masyhead

The Cur­rent Year is 6263

Wile, we broad­cast our pirated single

Con­gress Declares Amer­i­can Cit­i­zens as the Enemy: Declares War – 1933

Don’t you feel oblig­ated to reciprocate?

I think of all the damnable here­sies that have ever been sug­gested in con­nec­tion with the Con­sti­tu­tion, the doc­trine of emer­gency is the worst. It means that when Con­gress declares an emer­gency, there is no Con­sti­tu­tion… for when this bill becomes a law, …there is no longer any work­able Con­sti­tu­tion to keep the Con­gress within the lim­its of its Con­sti­tu­tional pow­ers.” –Spo­ken by Con­gress­man Beck in 1933 prior to the pas­sage of the Farm Bill.

Also from Sen­ate Report 93549 (Exhibit 14), and remem­ber that our con­gress­men wrote these reports and these doc­u­ments and they’re talk­ing about these emer­gency pow­ers and they say:

They are quite care­ful and restric­tive on the power, but the power to sus­pend is specif­i­cally con­tem­plated by the Con­sti­tu­tion in the Writ of Habeas Corpus.”

Now, this is well known. This is not a con­cept that was not known to rulers for many, many years. The con­cepts of con­sti­tu­tional dic­ta­tor­ship went clear back to the Roman Repub­lic. And there, it was deter­mined that, in times of dire emer­gen­cies, yes, the con­sti­tu­tion and the rights of the peo­ple could be sus­pended, tem­porar­ily, until the cri­sis, what­ever its nature, could be resolved.

But once it was done, the Con­sti­tu­tion was to be returned to its peace­time posi­tion of author­ity. In France, the sit­u­a­tion under which the con­sti­tu­tion could be sus­pended is called the State of Siege. In Great Britain, it’s called the Defense of the Realm Acts. In Ger­many, in which Hitler became a dic­ta­tor, it was sim­ply called Arti­cle 48. In the United States, it is called the War Powers.

If that was, in fact, the case, and we are under a war emer­gency in this coun­try, then there should be evi­dence of that war emer­gency in the cur­rent law that exists today. That means we should be able to go to the fed­eral code known as the USC or United States Code, and find that statute, that law, in exis­tence. And if we went to the library today and picked up a copy of 12 USC and went to Sec­tion 95 (b) (Exhibit 15), we will find a law which states:

The actions, reg­u­la­tions, rules, licenses, orders and procla­ma­tions hereto­fore or here­after taken, pro­mul­gated, made, or issued by the Pres­i­dent of the United States or the Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury since March the 4th, 1933, pur­suant to the author­ity con­ferred by Sub­sec­tion (b) of Sec­tion 5 of the Act of Octo­ber 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and con­firmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1, Title I, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1.)”.

Now, what does this mean? It means that every­thing the Pres­i­dent or the Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury has done since March the 4th of 1933, or any­thing that the Pres­i­dent or the Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury is here­after going to do, is auto­mat­i­cally approved and con­firmed. Refer­ring back to Exhibit 10, let us remem­ber that, accord­ing to the Con­gres­sional Record of 1973, the United States has been in a state of national emer­gency since 1933. Then we real­ize that 12 USC, Sec­tion 95 (b) is cur­rent law. This is the law that exists over this United States this moment.

If that be the case, let us see if we can under­stand what is being said here. As every action, rule or law put into effect by the Pres­i­dent or the Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury since March the 4th of 1933 has or will be con­firmed and approved, let us deter­mine the sig­nif­i­cance of that date in his­tory. What hap­pened on March the 4th of 1933?

On March the 4th of 1933, Franklin Delano Roo­sevelt was inau­gu­rated as Pres­i­dent of the United States. Refer­ring to his inau­gural address, which was given at a time when the coun­try was in the throes of the Great Depres­sion, we read (Exhibit 16):

I am pre­pared under my con­sti­tu­tional duty to rec­om­mend the mea­sures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These mea­sures, or such other mea­sures as the Con­gress may build out of its expe­ri­ence and wis­dom, I shall seek, within my con­sti­tu­tional author­ity, to bring to speedy adop­tion. But in the event that the Con­gress shall fall to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emer­gency is still crit­i­cal, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then con­front me. I shall ask the Con­gress for the one remain­ing instru­ment to meet the cri­sis broad Exec­u­tive power to wage a war against the emer­gency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a for­eign foe.”

