Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Bill would order net providers
to keep detailed records on you
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
The House of Representatives is currently considering H.R. 1981, a bill that would order all of our online service providers to keep new logs about our online activities, logs to help the government identify the web sites we visit and the content we post online.
This sweeping new "mandatory data retention" proposal treats every Internet user like a potential criminal and represents a clear and present danger to the online free speech and privacy rights of millions of innocent Americans.
H.R. 1981 would impose sweeping requirements on a broad swath of online service providers to keep new records on all of their customers, just in case the police ever want to investigate any of them. In particular, the bill would require any "provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service" to keep for at least 18 months a record of which users were assigned to particular network addresses at particular times.
Such addresses, like the Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned to your cable modem by your cable company, or to your laptop by a wireless router, can be used to identify who visited particular websites or posted particular content online--threatening your right to privately browse the web and to speak and read anonymously when you're online.
Mandatory data retention would force your ISP--and your workplace, your school, your library, your corner coffee-shop with free WiFi, and anyone else that offers you internet access--to create vast and expensive new databases of sensitive information about you. That information would then be available to the government, in secret and without any court oversight, based on weak and outdated electronic privacy laws.
That same data would also be available to civil litigants in private lawsuits--whether it's the RIAA trying to identify downloaders, a company trying to uncover and retaliate against an anonymous critic, or a divorce lawyer looking for dirty laundry. These databases would also be a new and valuable target for black hat hackers, be they criminals trying to steal identities or foreign governments trying to unmask anonymous dissidents.
The House Judiciary Committee is about to hold a critical vote that will determine whether this dangerous, mass-spying proposal moves forward or not, and the bill could soon be on the House floor for a final vote.
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at NewzfromLimbo=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)...
to keep detailed records on you
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
The House of Representatives is currently considering H.R. 1981, a bill that would order all of our online service providers to keep new logs about our online activities, logs to help the government identify the web sites we visit and the content we post online.
This sweeping new "mandatory data retention" proposal treats every Internet user like a potential criminal and represents a clear and present danger to the online free speech and privacy rights of millions of innocent Americans.
H.R. 1981 would impose sweeping requirements on a broad swath of online service providers to keep new records on all of their customers, just in case the police ever want to investigate any of them. In particular, the bill would require any "provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service" to keep for at least 18 months a record of which users were assigned to particular network addresses at particular times.
Such addresses, like the Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned to your cable modem by your cable company, or to your laptop by a wireless router, can be used to identify who visited particular websites or posted particular content online--threatening your right to privately browse the web and to speak and read anonymously when you're online.
Mandatory data retention would force your ISP--and your workplace, your school, your library, your corner coffee-shop with free WiFi, and anyone else that offers you internet access--to create vast and expensive new databases of sensitive information about you. That information would then be available to the government, in secret and without any court oversight, based on weak and outdated electronic privacy laws.
That same data would also be available to civil litigants in private lawsuits--whether it's the RIAA trying to identify downloaders, a company trying to uncover and retaliate against an anonymous critic, or a divorce lawyer looking for dirty laundry. These databases would also be a new and valuable target for black hat hackers, be they criminals trying to steal identities or foreign governments trying to unmask anonymous dissidents.
The House Judiciary Committee is about to hold a critical vote that will determine whether this dangerous, mass-spying proposal moves forward or not, and the bill could soon be on the House floor for a final vote.
Newz from Limbo is a news site and, the hosting mechanism notwithstanding, should not be defined as a web log or as 'little more than a community forum'... Write News from Limbo at NewzfromLimbo=at=gmail=dot=com... The philosophical orientation of Newz from Limbo is best described as libertarian... For anti-censorship links: http://veilside78.blogspot.com/2010/12/anti-censorship-spectrum_23.html (If link fails, cut and paste it into the url bar)...
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Experts in war on terrorism, mob
retained by News Corp. directors
News Corp.'s independent directors, including one who crafted the Patriot Act, have hired two top figures with backgrounds in the war on terror and mob prosecutions to guard their interests as the Murdoch media phone-hack crisis sends shockwaves through the political and media worlds.
The Murdoch press was a chief backer of the invasion of Iraq, and left those who relied on its news with the false impression that Saddam Hussein was linked to the 9/11 attacks. The Murdoch press also has savaged critics of official 9/11 accounts. Murdoch's organization is under suspicion of being a continuing criminal enterprise.
The company's independent directors have brought Mary Jo White, a former U.S. attorney for New York, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who has made clear his view that rights of those presumed to be terrorists must be curtailed, aboard to advise Viet D. Dinh, one of News Corp.'s independent directors, according to a statement released by Debevoise & Plimpton, the New York law firm where both attorneys practice.
Dinh, also an attorney, is supervising -- on behalf the independent directors -- News Corp.'s management and standards committee, which is cooperating with authorities investigating the scandal. Dinh is regarded as the chief architect of the Patriot Act.
As U.S. attorney, White brought racketeering charges against mobster John Gotti and prosecuted terrorists in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
With the arrest of Rebekah Brooks, former chief executive of News Corp subsidiary News International, and the possibility of further charges or allegations against other executives, independent directors want to make sure that the company's interests are protected, according to a Reuters report Tuesday.
Senator prods feds on cyber-hack case
Meanwhile, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, is urging federal authorities to move on possible criminal cyber-hacking by Murdoch's News America Marketing. The head of that firm, Paul Carlucci, had prodded employees to adopt a ruthless attitude by playing a scene from a film in which Al Capone beats a victim to death with a baseball bat.
(See Murdoch arm paid off in cyner-hacking... http://conantcensorshipissue.blogspot.com/2011/07/praising-mobster-methods-murdochs-u.html)
Lautenberg wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller yesterday to highlight the 2005 hacking case. In 2005, Lautenberg had written Attorney General Roberto Gonzalez about the matter but nothing came of it. The Murdoch press was a ferocious backer of President Bush and his wars.
