Connect with us

Business

Is the United States of America a Country or a Corporation?

Published

on

The Corporate States of America

Critical Thinking…

Is the U.S. Federal Government is a Separate Nation? Should it be called the “United States, Incorporated?” Is the United States an illegal Quasi-Government?

Historic Summary of Corporations in the U.S.

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

  • Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
  • Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
  • Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
  • Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
  • Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
  • Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court’s attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.”

But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation’s resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.

The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment–a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public’s resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.

Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid “borers” to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters.

Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.

One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s recommended book Unequal Protection.

From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.

A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, “The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….”

Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence. At Reclaim Democracy!, we believe citizens can reassert the convictions of our nation’s founders who struggled successfully to free us from corporate rule in the past. These changes must occur at the most fundamental level — the U.S. Constitution.

BREAKING IT ALL DOWN

The UNITED STATES was formed in 1871, which controls only the District of Columbia and the territories it purchases or acquires; Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands.  Many think that income taxes, and some laws do not affect people in the sovereign states of the union as they are outside of the control / jurisdiction of the United States corporation.  The United States of America is different from the “United States” [corporation].

The terms UNITED STATES and/or United States of America and/ or United States Government are all a private corporation, even with registered trademark.

The US corporation (originally called the District of Columbia) does not affect or control the 50 sovereign states that are protected from the federal government by the US Constitution for the United States adopted in 1788.

There are 2 United States, one formed in 1787, the collection of the several sovereign states of the union, and another separate and different one formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and it’s territories.  Others may can give you specific references and explain this further.  Here is an outline of the concepts.

The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the “Acts of the Forty-First Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.” This is also known as the “Act of 1871.” What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.

The Constitution for the United States of America was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in PhiladelphiaPennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of “The People”.

U.S. SUPREME COURT

STOUTENBURGH v. HENNICK, 129 U.S. 141 (1889)

129 U.S. 141

STOUTENBURGH, Intendant of Washington Asylum, v. HENNICK.

January 14, 1889

Sections 1 and 18 of the act of congress of February 21, 1871, entitled ‘An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia,’ (16 St. 419,) are as follows: ‘Section 1. That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.’ ‘Sec. 18. That the legislative power of the District shall [129 U.S. 141, 144]   extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act, subject, nevertheless, to all the restrictions and limitations imposed upon states by the tenth section of the first article of the constitution of the United States; but all acts of the legislative assembly shall at all times be subject to repeal or modification by the congress of the United States, and nothing herein shall be construed to deprive congress of the power of legislation over said District in as ample manner as if this law had not been enacted.’ These sections are carried forward into the act of congress of June 22, 1874, entitled ‘An act to revise and consolidate the statutes of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, relating to the District of Columbia, in force on the first day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three,’ as sections 2, 49, 50.

And Whereas: The Constitution does provide that Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district not exceeding ten miles square, as may, by session of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States. And Whereas: On February 21, 1871, the Forty First Congress passed an act entitled “An Act to Provide a Government for theDistrict of Columbia,” legislating the organization of a municipal corporation to run the day to day affairs of the District of Columbia, the seat of government, whichtransferred the United States of America, the Republic, into “a corporate entity” entitled UNITED STATES, in capital letters, having “no” jurisdiction outside the District of Columbia.And Whereas: Congress adopted the text of the federal constitution as the constitution or charter of this municipal corporation. This municipal corporation was granted the power to contract to provide municipal services to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia and necessarily as an operation of the privileges and immunity clause of Article Four of the Constitution, any other person who chooses to contract for its services.

Catalogued Research: Credibility In Our Ranks, Is There Any?

The Webster’s Dictionary states that Fraud means Deceit, Trickery, intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.

The Blacks Law Dictionary states pretty much what the Webster’s Dictionary does but adds about two pages full of information.  My favorite part is: A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.

– – – –

February 21, 1871 Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871*

With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).

The act — passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War — was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America.

Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.

The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the original Constitution for the united States (1788) was defaced in effect vandalized and sabotage when the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1871)

is the constitution of the INCORPORATED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does is not !

Capitalization is significant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans.

What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government.This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original Constitution.