On March the 4th, 1933, at his inau­gural, Pres­i­dent Roo­sevelt was say­ing that he was going to ask Con­gress for the extra­or­di­nary author­ity avail­able to him under the War Pow­ers Act. Let’s see if he got it.

On March the 5th, Pres­i­dent Roo­sevelt asked for a spe­cial and extra­or­di­nary ses­sion of Con­gress in Procla­ma­tion 2038. He called for the spe­cial ses­sion of Con­gress to meet on March the 9th at noon. And at that Con­gress, he pre­sented a bill, an Act, to pro­vide for relief in the exist­ing national emer­gency in bank­ing and for other purposes.

In the enabling por­tion of that Act (Exhibit 17), it states:

Be it enacted by the Sen­ate and the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the United States of Amer­ica in Con­gress assem­bled, That the Con­gress hereby declares that a seri­ous emer­gency exists and that it is imper­a­tively nec­es­sary speed­ily to put into effect reme­dies of uni­form national application.”

What is the con­cept of the rule of neces­sity, referred to in the enabling por­tion of the act as “imper­a­tively nec­es­sary speed­ily”? The rule of neces­sity is a rule of law which states that neces­sity knows no law. A good exam­ple of the rule of neces­sity would be the con­cept of self-​defense. The law says, “Thou shalt not kill”. But also know that, if you are in dire dan­ger, in dan­ger of los­ing your life, then you have the absolute right of self-​defense. You have the right to kill to pro­tect your own life. That is the ulti­mate rule of necessity.

Thus we see that the rule of neces­sity over­rides all other law, and, in fact, allows one to do that which would nor­mally be against the law. So it is rea­son­able to assume that the word­ing of the enabling por­tion of the Act of March 9, 1933, is an indi­ca­tion that what fol­lows is some­thing which will prob­a­bly be against the law. It will prob­a­bly be against the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States, or it would not require that the rule of neces­sity be invoked to enact it.

In the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17), it fur­ther states in Title 1, Sec­tion 1:

The actions, reg­u­la­tions, rules, licenses, orders and procla­ma­tions hereto­fore or here­after taken, pro­mul­gated, made, or issued by the Pres­i­dent of the United States or the Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury since March the 4th, 1933, pur­suant to the author­ity con­ferred by sub­di­vi­sion (b) of Sec­tion 5 of the Act of Octo­ber 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.”

Where have we read those words before?

This is the exact same word­ing as is found (Exhibit 15) today in Title 12, USC 95 (b). The lan­guage in Title 12, USC 95 (b) is exactly the same as that found in the Act of March 9, 1933, Chap­ter 1, Title 1, Sec­tion 48, Statute 1. The Act of March 9, 1933, is still in full force and effect today. We are still under the Rule of Neces­sity. We are still in a declared state of national emer­gency, a state of emer­gency which has existed, unin­ter­rupted, since 1933, or for over sixty years.

As you may remem­ber, the author­ity to do this is con­ferred by Sub­sec­tion (b) of Sec­tion 5 of the Act of Octo­ber 6, 1917, as amended. What was the author­ity which was used to declare and enact the emer­gency in this Act? If we look at the Act of Octo­ber 6, 1917 (Exhibit 18), we see that at the top right-​hand part of the page, it states that this was:

An Act To define, reg­u­late, and pun­ish trad­ing with the enemy, and for other purposes.”

By the year 1917, the United States was involved in World War 1; at that point, it was rec­og­nized that there were prob­a­bly ene­mies of the United States, or allies of ene­mies of the United States, liv­ing within the con­ti­nen­tal bor­ders of our nation in a time of war.

There­fore, Con­gress passed this act which iden­ti­fied who could be declared ene­mies of the United States, and, in this act, we gave the gov­ern­ment total author­ity over those ene­mies to do with as it saw fit. We also see, how­ever, in Sec­tion 2, Sub­di­vi­sion © in the mid­dle, and again at the bot­tom of the page:

other than cit­i­zens of the United States.”