The senator had already joined several lawmakers in urging an FBI inquiry into the possibility of criminal hacking of the cell phones of 9/11 victims.
"As the Department of Justice and FBI examine the recent hacking allegations involving News Corp. and its subsidiaries more closely, I wanted to make sure that you were fully aware of the case of FLOORgraphics and News America, as it may be relevant to your current investigation," Lautenberg wrote.
Scientist faults a Harper's 9/11 theory
A scientist is upbraiding a Harper's magazine article as biased in favor of the Bush administration's narrative of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
http://mathforum.org/~josh/
http://www.mathforum.org/~josh/academic.html
In a letter sent to the editors, Joshua J. Mitteldorf, a biologist with a background in physics, expressed "disappointment on reading David Rieff’s article, The Limits of Remembrance, offering perspectives that are confined by the Bush administration’s narrative about the perpetrators and the crimes of 9/11."
About half of Americans disbelieve the official accounts, Mitteldorf said, adding: "The doubting half comprises not the usual gullible and superstitious crowd, but a great many independent thinkers, especially scientists, who realize that the official version of events is not just implausible but physically impossible."
Mitteldorf's resume:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:e09kaHf2d7UJ:www.electionassessment.org/Submissions/2005-06-29EAH/Mitteldorf_J/extdoc/Mitteldorf_J%2520Josh-Mitteldorf-cv.pdf+josh+mitteldorf+physics&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjW9W4BZEPex26RxH7NSovXpFhiqSEz2yuc8V1pGKuc8tVv2N0dQLGa52rPhGcE5JlRU6xgVm_AU1YwBo5l6aKvFL2JxA1EeurdoH7Q5VCzQGMbnN6Cqp7yhnBeT7HR4n4QNBnd&sig=AHIEtbQ-mtxtILCobtG-vWa0Yx8hN9BVaA&pli=1
A copy of Mitteldorf's letter:
20 July 2011
To the Editors:
I subscribe to Harper’s because you are willing to discuss realities that are censored by other newspapers and magazines. My subscription began, in fact, after reading Mark Crispin Miller’s August, 2005 article describing George Bush’s theft of the 2004 election. Publication of this article was an act of courage which occasioned, I believe, the largest single-issue readership in the Magazine’s history.
Imagine my disappointment on reading David Rieff’s article, The Limits of Remembrance, offering perspectives that are confined by the Bush Administration’s narrative about the perpetrators and the crimes of 9/11.
Diverse public opinion polls reveal that only half of Americans subscribe to this version of reality, despite the fact that it is the only one represented in the nation’s print and broadcast media. The doubting half comprises not the usual gullible and superstitious crowd, but a great many independent thinkers, especially scientists, who realize that the official version of events is not just implausible but physically impossible. Among independent-minded Harper’s readers, I would venture to guess that the number who believe the standard narrative about Osama bin Laden’s brown-skinned men with boxcutters is substantially lower than 50%. 20 July 2011
To the Editors:
I subscribe to Harper’s because you are willing to discuss realities that are censored by other newspapers and magazines. My subscription began, in fact, after reading Mark Crispin Miller’s August, 2005 article describing George Bush’s theft of the 2004 election. Publication of this article was an act of courage which occasioned, I believe, the largest single-issue readership in the Magazine’s history.
Imagine my disappointment on reading David Rieff’s article, The Limits of Remembrance, offering perspectives that are confined by the Bush Administration’s narrative about the perpetrators and the crimes of 9/11.
Diverse public opinion polls reveal that only half of Americans subscribe to this version of reality, despite the fact that it is the only one represented in the nation’s print and broadcast media. The doubting half comprises not the usual gullible and superstitious crowd, but a great many independent thinkers, especially scientists, who realize that the official version of events is not just implausible but physically impossible. Among independent-minded Harper’s readers, I would venture to guess that the number who believe the standard narrative about Osama bin Laden’s brown-skinned men with boxcutters is substantially lower than 50%.
Speaking for this majority of your readership, I write to inquire whether you are planning to address the topic in a manner that acknowledges the diversity of convictions concerning actualities of 9/11.
Yours,
Josh Mitteldorf
The Murdoch press was a chief backer of the invasion of Iraq, and left those who relied on its news with the false impression that Saddam Hussein was linked to the 9/11 attacks. The Murdoch press also has savaged critics of official 9/11 accounts. Murdoch's organization is under suspicion of being a continuing criminal enterprise.
The company's independent directors have brought Mary Jo White, a former U.S. attorney for New York, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who has made clear his view that rights of those presumed to be terrorists must be curtailed, aboard to advise Viet D. Dinh, one of News Corp.'s independent directors, according to a statement released by Debevoise & Plimpton, the New York law firm where both attorneys practice.
Dinh, also an attorney, is supervising -- on behalf the independent directors -- News Corp.'s management and standards committee, which is cooperating with authorities investigating the scandal. Dinh is regarded as the chief architect of the Patriot Act.
As U.S. attorney, White brought racketeering charges against mobster John Gotti and prosecuted terrorists in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
With the arrest of Rebekah Brooks, former chief executive of News Corp subsidiary News International, and the possibility of further charges or allegations against other executives, independent directors want to make sure that the company's interests are protected, according to a Reuters report Tuesday.
Senator prods feds on cyber-hack case
Meanwhile, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, is urging federal authorities to move on possible criminal cyber-hacking by Murdoch's News America Marketing. The head of that firm, Paul Carlucci, had prodded employees to adopt a ruthless attitude by playing a scene from a film in which Al Capone beats a victim to death with a baseball bat.
(See Murdoch arm paid off in cyner-hacking... http://conantcensorshipissue.blogspot.com/2011/07/praising-mobster-methods-murdochs-u.html)
Lautenberg wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller yesterday to highlight the 2005 hacking case. In 2005, Lautenberg had written Attorney General Roberto Gonzalez about the matter but nothing came of it. The Murdoch press was a ferocious backer of President Bush and his wars.
