FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
[ Last | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Information-Control Plan Aimed At U.S., Insider Says

News/Current Events News Keywords: PDD68, CLINTON, IPI, USIA, DICK CLARKE,
Source: Washington Times
Published: July 29, 1999 Author: Ben Barber
Posted on 07/29/1999 06:37:16 PDT by Stand Watch Listen

International agency to be used for ‘spinning the news’

A former senior Clinton administration official charged yesterday that a new multiagency plan to closely control the dissemination of public information abroad is really aimed at "spinning the American public."

The plan, disclosed yesterday by The Washington Times, emerged out of concern that the U.S. public has refused to back President Clinton's foreign policy, said the former official, who spoke on the condition he not be identified.

Administration officials "say news coverage is distorted at home and they need to fight it at all costs by using resources that are aimed at spinning the news," said the former official, who had close knowledge of the plan's development.

Mr. Clinton in April issued Presidential Decision Directive 68, ordering the creation of the International Public Information (IPI) system, designed to make sure that all government agencies disseminating information abroad share a single message.

A draft charter obtained by The Washington Times says the purpose of IPI is "to prevent and mitigate crises and to influence foreign audiences in ways favorable to the achievement of U.S. foreign policy objectives."

Officials of U.S. defense, intelligence, diplomatic and other agencies met for the first time yesterday at the State Department to go over the draft charter, said a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Only "minor changes" were made to the charter at that meeting, the source said, but it was possible that "major" changes would be made in the near future.

Future meetings of an IPI "core group" developing the new information system are to be chaired by Morton Halperin, head of policy planning at the State Department.

The draft charter says information aimed at U.S. audiences should "be coordinated, integrated, deconflicted and synchronized with the [IPI] to achieve a synergistic effect."

The former senior official complained that the charter "did not distinguish what would be done overseas and what would he done at home. . . .It talks about a news war."

In a telephone interview after yesterday's meeting, an administration official rejected accusations that IPI could be used in a partisan manner or be used to influence American public opinion.

This is absolutely not the case, said the official, who also declined to be identified. "We are very cognizant of the history of the '80s. There are congressional controls now."

The official was referring to the 1980s Iran-Contra affair, in which some Reagan administration officials covertly sold arms to Iran to raise money to fund the Contra war in Nicaragua.

After October, IPI will be run by the newly created undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, who will take over most of the duties of the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), which is being disbanded, Former White House aide Evelyn Lieberman has been nominated for that post.

However, the IPI system was said to be the brainchild of White House intelligence chief Dick Clarke. His aide, former White House fellow Jamie Metzl, largely wrote the plan and is now serving as IPI senior coordinator, according to the former senior administration official.

Media and political analysts yesterday expressed concern about the plan.

"This... indicates a measure of desperation in President Clinton's foreign policy," said Seth Ackerman of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a liberal media-watchdog group. "When it is not received well abroad, he resorts to propaganda."

On the other end of the political spectrum, Ariel Cohen of the conservative Heritage Foundation said he worried that the IPI system could be used by the party in power to push its own agenda, rather than the national interest.

"It would be a mistake to turn the U.S. public information system into a tool of a partisan agenda," said Mr. Cohen.

"It cannot be driven by any political-correctness agenda that will not be representative of what the American people think or that will reflect only a social-change agenda of extremist activist groups," he said.

The IPI plan calls for establishing a system of control over all government information going abroad, with a stated goal of countering anti-American propaganda and aiding U.S. overseas military missions.

It also offers to help the United Nations use the system during its peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.

A U.N. spokesman in Washington said the United Nations would be glad to use the IPI system.

"My job is to see that the U.S. government, Congress and media have full access to all U.N. documents,'' said Catherine O'Neill. "Anytime a country makes an effort to help disseminate information about what the U.N. does, it's good."

An official with the Freedom Forum, a media-advocacy organization financed by the Gannett newspaper group, said she "had no idea this was happening."

"Obviously, there was a belief that the public in Serbia was misinformed about what our mission there was" during the NATO bombing campaign this spring. "This is trying to address that," said Phyllis Lyons.

Bu she said she was surprised that USIA, which runs Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, was not better used for this.

USIA is being absorbed by the State Department in October under a plan adopted by Congress at the urging of North Carolina Republican Sen. Jesse Helms.

The former senior official said it was no coincidence that just as USIA is being moved to State, the administration is trying to redirect its resources and its capabilities to collect and disseminate information.

"This has been in the works a long time," he said. "The target is the American people."


1 Posted on 07/29/1999 06:37:16 PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Reply | Top | Last ]

To: Stand Watch Listen

Here's an idea: let's turn it into a cabinet-level department. We could call it The Ministry of Truth.

2 Posted on 07/29/1999 06:48:14 PDT by Nick Danger
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen

YES!

former senior Clinton administration official charged yesterday

Yet another example of the Clinton machine falling apart from the inside. Watch for more. Yesterday G Putnam on KIEV870 got the initial interview with a State Dept. 32 year career official who working 2 levels under Madeline Albright has stood up to the lies about Kosovo and the Wes Clark's recklessness. His name is Thomas R. Hutson.

Among other things Clark had the audacity to tell the local officials who had no money to build to just go ahead and "print money".