The act specif­i­cally excluded cit­i­zens of the United States, because we real­ized in 1917 that the cit­i­zens of the United States were not ene­mies. Thus, we were excluded from the war pow­ers over ene­mies in this act.

Sec­tion 5 (b) of the same act (Exhibit 19), states:

That the Pres­i­dent may inves­ti­gate, reg­u­late, or pro­hibit, under such rules and reg­u­la­tions as he may pre­scribe, by means of licenses or oth­er­wise, any trans­ac­tions in for­eign exchange, export or ear mark­ings of gold or sil­ver coin or bul­lion or cur­rency, trans­fers of credit in any form (other than cred­its relat­ing solely to trans­ac­tions to be exe­cuted wholly within the United States)”.

Again, we see here that cit­i­zens, and the trans­ac­tions of cit­i­zens made wholly within the United States, were specif­i­cally excluded from the war pow­ers of this act. “We the Peo­ple”, were not ene­mies of our coun­try; there­fore, the gov­ern­ment did not have total author­ity over us as they were given over our enemies.

It is impor­tant to draw atten­tion again to the fact that cit­i­zens of the United States in Octo­ber, 1917, were not called ene­mies. Con­se­quently the gov­ern­ment, under the war pow­ers of this act, did not have author­ity over us; we were still pro­tected by the Con­sti­tu­tion. Granted, over ene­mies of this nation, the gov­ern­ment was empow­ered to do any­thing it deemed nec­es­sary, but not over us. The dis­tinc­tion made between ene­mies of the United States and cit­i­zens of the United States will become cru­cial later on.

In Sec­tion 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17):

Sub­di­vi­sion (b) of Sec­tion 5 of the Act of Octo­ber 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows;”

So we see that they are now going to amend Sec­tion 5 (b). Now let’s see how it reads after it’s amended. The amended ver­sion of Sec­tion 5 (b) reads (empha­sis added):

Dur­ing time of war or dur­ing any other period of national emer­gency declared by the Pres­i­dent, the Pres­i­dent may, through any agency that be may des­ig­nate, or oth­er­wise, inves­ti­gate, reg­u­late, or pro­hibit, under such rules and reg­u­la­tions as be may pre­scribe, by means of licenses or oth­er­wise, any trans­ac­tions in for­eign exchange, trans­fers of credit between or pay­ments by bank­ing insti­tu­tions as defined by the Pres­i­dent and export, hoard­ing, melt­ing, or ear-​markings of gold or sil­ver coin or bul­lion or cur­rency, by any per­son within the United States or any­place sub­ject to the juris­dic­tion thereof”.

What just hap­pened? At as far as com­mer­cial, mon­e­tary or busi­ness trans­ac­tions were con­cerned, the peo­ple of the United States were no longer dif­fer­en­ti­ated from any other enemy of the United States. We had lost that cru­cial dis­tinc­tion. Com­par­ing Exhibit 17 with Exhibit 19, we can see that the phrase which excluded trans­ac­tions exe­cuted wholly within the United States has been removed from the amended ver­sion of Sec­tion 5 (b) of the Act of March 9, 1933, Sec­tion 2, and replaced with “by any per­son within the United States or any­place sub­ject to the juris­dic­tion thereof’. All mon­e­tary trans­ac­tions, whether domes­tic or inter­na­tional in scope, were now placed at the whim of the Pres­i­dent of the United States through the author­ity given to him by the Trad­ing with the Enemy Act.

To sum­ma­rize this crit­i­cal point: On Octo­ber the 6th of 1917, at the begin­ning of America’s involve­ment in World War 1, Con­gress passed a Trad­ing with the Enemy Act empow­er­ing the gov­ern­ment to take con­trol over any and all com­mer­cial, mon­e­tary or busi­ness trans­ac­tions con­ducted by ene­mies or allies of ene­mies within our con­ti­nen­tal bor­ders. That act also defined the term “enemy” and excluded from that def­i­n­i­tion cit­i­zens of the United States.