The senator had already joined several lawmakers in urging an FBI inquiry into the possibility of criminal hacking of the cell phones of 9/11 victims.
"As the Department of Justice and FBI examine the recent hacking allegations involving News Corp. and its subsidiaries more closely, I wanted to make sure that you were fully aware of the case of FLOORgraphics and News America, as it may be relevant to your current investigation," Lautenberg wrote.
Scientist faults a Harper's 9/11 theory
A scientist is upbraiding a Harper's magazine article as biased in favor of the Bush administration's narrative of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
http://mathforum.org/~josh/
http://www.mathforum.org/~josh/academic.html
In a letter sent to the editors, Joshua J. Mitteldorf, a biologist with a background in physics, expressed "disappointment on reading David Rieff’s article, The Limits of Remembrance, offering perspectives that are confined by the Bush administration’s narrative about the perpetrators and the crimes of 9/11."
About half of Americans disbelieve the official accounts, Mitteldorf said, adding: "The doubting half comprises not the usual gullible and superstitious crowd, but a great many independent thinkers, especially scientists, who realize that the official version of events is not just implausible but physically impossible."
Mitteldorf's resume:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:e09kaHf2d7UJ:www.electionassessment.org/Submissions/2005-06-29EAH/Mitteldorf_J/extdoc/Mitteldorf_J%2520Josh-Mitteldorf-cv.pdf+josh+mitteldorf+physics&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjW9W4BZEPex26RxH7NSovXpFhiqSEz2yuc8V1pGKuc8tVv2N0dQLGa52rPhGcE5JlRU6xgVm_AU1YwBo5l6aKvFL2JxA1EeurdoH7Q5VCzQGMbnN6Cqp7yhnBeT7HR4n4QNBnd&sig=AHIEtbQ-mtxtILCobtG-vWa0Yx8hN9BVaA&pli=1
A copy of Mitteldorf's letter:
20 July 2011
To the Editors:
I subscribe to Harper’s because you are willing to discuss realities that are censored by other newspapers and magazines. My subscription began, in fact, after reading Mark Crispin Miller’s August, 2005 article describing George Bush’s theft of the 2004 election. Publication of this article was an act of courage which occasioned, I believe, the largest single-issue readership in the Magazine’s history.
Imagine my disappointment on reading David Rieff’s article, The Limits of Remembrance, offering perspectives that are confined by the Bush Administration’s narrative about the perpetrators and the crimes of 9/11.
Diverse public opinion polls reveal that only half of Americans subscribe to this version of reality, despite the fact that it is the only one represented in the nation’s print and broadcast media. The doubting half comprises not the usual gullible and superstitious crowd, but a great many independent thinkers, especially scientists, who realize that the official version of events is not just implausible but physically impossible. Among independent-minded Harper’s readers, I would venture to guess that the number who believe the standard narrative about Osama bin Laden’s brown-skinned men with boxcutters is substantially lower than 50%. 20 July 2011
To the Editors:
I subscribe to Harper’s because you are willing to discuss realities that are censored by other newspapers and magazines. My subscription began, in fact, after reading Mark Crispin Miller’s August, 2005 article describing George Bush’s theft of the 2004 election. Publication of this article was an act of courage which occasioned, I believe, the largest single-issue readership in the Magazine’s history.
Imagine my disappointment on reading David Rieff’s article, The Limits of Remembrance, offering perspectives that are confined by the Bush Administration’s narrative about the perpetrators and the crimes of 9/11.
Diverse public opinion polls reveal that only half of Americans subscribe to this version of reality, despite the fact that it is the only one represented in the nation’s print and broadcast media. The doubting half comprises not the usual gullible and superstitious crowd, but a great many independent thinkers, especially scientists, who realize that the official version of events is not just implausible but physically impossible. Among independent-minded Harper’s readers, I would venture to guess that the number who believe the standard narrative about Osama bin Laden’s brown-skinned men with boxcutters is substantially lower than 50%.
Speaking for this majority of your readership, I write to inquire whether you are planning to address the topic in a manner that acknowledges the diversity of convictions concerning actualities of 9/11.
Yours,
Josh Mitteldorf
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Triple damages from Blackmail Inc.?
Legal sharks eye racketeering laws
as they circle bloodied News Corp.
As victims of the Murdoch media empire's predatory tactics hone their court filings, the U.S. rackets act -- which has criminal and civil components -- looms large on the horizon.
Because News International, which held the British News of the World tabloid responsible for much of the hacking, is in turn held by News Corp., a U.S. corporation, there is the possibility that hacker victims in Britain can sue in U.S. courts for triple damages, as provided by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act, which was designed to break up organized criminal enterprises. The civil component has been used on numerous occasions against corporations which had no known ties to gangland.
It is clear that the Murdoch formula for power was to use any means, however unscrupulous, to "get something on" politicians, competing companies or anyone else deemed a target and to either publicly defame them with details of their personal lives or to pass around surreptitously obtained dirt to clients of corporate rivals. (See story below.)
Murdoch's media were happy to provide bully boys to harass and defame 9/11 critics for simply attempting to convey that governments have been lying about this matter. The collusion is indicative of extensive corruption on the U.S. side of the Atlantic.
A strong case can be made that a pattern of criminal activities is made evident by the various corrupt practices settlements made by the Murdoch operations. Aggrieved parties on both sides of the Atlantic and possibly from other parts of the globe may be eligible to sue in U.S. federal court, charging racketeering activities by the Murdochians.
However, free press advocates are concerned about the possibility of the RICO act being used against News Corp. If government officials, on either side of the Atlantic, see it as their duty to police the brutish press, it won't be long before such laws are used to police -- in fact, censor by intimidation -- the honest media.
It would appear that a line must be walked. However, merely because a gang of blackmailers carry press credentials is no excuse for winking at major criminal conduct. On the other hand, officials are always saying that exposure of official secrets is criminal and that the press should be brought to heel.
