, maybe...

I do like the thread you started though.

Chuck Robbins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...