In Sec­tion 5 (b) of this act, we see that the Pres­i­dent was given unlim­ited author­ity to con­trol the com­mer­cial trans­ac­tions of defined ene­mies, but we see that cred­its relat­ing solely to trans­ac­tions exe­cuted wholly within the United States were excluded from that con­trol­ling author­ity. As trans­ac­tions wholly domes­tic in nature were excluded from author­ity, the gov­ern­ment had no extra­or­di­nary con­trol over the daily busi­ness con­ducted by the cit­i­zens of the United States, because we were cer­tainly not enemies.

Cit­i­zens of the United States were not ene­mies of their coun­try in 1917, and the trans­ac­tions con­ducted by cit­i­zens within this coun­try were not con­sid­ered to be enemy trans­ac­tions. But in look­ing again at Sec­tion 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, (Exhibit 17), we can see that the phrase exclud­ing wholly domes­tic trans­ac­tions has been removed from the amended ver­sion and replaced with “by any per­son within the United States or any­place sub­ject to the juris­dic­tion thereof’.

The peo­ple of the United States were now sub­ject to the power of the Trad­ing with the Enemy Act of Octo­ber 6,1917, as amended. For the pur­poses of all com­mer­cial, mon­e­tary, and, in effect, all busi­ness trans­ac­tions. “We the Peo­ple”, became the same as the enemy, and were treated no dif­fer­ently. There was no longer any distinction.

It is impor­tant here to note that, in the Acts of Octo­ber 6, 1917 and March 9, 1933, it states: “dur­ing times of war or dur­ing any other national emer­gency declared by the Pres­i­dent…”. So we now see that the war pow­ers not only included a period of war, but also a period of “national emer­gency” as defined by the Pres­i­dent of the United States. When either of these two sit­u­a­tions occur, the Pres­i­dent may, (Exhibit 17):

through any agency that he may des­ig­nate, or oth­er­wise, inves­ti­gate, reg­u­late or pro­hibit under such rules and reg­u­la­tions as he may pre­scribe by means of licenses or oth­er­wise, any trans­ac­tions in for­eign exchange, trans­fers of credit between or pay­ments by bank­ing insti­tu­tions as defined by the Pres­i­dent and export, board­ing, melt­ing or ear­mark­ing of gold or sil­ver coin or bul­lion or cur­rency by any per­son within the United States or any­place sub­ject to the juris­dic­tion thereof.”

What can the Pres­i­dent do now to the We, the Peo­ple, under this Sec­tion? He can do any­thing he wants to do. It’s purely at his dis­cre­tion, and he can use any agency or any license that he desires to con­trol it. This is called a con­sti­tu­tional dictatorship.

In Sen­ate Doc­u­ment 93549 (Exhibit 20), Con­gress declared that a seri­ous emer­gency exists, at:

48 Stat. 1. The exclu­sion of domes­tic trans­ac­tions, for­merly found in the Act, was deleted from Sect. 5 (b) at this time.”

Our Con­gress wrote that in the year 1973.

Now let’s find out about the Trad­ing with the Enemy Act of Octo­ber 6, 1917. Quot­ing from a Supreme Court deci­sion (Exhibit 21), Stoehr v. Wal­lace, 1921:

The Trad­ing With the Enemy Act, orig­i­nally and as amended, is strictly a war mea­sure, and finds its sanc­tion in the pro­vi­sion empow­er­ing Con­gress “to declare war, grant let­ters of mar­que and reprisal, and make rules con­cern­ing cap­tures on land and water” Const. Art. 1, Sect. 8, c1. 11. P.241″.

Remem­ber your Con­sti­tu­tion? “Con­gress shall have the power to declare war, grant let­ters of mar­que and reprisal and make all rules con­cern­ing the cap­tures on the land and the water of the ene­mies,” all rules.

If that be the case, let us look at the mem­o­ran­dum of law that now cov­ers trad­ing with the enemy, the “Mem­o­ran­dum of Amer­i­can Cases and Recent Eng­lish Cases on The Law of Trad­ing With the Enemy” (Exhibit 22), remem­ber­ing that we are now the same as the enemy. In this mem­o­ran­dum, we read:

Every species of inter­course with the enemy is ille­gal. This pro­hi­bi­tion is not lim­ited to mere com­mer­cial intercourse.”

This is the case of The Rapid (1814).