Mainstream media expose anthrax case hole
http://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-retracts-court-filings-that-undercut-fbis-anthrax-case
PBS, Mclatchy and ProPublica run stories implying an inadequate investigation.
Scientists can't confirm FBI anthrax theory
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13098&page=1
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13098&page=125
Legal sharks eye racketeering laws
as they circle bloodied News Corp.
As victims of the Murdoch media empire's predatory tactics hone their court filings, the U.S. rackets act -- which has criminal and civil components -- looms large on the horizon.
Because News International, which held the British News of the World tabloid responsible for much of the hacking, is in turn held by News Corp., a U.S. corporation, there is the possibility that hacker victims in Britain can sue in U.S. courts for triple damages, as provided by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act, which was designed to break up organized criminal enterprises. The civil component has been used on numerous occasions against corporations which had no known ties to gangland.
It is clear that the Murdoch formula for power was to use any means, however unscrupulous, to "get something on" politicians, competing companies or anyone else deemed a target and to either publicly defame them with details of their personal lives or to pass around surreptitously obtained dirt to clients of corporate rivals. (See story below.)
Murdoch's media were happy to provide bully boys to harass and defame 9/11 critics for simply attempting to convey that governments have been lying about this matter. The collusion is indicative of extensive corruption on the U.S. side of the Atlantic.
A strong case can be made that a pattern of criminal activities is made evident by the various corrupt practices settlements made by the Murdoch operations. Aggrieved parties on both sides of the Atlantic and possibly from other parts of the globe may be eligible to sue in U.S. federal court, charging racketeering activities by the Murdochians.
However, free press advocates are concerned about the possibility of the RICO act being used against News Corp. If government officials, on either side of the Atlantic, see it as their duty to police the brutish press, it won't be long before such laws are used to police -- in fact, censor by intimidation -- the honest media.
It would appear that a line must be walked. However, merely because a gang of blackmailers carry press credentials is no excuse for winking at major criminal conduct. On the other hand, officials are always saying that exposure of official secrets is criminal and that the press should be brought to heel.
Mainstream media expose anthrax case hole
http://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-retracts-court-filings-that-undercut-fbis-anthrax-case
PBS, Mclatchy and ProPublica run stories implying an inadequate investigation.
Scientists can't confirm FBI anthrax theory
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13098&page=1
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13098&page=125
Monday, July 18, 2011
Praising mobster methods
Murdoch's U.S. arm paid off
in cyber-hacking, defamation
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News America has paid out more than $29 million to settle a suit over illegal cyber-hacking, the New York Times is reporting. Murdoch's U.S. operations have long been plagued by charges of shady conduct, the newspaper said.
According to the Times, a federal case in New Jersey brought by a company called Floorgraphics went to trial in 2009 in which News America was accused of,hacking its way into Floorgraphics’s password protected computer system, obtaining proprietary information and then disseminating false, misleading and damaging information about the plaintiff.
The complaint said the breach was traced to an I.P. address registered to News America and that after the break-in, Floorgraphics lost contracts from Safeway, Winn-Dixie and Piggly Wiggly, the Times reports.
Much of the lawsuit, the Times says, was based on the testimony of Robert Emmel, a former News America executive who had become a whistle-blower. After a few days of testimony, News America's parent company, News Corp., settled with Floorgraphics for $29.5 million and then, days later, bought it, even though it reportedly had sales of less than $1 million.
Earlier this year, News America paid out $125 million to Insignia Systems to settle allegations of anti-competitive behavior and violations of antitrust laws, the Times said, adding: "In the most costly payout, it spent half a billion dollars in 2010 on another settlement, just days before the case was scheduled to go to trial. The plaintiff, Valassis Communications, had already won a $300 million verdict in Michigan, but dropped the lawsuit in exchange for $500 million and an agreement to cooperate on certain ventures going forward."
In 2006 the state of Minnesota accused News America of engaging in unfair trade practices, and the company settled by agreeing to pay costs and not to falsely disparage its competitors.
News America was led at the time of the cyber-hack lawsuit by Paul V. Carlucci, who, according to Forbes, used to show the sales staff the scene in 'The Untouchables' in which Al Capone beats a man to death with a baseball bat. According to Emmel’s testimony, Carlucci said that any “bed-wetting liberals" among his staff could seek work elsewhere.
Carlucci continues to serve as head of News America and is publisher of Murdoch's New York Post tabloid.
News Corp. declined to respond to a Times request for comment.
Across the Atlantic, Britain's Labor Party leader, David Miliband, called for the breakup of Murdoch's news holdings.
"I think that we've got to look at the situation whereby one person can own more than 20% of the newspaper market, the Sky platform and Sky News," Miliband said. "I think it's unhealthy because that amount of power in one person's hands has clearly led to abuses of power within his organization. If you want to minimize the abuses of power then that kind of concentration of power is frankly quite dangerous."
According to the Times, a federal case in New Jersey brought by a company called Floorgraphics went to trial in 2009 in which News America was accused of,hacking its way into Floorgraphics’s password protected computer system, obtaining proprietary information and then disseminating false, misleading and damaging information about the plaintiff.
The complaint said the breach was traced to an I.P. address registered to News America and that after the break-in, Floorgraphics lost contracts from Safeway, Winn-Dixie and Piggly Wiggly, the Times reports.
Much of the lawsuit, the Times says, was based on the testimony of Robert Emmel, a former News America executive who had become a whistle-blower. After a few days of testimony, News America's parent company, News Corp., settled with Floorgraphics for $29.5 million and then, days later, bought it, even though it reportedly had sales of less than $1 million.
Earlier this year, News America paid out $125 million to Insignia Systems to settle allegations of anti-competitive behavior and violations of antitrust laws, the Times said, adding: "In the most costly payout, it spent half a billion dollars in 2010 on another settlement, just days before the case was scheduled to go to trial. The plaintiff, Valassis Communications, had already won a $300 million verdict in Michigan, but dropped the lawsuit in exchange for $500 million and an agreement to cooperate on certain ventures going forward."