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the original Constitution, we the people now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be licensed.

By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution.

– – – –

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dccases/metrorrc.htm gives this discussion

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS

District of Columbia

On May 3rd, 1802 an Act was passed to incorporate the City of Washington. (2  Stat. at  L. 195.)

In 1871  an important  modification was  made in the form of the district  government —  a Legislature  was established, with all the  apparatus of  a distinct  government.   By  the  Act  of February 21st,  of that  year, entitled  “An  Act  to  Provide  a Government for  the District of Columbia (16 Stat. at L. 419), it was enacted (sec. 1) that all that territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be created into a  government by  the name  of the  District of  Columbia by which name  it was  constituted a “a body corporate for municipal purposes,” with power to make contracts, sue and be sued, and “to exercise  all   other  powers  of  a  municipal  corporation  not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

– – – –

This Constitution  lasted until June 20th, 1874, when an Act was passed entitled “An Act for the Government of the District of Columbia, and  for other purposes.” (18 Stat. at L. 116)  By this Act the  government established by the Act of 1871 was abolished (p. 234).

By a  subsequent Act,  approved June 11th, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102),  it was  enacted that  the District  of Columbia  should “remain and  continue a  municipal corporation,”  as provided  in section two  of the  Revised Statutes  relating to said District, and the  appointment of  commissioners was  provided for, to have and  to  exercise  similar  powers  given  to  the  commissioners appointed under  the Act  of 1874. All rights of action and suits for and against the  District were  expressly preserved in status quo ( p. 234).

All municipal  governments are  but agencies of the superior power of  the State  or government by which they are constituted, and are  invested with  only such  subordinate  powers  of  local legislation and  control as  the superior Legislature sees fit to confer upon them ( p. 234).

The people are the recognized source of all authority, state or municipal, and to this authority it must come at last, whether immediately  or  by  circuitous  route.  Barnes  v.  District  of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540, 545 [23: 440, 441]. p 234

Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, in the case of Hepburn  v. Ellzey,  6 U.S. 2 Cranch, 445 [ 2:332 ], where the question was  whether a  citizen of the District could sue in the circuit courts of the United States as a citizen of a State.  The court did  not deny  that the  District of Columbia is a State in the sense of being a distinct political community;  but held that the word  “State” in  the  Constitution,  where  it  extends  the judicial power to cases between citizens of the several “States,” refers to  the States  of the Union.  It is undoubtedly true that the District  of Columbia  is a separate political community in a certain sense,  and in that sense may be called a State;  but the sovereign power  of this  qualified State  is not  lodged in  the corporation of the District of Columbia, but in the government of the United  States.   Its supreme  legislative body  is Congress. The subordinate legislative powers of a municipal character which have been  or may  lodged in  the city  corporations, or  in  the District of  Columbia, do not make those bodies sovereign.

– – – –

Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

A copy of the pages here:

http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2009/01/30/2215/

– – – –

United States – US- U.S.-USA-America ( a possession of the Queen of England)

Means: (A) a federal corporation . . . Title 28 USC Section 3002(5) Chapter 176. It is clear that the United States . . . is a corporation . . . 534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724.

`It is well settled that “United States” et al is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871 under the name “District of Columbia,” 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62. It was reorganized June 11, 1878; a bankrupt organization per House Joint Resolution 192 on June 5, 1933, Senate Report 93-549, and Executive Orders 6072, 6102, and 6246; a de facto (define de facto) government, originally the ten square mile tract ceded by Maryland and Virginia and comprising Washington D. C., plus the possessions, territories, forts, and arsenals.

The significance of this is that, as a corporation, the United States has no more authority to implement its laws against “We The People” than does Mac Donald Corporations, except for one thing — the contracts we’ve signed as surety for our strawman with the United States and the Creditor Bankers. These contracts binding us together with the United States and the bankers are actually not with us, but with our artificial entity, or as they term it “person“, which appears to be us but spelled with ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

All this was done under,

VICE-ADMIRALTY COURTS.

In English Law. Courts established in the queen’s possessions beyond the seas, with jurisdiction over maritime causes, including those relating to prize.