Addi­tion­ally,

No con­tract is con­sid­ered as valid between ene­mies, at least so far as to give them a rem­edy in the courts of either gov­ern­ment, and they have, in the lan­guage of the civil law, no abil­ity to sus­tain a per­sona standi in judicio”.

In other words, they have no per­sonal lights at law in court. This is the case of The Julia (1813).

In the next case, the case of The Sally (1814) (Exhibit 23), we read the words:

By the gen­eral law of prize, prop­erty engaged in an ille­gal inter­course with the enemy is deemed enemy prop­erty. It is of no con­se­quence whether it belong to an ally or to a cit­i­zen; the ille­gal traf­fic stamps it with the hos­tile char­ac­ter, and attaches to it all the penal con­se­quences of enemy ownership”.

Read­ing fur­ther in the mem­o­ran­dum, again from the case of The Rapid:

The law of prize is part of the law of nations. In it, a hos­tile char­ac­ter is attached to trade, inde­pen­dently of the char­ac­ter of the trader who pur­sues or directs it. Con­dem­na­tion to the use of the cap­tor is equally the fate of the prop­erty of the bel­liger­ent and of the prop­erty found engaged in anti-​neutral trade. But a cit­i­zen or an ally may be engaged in a hos­tile trade, and thereby involve his prop­erty in the fate of those in whose cause he embarks”.

Again from the mem­o­ran­dum (Exhibit 24):

The pro­duce of the soil of the hos­tile ter­ri­tory, as well as other prop­erty engaged in the com­merce of the hos­tile power, as the source of its wealth and strength, are always regarded as legit­i­mate prize, with­out regard to the domi­cile of the owner”.

From the case (Exhibit 25) of The William Baga­ley (1866):

In gen­eral, dur­ing war, con­tracts with, or pow­ers of attor­ney or agency from, the enemy exe­cuted after out­break of war are ille­gal and void; con­tracts entered into with the enemy prior to the war are either sus­pended or are absolutely ter­mi­nated; part­ner­ships with an enemy are dis­solved; pow­ers of attor­ney from the enemy, with cer­tain excep­tions, lapse; pay­ments to the enemy (except to agents in the United States appointed prior to the war and con­firmed since the war) are ille­gal and void; all rights of an enemy to sue in the courts are suspended.”

From Sen­ate Report No. 113 (Exhibit 26), in which we find An Act to Define, Reg­u­late, and Pun­ish Trad­ing with the Enemy, and For Other Pur­poses, we read:

The trade or com­merce reg­u­lated or pro­hib­ited is defined in Sub­sec­tions (a), (b), ©, (d) and (e), page 4. This trade cov­ers almost every imag­in­able trans­ac­tion, and is for­bid­den and made unlaw­ful except when allowed under the form of licenses issued by the Sec­re­tary of Com­merce (p. 4, sec. 3, line 18). This autho­riza­tion of trad­ing under licenses con­sti­tutes the prin­ci­pal mod­i­fi­ca­tion of the rule of inter­na­tional law for­bid­ding trade between the cit­i­zens of bel­liger­ents, for the power to grant such licenses, and there­fore exemp­tion from the oper­a­tion of law, is given by the bill.”

It says no trade can be con­ducted or no inter­course can be con­ducted with­out a license, because, by mere def­i­n­i­tion of the enemy, and under the prize law, all inter­course is illegal.

That was the first case we looked at, Exhibit 22, wasn’t it? So once we were declared ene­mies, all inter­course became ille­gal for us. The only way we could now do busi­ness or any type of legal inter­course was to obtain per­mis­sion from our gov­ern­ment by means of a license. We are cer­tainly required to have a Social Secu­rity Card, which is a license to work, and a Dri­vers License, which gives the gov­ern­ment the abil­ity to restrict travel; all busi­ness in which we engage our­selves requires us to have a license, does it not?

Return­ing once again to the Mem­o­ran­dum of Law: (Exhibit 27)

But it is nec­es­sary always to bear in mind that a war can­not be car­ried on with­out hurt­ing some­body, even, at times, our own cit­i­zens. The pub­lic good, how­ever, must pre­vail over pri­vate gain. As we said in Bishop v. Jones (28 Texas, 294), there can­not be “a war for arms and a peace for com­merce”. One of the most impor­tant fea­tures of the bill is that which pro­vides for the tem­po­rary tak­ing over of the enemy property.”