In 2006 the state of Minnesota accused News America of engaging in unfair trade practices, and the company settled by agreeing to pay costs and not to falsely disparage its competitors.
News America was led at the time of the cyber-hack lawsuit by Paul V. Carlucci, who, according to Forbes, used to show the sales staff the scene in 'The Untouchables' in which Al Capone beats a man to death with a baseball bat. According to Emmel’s testimony, Carlucci said that any “bed-wetting liberals" among his staff could seek work elsewhere.
Carlucci continues to serve as head of News America and is publisher of Murdoch's New York Post tabloid.
News Corp. declined to respond to a Times request for comment.
Across the Atlantic, Britain's Labor Party leader, David Miliband, called for the breakup of Murdoch's news holdings.
"I think that we've got to look at the situation whereby one person can own more than 20% of the newspaper market, the Sky platform and Sky News," Miliband said. "I think it's unhealthy because that amount of power in one person's hands has clearly led to abuses of power within his organization. If you want to minimize the abuses of power then that kind of concentration of power is frankly quite dangerous."
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Murdoch son pressed
to explain 'hush money'
Britain's Guardian newspaper is urging Parliament to interrogate media mogul Rupert Murdoch's son, James, over payments of as much as $3.2 million in apparent "hush money" to cell phone hack victims.
The Guardian editorial poses these questions:
Why did you pay £1m [$1.6m] in damages and costs to Gordon Taylor [a soccer star] and others in 2009 and seal the evidence? Would you agree that this could be described as "hush money"?
On whose advice did you make this decision?
Why did you agree the payoff to Max Clifford [a well-known public relations man]? Is it right that the value of this was £1m? Is it fair to describe this as "hush money"?
Why didn't you make a clean breast of what was discovered in the spring of 2009 instead of covering it up?
You have said this decision was based on "incomplete information". What further information would have made these payments right?
Was evidence of criminality concealed at any time from: The News Corp board? The NI [News International, a Murdoch holding company] board? Parliament? Police? The PCC [Press Complaints Commission]?
Are you aware of section 79 of RIPA which can be used to prosecute any director showing "consent, connivance or neglect" of offences relating to interception of communications?
The Guardian story of 9 July 2009 showed that the "one rotten apple" story NI had stuck to for three years was untrue – and known by then within NI to be untrue. Why did you issue a statement denying it?
Other questions for James Murdoch are found at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
The Guardian's questions for Rupert Murdoch include:
When did you become aware of the 2009 payments authorised by your son James to buy the silence of people whose voicemails had been hacked by NI employees?
It is understood the value of these payments was in the region of £2m. Which News Corp executives or board members knew about them?
Were News Corp's audit committee, board or general counsel made aware of these payments? If not, why not? Should they have been?
When previously unknown evidence of criminality within your company becomes known to senior executives isn't it their responsibility to inform the police and regulators rather than try to cover it up?
What do you now think of your son's decision to try to conceal this evidence of criminality with secret payments rather than inform the appropriate law and regulatory authorities?
The Guardian's story of 9 July 2009 exposed these payments and the fact that the "lone rotten apple" theory within your company was wrong. What action did you and/or the News Corp board take as a result of this story?
More questions for Rupert Murdoch and the executive he forced out, Rebekah Brooks, are found at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Britain's Independent newspaper cautioned parliamentarians to frame questions in such a way as to prevent the Murdochs and Brooks from dodging questions based on a claim of impeding a police inquiry. Brooks' lawyer indicated that she might not appear in Parliament at all.
to explain 'hush money'
Britain's Guardian newspaper is urging Parliament to interrogate media mogul Rupert Murdoch's son, James, over payments of as much as $3.2 million in apparent "hush money" to cell phone hack victims.
The Guardian editorial poses these questions:
Why did you pay £1m [$1.6m] in damages and costs to Gordon Taylor [a soccer star] and others in 2009 and seal the evidence? Would you agree that this could be described as "hush money"?
On whose advice did you make this decision?
Why did you agree the payoff to Max Clifford [a well-known public relations man]? Is it right that the value of this was £1m? Is it fair to describe this as "hush money"?
Why didn't you make a clean breast of what was discovered in the spring of 2009 instead of covering it up?
You have said this decision was based on "incomplete information". What further information would have made these payments right?
Was evidence of criminality concealed at any time from: The News Corp board? The NI [News International, a Murdoch holding company] board? Parliament? Police? The PCC [Press Complaints Commission]?
Are you aware of section 79 of RIPA which can be used to prosecute any director showing "consent, connivance or neglect" of offences relating to interception of communications?
The Guardian story of 9 July 2009 showed that the "one rotten apple" story NI had stuck to for three years was untrue – and known by then within NI to be untrue. Why did you issue a statement denying it?
Other questions for James Murdoch are found at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
The Guardian's questions for Rupert Murdoch include:
When did you become aware of the 2009 payments authorised by your son James to buy the silence of people whose voicemails had been hacked by NI employees?
It is understood the value of these payments was in the region of £2m. Which News Corp executives or board members knew about them?
Were News Corp's audit committee, board or general counsel made aware of these payments? If not, why not? Should they have been?
When previously unknown evidence of criminality within your company becomes known to senior executives isn't it their responsibility to inform the police and regulators rather than try to cover it up?
What do you now think of your son's decision to try to conceal this evidence of criminality with secret payments rather than inform the appropriate law and regulatory authorities?
The Guardian's story of 9 July 2009 exposed these payments and the fact that the "lone rotten apple" theory within your company was wrong. What action did you and/or the News Corp board take as a result of this story?