The United States of America is lawfully the possession of the English Crown per original commercial joint venture agreement between the colonies and the Crown, and the Constitution, which brought all the states (only) back under British ownership and rule. The American people, however, had sovereign standing in law, independent to any connection to the states or the Crown. This fact necessitated that the people be brought back, one at a time, under British Rule, and the commercial process was the method of choice in order to accomplish this task. First, through the 14th Amendmentand then through the registration of our birth certificate and property. All courts in America are Vice-admiralty courts in the Crown’s private commerce.

Supreme Law Library : The Federal Zone : index

SupremeLaw Library. The FederalZone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue Electronic Eleventh Edition [Note: Small numbers indicate number of bytes in …” www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm

Supreme Law Firm

“The SupremeLaw Firm holds informative seminars nationwide, and maintains the … His massive book entitled “The FederalZone: Cracking the Code of Internal …”www.supremelaw.org/

 ADDITIONAL RESEARCH DATA SOURCES

Who Is Running America?

http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html

The United States is a Private Corporation Not a Public Government

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/07/04/independence-day-corporation-united-states-america/

 U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE: STOUTENBURGH v. HENNICK, 129 U.S. 141 (1889) 129 U.S. 141 STOUTENBURGH, Intendant of Washington Asylum, v. HENNICK.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=129&invol=141

28 US Code § 3002 – Definitions – Legal Information Institute

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002

United States v. United States of America – Supreme Law Firm

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm

Constitution for the United States of America

http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit1.html

______________________________________

Mohsen Salehi is a reputable, international Business & Management Consultant and Visionary Cross-Functional Business Engineer. 

Business Engineering (BE) refers to the development and implementation of business solutions, from business model to business processes and organizational structure to information systems and information technology. Business engineering focuses on developing innovative business solutions and combines knowledge in the fields of business administration, Industrial Engineering, as well as information technology and connects it to all aspects of transformation, from means of presentation to process models to cultural and political considerations.

Mohsen is Internationally contracted by public, private, nonprofit and startup organizations to provide a spectrum of high-level and value-added expertise, recommendations as well as hands-on consulting on organization initiatives such as business growth, optimization, sustainability, digital transformation and change management while creating value, improving revenue growth, reducing operation costs and developing more efficient business practices and processes within budgets, schedules and without impacting profitability and KPI’s. He also serves as a Program/Project Management Lead, Organizational Change Management Lead, Corporate/Franchise Training Instructor, Classroom Lecturer, and Public Speaker.

Mohsen’s approach transforms startup, business engineering, solutions development activity by introducing a primary focus on human needs and organizational purpose. He was recognized for his contributions by being one of the first people elected amongst graduate and professional students to serve as Council Advisor for the Graduate & Professional Student Advisory Council (GPSAC) at Saint Mary’s College of California in 2013 as well as one of the first people elected amongst the Trans-Global Executive MBA Program (T-GEMBA) alumni at Saint Mary’s College of California to serve as a Global Dissertation Research & Consulting Project Mentor | Classroom Lecturer in 2012.

You can read more about Mohsen at LinkedIn or Visionary People, and you can find him on TwitterInstagram,Visionary People on Facebook, or Visionary People Consulting on Facebook.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Business

Apple Pledges $350 billion Investment in US economy Over Next Five Years

Published

on

Apple is about to give the U.S. economy a huge boost in the form of a $350 billion five-year investment. As part of that, it will commit $55 billion this year alone and plans on adding 20,000 new jobs over that time frame. Following in the footsteps of Amazon, it also plans to add a new campus somewhere in the U.S. this year.

There is a lot of news here. Let’s start with the big-picture investment of $350 billion, which Apple says does not include ongoing tax payments, the tax revenues generated from employees’ wages or the sale of Apple products.

It will, however, involve taxes on repatriation of some of Apple’s cash reserves, which are currently in the $256 billion range. It anticipates $38 billion coming from repatriation taxes, but much of it will be capital expenditures on the part of the company.

For starters, there will be $30 billion, which will help fund a number of projects, including building the aforementioned new campus. The plan is for this to initially house technical support for customers. Apple says it will announce the location of this new facility later this year, with a plan to make the building run on 100 percent renewable energy sources.