This point of law is impor­tant to keep in mind, for it autho­rizes the tem­po­rary takeover of enemy prop­erty. The ques­tion is: Once the war ter­mi­nates, the prop­erty must be returned, mustn’t it?

The prop­erty that is con­fis­cated, and the bel­liger­ent night of the gov­ern­ment dur­ing the period of war, must be returned when the war ter­mi­nates. Let us take the case of a ship in har­bor; war breaks out, and the Admi­ral says, “I’m seiz­ing your ship.” Can you stop him? No. But when the war is over, the Admi­ral must return your ship to you. This point is impor­tant to bear in mind, for we will return to, and expand upon, it later in the report.

Read­ing from (Exhibit 28) Sen­ate Doc­u­ment No. 43, “Con­tracts Payable in Gold” writ­ten in 1933:

The ulti­mate own­er­ship of all prop­erty is in the State; indi­vid­ual so-​called “own­er­ship” is only by virtue of gov­ern­ment, i. e., law, amount­ing to mere user; and use must be in accor­dance with law and sub­or­di­nate to the neces­si­ties of the State.”

Who owns all the prop­erty? Who owns the prop­erty you call “yours”? Who has the author­ity to mort­gage prop­erty? Let us con­tinue with a Supreme Court deci­sion, (Exhibit 29) United States v. Russell:

Pri­vate prop­erty, the Con­sti­tu­tion pro­vides, shall not be taken for pub­lic use with­out just compensation…”

That is the peace­time clause, isn’t it? Fur­ther (empha­sis added),

Extra­or­di­nary and unfore­seen occa­sions arise, how­ever, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme neces­sity in time of war or of imme­di­ate and impend­ing pub­lic dan­ger, in which pri­vate prop­erty may be impressed into the pub­lic ser­vice, or may be seized or appro­pri­ated to pub­lic use, or may even be destroyed with­out the con­sent of the owner…”

This quote, and indeed this case, pro­vides a vivid frus­tra­tion of the poten­tial power of the government.

From Orwell’s 1984


So let’s see how they twist reality

Sen­a­tor Kaine said in a speech about the bill, “for too long Con­gress has given pres­i­dents a blank check to wage war.” The 2001 autho­riza­tion, passed three days after the Sept. 11 attacks and aimed at the per­pe­tra­tors of those attacks, has done just that. Three pres­i­dents in a row have warped its lim­ited author­ity into an enabling act for globe-​spanning pres­i­den­tial war.

In autho­riz­ing the use of force against a list of ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tions and their affil­i­ates, the bill states that it “estab­lishes rig­or­ous con­gres­sional over­sight,” “improves trans­parency” and ensures “reg­u­lar con­gres­sional review and debate.” Such trans­parency require­ments are an improve­ment over the sta­tus quo. But the bill also turns the con­sti­tu­tional war-​making process upside down. Our Con­sti­tu­tion was designed to make war dif­fi­cult, requir­ing the assent of both houses and the pres­i­dent. The bill essen­tially changes that by merely requir­ing “reg­u­lar con­gres­sional review” of pres­i­den­tial war-​making and requires re-​authorization every four years; mean­while, choos­ing new ene­mies, in new coun­tries, is the president’s call, unless Con­gress can assem­ble a veto-​proof major­ity to check him.

Watch Obama’s full speech on war pow­ers resolution

60 days after the US entered Libya, the War Pow­ers Act man­dated that Pres­i­dent Obama offi­cially would have declares war.
Gotta won­der about this with cur­rent knowl­edge of what we know about Libya and aid and train­ing of Isis.

Power cor­rupts absolute power cor­rupts absolutely!”

If you give some­one power you should expect they will use it.

For more infor­ma­tion on this sub­ject Click here</>


Wise Words

For­got­ten Post

CB Login

If you have added a com­ment that was posted after 2017 on Genet­icMem­ory you already have an account. Using the e-​mail address that you use to post your com­ment ask to reset your pass­word or to get the account username!

Oth­er­wise send an email to
web­mas­ter
to request an account.
webmaster@​geneticmemory.​org

Venezuela Sup­port

Web Analytics