More questions for Rupert Murdoch and the executive he forced out, Rebekah Brooks, are found at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Britain's Independent newspaper cautioned parliamentarians to frame questions in such a way as to prevent the Murdochs and Brooks from dodging questions based on a claim of impeding a police inquiry. Brooks' lawyer indicated that she might not appear in Parliament at all.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Scientists braved criminal media
to publish shocking 9/11 evidence
The "criminal-media nexus" under fire in London draws attention to major news events that have gone unreported by the mainstream press on both sides of the Atlantic.
In 2009, for example, a team of scientists reported that evidence of an advanced explosive had been found in the dust of the collapsed World Trade Center towers.
Yet a search today of Google News for the name of one of the investigators, Niels Harrit, a chemistry professor at the University of Copenhagen, turned up no mainstream news organizations, other than Berliner Umschau, which cited Harrit in an opinion piece.
In the paper, published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal, the scientists told of finding red-gray flakes in various samples of dust and determining that the flakes were from a material similar to that in advanced TBX weaponry.
The team had sought submissions of samples of dust from the public and received containers submitted by people who had decided to save such samples. The only samples used in the study came from the five persons who agreed to let themselves be identified publicly.
There has been no public statement from the FBI on the work of the scientists. However, it may be assumed that the evidence can be ignored based on the fact that the chain of custody is broken. There is no way to be sure that the samples weren't doctored.
And yet, such tampering would seem to have required a technically advanced conspiracy, wherein volunteers working for conspirators either submit doctored material or are able to intercept and switch samples. In other words, a tampering conspiracy would require a sophisticated intelligence operation.
But, the question then arises: if intelligence units were behind the 9/11 attacks, why didn't they intercept the samples and switch them for non-incriminating dust. It seems plausible that honest agents had made such a switch too risky, and that conspirators counted on what Britain's former prime minister, Gordon Brown, denounced as a "criminal-media nexus" that includes not only the Murdoch press, but other news organizations as well.
The report, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, told of igniting the chips and watching them flame. "The evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material in the WTC dust is compelling," the scientists wrote.
http://www.diexx88blog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/activethermitic_911.pdf
[Also see 9/11 probers skipped key forensic tests
http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/trade7.html]
They said the residues from ignited chips were "strikingly similar" to the chemical signature of commercial thermite. The scientists believed that the thermite residues were consistent with "super-thermite," also known as "nano-thermite," They cited a 2001 report on Defense Department research into "nano-energetics" and thermobaric (TBX) weapons.
Here is such a report:
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf
"Super-thermite electric matches" had been devloped by Los Alamos National Laboratory for such applications as triggering explosives for demolitions, the experts noted.
The authors said their tests ruled out the possibility that the red chips were flakes of ordinary paint.
However, one of the authors, physicist Steven E. Jones, had already been given the Murdoch treatment for having raised questions over the reliability of official accounts, and it is quite possible that journalists and politicians alike shrank from covering the report out of fear of the "criminal-media nexus" blackball.
Harrit works alongside Thomas Bjorn Holm, head of the Nano-Science Center at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and may have been able to consult with Bjorn Holm, whose name does not appear on the report.
Harrit's Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Niels-Harrit/32509864153
Jones was a professor at Brigham Young University before being pressured to retire as a result of his 9/11 criticism,
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
The scientists used advanced technology, including scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry.
One of the authors, Jeffrey Farrer, manages the electron microscopy facility for Brigham Young University's Department of Physics and Astronomy. His research includes nano-particle and thermitic reactions.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/directory.aspx?personID=23
Another author is Kevin R. Ryan, terminated by Underwriters Laboratory after raising technical issues concerning the official 9/11 narrative.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm
Physicist Daniel E. Farnsworth, as with a number of experts critical of the government claims about 9/11, is retired and presumably beyond the reach of career retribution incited by the mendacious, criminalized press. Like Jones, Farnsworth taught at Brigham Young.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm
Another author, Frank Legge, is an Australian chemist who serves as a co-editor at the Journal of 9-11 Studies.
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/mempages/Legge.html
Gregg Roberts, a 9/11 activist, is also listed, but a Google search gives no inkling of his scientific background.
http://world911truth.org/tag/gregg-roberts/
James R. Gourley identifies himself as a chemical engineer in an extensive criticism he submitted to the National Institute of Standards and Technology 9/11 investigation.
http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/nist/WTC7Comments.html
Bradley R. Larsen is another author. His firm, S&J Scientific, does not appear to have a web page trackable by Google and his scientific background did not show up in a Google search.*
The authors acknowledge conversations with a number of 9/11 critics, including retired naval physicist David L. Griscom
http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com/
and former University of Iowa physicist Crockett Grabbe.
http://www.sealane.org/speak/index1.html
-----------------------------------------------------
*CORRECTION: A previous version of this page linked to an incorrect web site for Larsen.
to publish shocking 9/11 evidence
The "criminal-media nexus" under fire in London draws attention to major news events that have gone unreported by the mainstream press on both sides of the Atlantic.
In 2009, for example, a team of scientists reported that evidence of an advanced explosive had been found in the dust of the collapsed World Trade Center towers.
Yet a search today of Google News for the name of one of the investigators, Niels Harrit, a chemistry professor at the University of Copenhagen, turned up no mainstream news organizations, other than Berliner Umschau, which cited Harrit in an opinion piece.
In the paper, published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal, the scientists told of finding red-gray flakes in various samples of dust and determining that the flakes were from a material similar to that in advanced TBX weaponry.
The team had sought submissions of samples of dust from the public and received containers submitted by people who had decided to save such samples. The only samples used in the study came from the five persons who agreed to let themselves be identified publicly.
There has been no public statement from the FBI on the work of the scientists. However, it may be assumed that the evidence can be ignored based on the fact that the chain of custody is broken. There is no way to be sure that the samples weren't doctored.
And yet, such tampering would seem to have required a technically advanced conspiracy, wherein volunteers working for conspirators either submit doctored material or are able to intercept and switch samples. In other words, a tampering conspiracy would require a sophisticated intelligence operation.