But wait, it’s not done yet. It will also invest $10 billion of that money in new data centers in the U.S., adding to the seven already in operation or planned. There is a new one coming in Iowa and they broke ground on one in Reno just today, in addition to data centers already in operation in North Carolina, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona. (This number includes co-location facilities not owned and operated by Apple.)

Apple announced that it planned several investments that will contribute more than $350 billion to the United States economy over the next five years. (Photo/NationalTurk).

The company also plans to expand the advanced manufacturing fund it started last spring, from $1 billion to $5 billion. The idea is to bring advanced manufacturing jobs to the heartland and it is already funding projects in Kentucky and rural Texas.

Finally, Apple plans to expand its coding initiatives, helping students and teachers from K-12 and at community colleges across the country learn valuable coding skills.

While there is clearly a large public relations element to this announcement, the amount of money and investment involved from a private company here is just staggering and should help create new jobs, stimulate local economies and help educate students for the next generation of jobs. Hard not to like that.

 

Source:  Techcrunch

@LeNoraMillen      0-18-18

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Business

Amazon Reveals ‘20 Cities’ That Could Be The Home Of Its Next Headquarters

Published

on

Amazon has revealed 20 cities that could be the next home of its second North American headquarters, dubbed HQ2.

The candidates, selected out of 238 applicants, will move to the next round of Amazon’s selection process, the company said Thursday. Amazon will make a final decision on the site of its next headquarters this year.

The list of candidates includes Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Washington, DC, and Columbus, Ohio.

Amazon said it will work with each city to “dive deeper into their proposals, request additional information, and evaluate the feasibility of a future partnership that can accommodate the company’s hiring plans as well as benefit its employees and the local community.”

Amazon has promised a $5 billion investment and up to 50,000 high-paying jobs to the city that wins its selection process.

“Getting from 238 to 20 was very tough – all the proposals showed tremendous enthusiasm and creativity,” said Holly Sullivan, head of public policy for Amazon. “Through this process, we learned about many new communities across North America that we will consider as locations for future infrastructure investment and job creation.”

Here are all the potential candidates:

  • Atlanta, GA
  • Austin, TX
  • Boston, MA
  • Chicago, IL
  • Columbus, OH
  • Dallas, TX
  • Denver, CO
  • Indianapolis, IN
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Miami, FL
  • Montgomery County, MD
  • Nashville, TN
  • Newark, NJ
  • New York City, NY
  • Northern Virginia, VA
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Raleigh, NC
  • Toronto, ON
  • Washington DC

 

Source: Business Insider

@LeNoraMillen     01-18-18

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Business

Former Heavyweight Champion: Mike Tyson’s 40-arce Marijuana Ranch

Former Heavyweight Champion: Mike Tyson’s 40-arce Marijuana Ranch

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Published

on

By

Former Heavyweight Champion: Mike Tyson's 40-arce Marijuana Ranch

 

Exposure Magazine CEO

Former undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, Mike Tyson, and his two business partners plan to open a 40-acre marijuana ranch 60 miles southwest of Death Valley National Park. According to mirror.com Tyson Ranch will allow growers to cultivate their crop and there will also be a cultivation school to help growers get the most out of their strains.

The operating company, Tyson Holistic, will employ mainly veterans and bring much needed jobs to the city it’s in.

 

#MustWeed Mike Tyson Preparing to Revolutionize Marijuana Industry, Breaks G… http://Fortune420.com/News #Cannabis #Stocks & #Crypto

Tyson is a long time believer in the medicinal benefits of marijuana use and with California legalizing recreational use of the plant, his plans to open the ranch are free to move full steam ahead.v

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Subscribe to Exposure Magazine Daily News

Join 37,486 other subscribers

Atlanta
67°
clear sky
humidity: 100%
wind: 6mph SSE
H 66 • L 64
80°
Fri
80°
Sat
Weather from OpenWeatherMap
Advertisement
Milwaukee
25°
clear sky
humidity: 58%
wind: 3mph N
H 23 • L 18
45°
Fri
40°
Sat
Weather from OpenWeatherMap

Say What?