But, the question then arises: if intelligence units were behind the 9/11 attacks, why didn't they intercept the samples and switch them for non-incriminating dust. It seems plausible that honest agents had made such a switch too risky, and that conspirators counted on what Britain's former prime minister, Gordon Brown, denounced as a "criminal-media nexus" that includes not only the Murdoch press, but other news organizations as well.
The report, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, told of igniting the chips and watching them flame. "The evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material in the WTC dust is compelling," the scientists wrote.
http://www.diexx88blog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/activethermitic_911.pdf
[Also see 9/11 probers skipped key forensic tests
http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/trade7.html]
They said the residues from ignited chips were "strikingly similar" to the chemical signature of commercial thermite. The scientists believed that the thermite residues were consistent with "super-thermite," also known as "nano-thermite," They cited a 2001 report on Defense Department research into "nano-energetics" and thermobaric (TBX) weapons.
Here is such a report:
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf
"Super-thermite electric matches" had been devloped by Los Alamos National Laboratory for such applications as triggering explosives for demolitions, the experts noted.
The authors said their tests ruled out the possibility that the red chips were flakes of ordinary paint.
However, one of the authors, physicist Steven E. Jones, had already been given the Murdoch treatment for having raised questions over the reliability of official accounts, and it is quite possible that journalists and politicians alike shrank from covering the report out of fear of the "criminal-media nexus" blackball.
Harrit works alongside Thomas Bjorn Holm, head of the Nano-Science Center at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and may have been able to consult with Bjorn Holm, whose name does not appear on the report.
Harrit's Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Niels-Harrit/32509864153
Jones was a professor at Brigham Young University before being pressured to retire as a result of his 9/11 criticism,
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
The scientists used advanced technology, including scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry.
One of the authors, Jeffrey Farrer, manages the electron microscopy facility for Brigham Young University's Department of Physics and Astronomy. His research includes nano-particle and thermitic reactions.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/directory.aspx?personID=23
Another author is Kevin R. Ryan, terminated by Underwriters Laboratory after raising technical issues concerning the official 9/11 narrative.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm
Physicist Daniel E. Farnsworth, as with a number of experts critical of the government claims about 9/11, is retired and presumably beyond the reach of career retribution incited by the mendacious, criminalized press. Like Jones, Farnsworth taught at Brigham Young.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm
Another author, Frank Legge, is an Australian chemist who serves as a co-editor at the Journal of 9-11 Studies.
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/mempages/Legge.html
Gregg Roberts, a 9/11 activist, is also listed, but a Google search gives no inkling of his scientific background.
http://world911truth.org/tag/gregg-roberts/
James R. Gourley identifies himself as a chemical engineer in an extensive criticism he submitted to the National Institute of Standards and Technology 9/11 investigation.
http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/nist/WTC7Comments.html
Bradley R. Larsen is another author. His firm, S&J Scientific, does not appear to have a web page trackable by Google and his scientific background did not show up in a Google search.*
The authors acknowledge conversations with a number of 9/11 critics, including retired naval physicist David L. Griscom
http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com/
and former University of Iowa physicist Crockett Grabbe.
http://www.sealane.org/speak/index1.html
-----------------------------------------------------
*CORRECTION: A previous version of this page linked to an incorrect web site for Larsen.
Murdoch tumult casts a cloud
over London's Iraq war inquiry
How will the Murdoch upheaval in Britain affect the Chilcot inquiry into government claims about the need to wage war against Iraq?
Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair was known by some as Rupert Murdoch's "poodle" because of Blair's relationship with the media tycoon. Gordon Brown, who succeeded Blair as a Labor premier, appointed -- under pressure -- the inquiry and, as Blair's chancellor of the exchequer, supported the war. He has lambasted the Murdoch press, which turned against Labor and supported David Cameron, the current Tory premier -- calling it a criminal enterprise.
The British public is learning that the Murdoch press regularly blackmailed police and politicians with threats of getting the tabloid sleaze treatment and politically rewarded those who were viewed as helpful to the Murdochs. The Murdoch press was jingoistic to the extreme on both sides of the Atlantic in lobbying for a war against Iraq, and accepted the weapons of mass destruction claims uncritically as well as continually implying that Saddam Hussein had been linked to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The "criminal-media nexus" identified by Brown has strong implications in the political sexing up of issues to feed to jingoistic news outlets.
A Wikileaks cable disclosed that Britain's Defense Ministry had acted on a U.S. request to assure that the inquiry, headed by Sir John Chilcot, protected U.S. interests.
An inquiry committee deputy secretary said that the committee believed it was beyond its scope to "reinvestigate the causes of 9/11" or to check whether "U.S. authorities" had done a good job in those investigations. However, the committee ignored the potential that British authorities had been slack in investigating the causes of 9/11 and hence had helped create the atmosphere (in league with the Murdoch press) for drumming up a war.
Here is the note:
Dear Mr [Paul] Conant
Thank you for your email and the material to which you directed us. I am afraid that the Inquiry Committee does not accept that it is within the Inquiry's terms of reference to reinvestigate the causes of 9/11 nor that it is within its scope to express a view on whether the US authorities have properly investigated those events.
Yours sincerely,
Clare Salters
Deputy Secretary, Iraq Inquiry
Meanwhile, Murdoch's defiance of a request to testify before a parliamentary committee sent out new political shockwaves, with some asserting that the tycoon was so accustomed to having his way with politicians that he assumed he could airily ignore members of the House of Commons.
Others thought that his decision to appear before a judicial inqury, but not the Commons committee, smacked of an attempt to avoid a tabloid-style frenzy of negative coverage at a Commons appearance.
His U.S. citizenship has been given as a reason for being able to avoid compulsory testimony. However, whether this is sufficient grounds has yet to be fully determined. Certainly, the U.S. Congress would never brook such a stance.
His aide, Rebekah Brooks, who is British, has agreed to appear before Parliament but indicated she would avail herself of the equivalent of the U.S. Fifth Amendment right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination.
His son, James, in another example of Murdoch hubris, declared that he couldn't testify in Parliament when it required but would have to await his pleasure -- presumably with the hope that the media heat would have died down. James also holds U.S. citizenship.
In the United States, CNN reports that pressure mounted for a federal investigation into Murdoch's media empire Thursday as a key member of a House oversight committee called for Congress to look into allegations that one of Murdoch's U.S.-based companies possibly broke anti-bribery and other laws.
Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, told CNN that "Congress has important oversight responsibilities" in responding to the charges and "getting to the bottom of this evolving scandal."
Murdoch's News Corp. -- the parent company of Fox News -- may have engaged in "political espionage or personal espionage," Braley said.
Another lawmaker, Rep. Peter T. King, the Republican who heads the House Homeland Security Committee, called on the FBI to look into possible Murdoch company wrongdoing in the wake of a report that the company tried to hack 9/11 victim cell phones.
Democratic senators John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, Barbara Boxer of California and Robert Menendez and Frank R. Lautenberg, both of New Jersey, called for federal investigations into Murdoch practices.
The U.S. government must ensure that victims in the United States have not been subjected to illegal and unconscionable actions by these newspapers seeking to exploit information about their personal tragedies for profit,” Menendez wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.
Menendez, who represents a state that took many 9/11 casualties, observed that Scotland Yard's detective work might be shared with the FBI.
Several of the senators urged that the Securities and Exchange Commission also look into possible corporate misconduct.
In general, Republicans have been silent. Republican strategist Roger Ailes runs Murdoch's Fox News which, like his other U.S. media holdings, is perceived as favorable to GOP political aims.
over London's Iraq war inquiry
How will the Murdoch upheaval in Britain affect the Chilcot inquiry into government claims about the need to wage war against Iraq?
Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair was known by some as Rupert Murdoch's "poodle" because of Blair's relationship with the media tycoon. Gordon Brown, who succeeded Blair as a Labor premier, appointed -- under pressure -- the inquiry and, as Blair's chancellor of the exchequer, supported the war. He has lambasted the Murdoch press, which turned against Labor and supported David Cameron, the current Tory premier -- calling it a criminal enterprise.
The British public is learning that the Murdoch press regularly blackmailed police and politicians with threats of getting the tabloid sleaze treatment and politically rewarded those who were viewed as helpful to the Murdochs. The Murdoch press was jingoistic to the extreme on both sides of the Atlantic in lobbying for a war against Iraq, and accepted the weapons of mass destruction claims uncritically as well as continually implying that Saddam Hussein had been linked to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The "criminal-media nexus" identified by Brown has strong implications in the political sexing up of issues to feed to jingoistic news outlets.
A Wikileaks cable disclosed that Britain's Defense Ministry had acted on a U.S. request to assure that the inquiry, headed by Sir John Chilcot, protected U.S. interests.
An inquiry committee deputy secretary said that the committee believed it was beyond its scope to "reinvestigate the causes of 9/11" or to check whether "U.S. authorities" had done a good job in those investigations. However, the committee ignored the potential that British authorities had been slack in investigating the causes of 9/11 and hence had helped create the atmosphere (in league with the Murdoch press) for drumming up a war.
Here is the note:
Dear Mr [Paul] Conant
Thank you for your email and the material to which you directed us. I am afraid that the Inquiry Committee does not accept that it is within the Inquiry's terms of reference to reinvestigate the causes of 9/11 nor that it is within its scope to express a view on whether the US authorities have properly investigated those events.
Yours sincerely,
Clare Salters
Deputy Secretary, Iraq Inquiry
Meanwhile, Murdoch's defiance of a request to testify before a parliamentary committee sent out new political shockwaves, with some asserting that the tycoon was so accustomed to having his way with politicians that he assumed he could airily ignore members of the House of Commons.
Others thought that his decision to appear before a judicial inqury, but not the Commons committee, smacked of an attempt to avoid a tabloid-style frenzy of negative coverage at a Commons appearance.
His U.S. citizenship has been given as a reason for being able to avoid compulsory testimony. However, whether this is sufficient grounds has yet to be fully determined. Certainly, the U.S. Congress would never brook such a stance.
His aide, Rebekah Brooks, who is British, has agreed to appear before Parliament but indicated she would avail herself of the equivalent of the U.S. Fifth Amendment right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination.
His son, James, in another example of Murdoch hubris, declared that he couldn't testify in Parliament when it required but would have to await his pleasure -- presumably with the hope that the media heat would have died down. James also holds U.S. citizenship.
In the United States, CNN reports that pressure mounted for a federal investigation into Murdoch's media empire Thursday as a key member of a House oversight committee called for Congress to look into allegations that one of Murdoch's U.S.-based companies possibly broke anti-bribery and other laws.
Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, told CNN that "Congress has important oversight responsibilities" in responding to the charges and "getting to the bottom of this evolving scandal."
Murdoch's News Corp. -- the parent company of Fox News -- may have engaged in "political espionage or personal espionage," Braley said.
Another lawmaker, Rep. Peter T. King, the Republican who heads the House Homeland Security Committee, called on the FBI to look into possible Murdoch company wrongdoing in the wake of a report that the company tried to hack 9/11 victim cell phones.
Democratic senators John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, Barbara Boxer of California and Robert Menendez and Frank R. Lautenberg, both of New Jersey, called for federal investigations into Murdoch practices.
The U.S. government must ensure that victims in the United States have not been subjected to illegal and unconscionable actions by these newspapers seeking to exploit information about their personal tragedies for profit,” Menendez wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.
Menendez, who represents a state that took many 9/11 casualties, observed that Scotland Yard's detective work might be shared with the FBI.
Several of the senators urged that the Securities and Exchange Commission also look into possible corporate misconduct.
In general, Republicans have been silent. Republican strategist Roger Ailes runs Murdoch's Fox News which, like his other U.S. media holdings, is perceived as favorable to GOP political aims.
No comments:
Post a Comment