3 Posted on 07/29/1999 06:50:27 PDT by flamefront
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Nick Danger

I seem to recall that Hillary claimed that the VRWC was cycling news thru foreign news sources, then back to the U.S.
Was that by any chance a hint to coming events?

4 Posted on 07/29/1999 07:01:50 PDT by Texbill (billhill@c-com.net)
[ Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen

Administration officials "say news coverage is distorted at home and they need to fight it at all costs by using resources that are aimed at spinning the news," said the former official, who had close knowledge of the plan's development.

That is rich. Once as many Americans are familiar with Liu Chaoying and Juanita Broaddrick as know Carolyn Bessette Kennedy then I'll take this seriously.

5 Posted on 07/29/1999 08:38:05 PDT by untenured
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: untenured

I'd say that the Administration already has a very effective system in place to control and spin the news: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, etc, etc... What they would really like to get control of is the Internet, and the sort of news dissemination that occurs on websites such as this one.

6 Posted on 07/29/1999 08:58:33 PDT by MI_too
[ Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]


To: MI_too

Exactly - if the mainstream media can't prop up Clinton's sorry excuse for foreign policy, then that means it must really stink.

...information aimed at U.S. audiences should "be coordinated, integrated, deconflicted and synchronized with the [IPI] to achieve a synergistic effect."

Wouldn't it just be a lot easier to elect a trustworthy President who will administer a foreign policy which is clearly driven by U.S. national interests?

7 Posted on 07/29/1999 09:09:24 PDT by ghost of nixon
[ Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen-- IMPORTANT ARTICLE!

Did you notice the glaring absence of the words "facts" and "truth" in this article? Nowhere in this story is there any indication the IPI's is concerned with the dissemination of fact or truth. By its supporters' own account, IPI's mission focuses solely on "information," maintaining a "single message."

The names Morton Halperin and Evelyn Lieberman are instructive enough as to the nature of this beast, but I would be very very interested to know the names of the planning committee.

Of interest as well is the timing of this. What's the point of setting this up now? They have little chance of winning the WH, and they know it. It seems singularly stupid to now set up an apparatus whose primary function is promote propaganda for the Executive branch. These people do nothing, nothing that is not to their own personal political advantage, yet this seems at complete odds with that. Though they'd get to use it for a year, this tool would then fall to the Republicans. So what do they know about this election that we don't? Why are they not afraid to create this propaganda bureacracy now in their waning months? This does not settle well at all.

8 Posted on 07/29/1999 09:10:54 PDT by eroteme
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Nick Danger

Minitrue was my first thought as well.

9 Posted on 07/29/1999 09:19:19 PDT by Berthold (gsmith@cvn.net)
[ Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]


To: eroteme

Fill us in a bit on Morton Halperin, if you care to.

10 Posted on 07/29/1999 09:31:23 PDT by Joe Montana
[ Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: Hamiltonian,slym,vvz,great dane,prometheus,boyd,Clinton is a Liar

I have never seen a post on fr any more significant than this one.

11 Posted on 07/29/1999 09:36:02 PDT by Joe Montana
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Joe Montana ==>Morton H. Halperin

Morton H. Halperin biography

Morton H. Halperin

Morton H. Halperin is a Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations based in its Washington Office.

He served as a Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy at the National Security Council (February 1994-March 1996). In 1993 he was a consultant to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and was nominated by the President for the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and Peacekeeping.

Dr. Halperin also served for three years in the federal government in the 1960s. In 1969, he was a Senior Staff member of the National Security Council staff with responsibility for National Security planning. From July 1966 to January 1969, he was in the Department of Defense where he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs), responsible for political-military planning and arms control. In that capacity Dr. Halperin had responsibility within DOD for the initial preparations for the strategic arms talks with the Soviet Union as well as for the NPT.

From November 1992 to February 1994, Dr. Halperin was a Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. From September 1969 to December 1973, Dr. Halperin was a Senior Fellow associated with the Foreign Policy Division of the Brookings Institution. In the early 1960s, he was on the faculty of Harvard University where he was an Assistant Professor of Government and a Research Associate of the Harvard University Center for International Affairs.

Dr. Halperin served from 1975-1992 as Director of the Center for National Security Studies, which deals with secrecy, surveillance, and other threats to civil liberties in the name of national security. From 1984 to 1992, he was also the Director of the Washington Office of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), with responsibility for the national legislative program of the ACLU.

Dr. Halperin has also taught and conducted research on nuclear strategy and arms control issues at a number of other universities including Columbia, University of London, MIT, Yale, and The George Washington University.

He has authored, co-authored and edited more than a dozen books including Strategy and Arms Control (co-authored, 1961) and Nuclear Fallacy (1987). He has also contributed articles on arms control and nuclear strategy to a number of collected volumes, newspapers, magazines, and journals, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Harpers, Foreign Affairs, and Foreign Policy.

Born in Brooklyn, New York in 1938, Dr. Halperin received a BA from Columbia College in 1959 and in 1961 received a Ph.D. from Yale University in International Relations. Dr. Halperin is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute of Strategic Studies. He is the recipient of numerous awards including a five year MacArthur Foundation Fellowship.

A Bibliography of Morton Halperin's Publications on Nuclear War

12 Posted on 07/29/1999 09:43:32 PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Reply | To 10 | Top | Last ]


To: Joe Montana

Stalin has operated successfully with Molotov and Pravda!Why should good idea lay idle? Gvrmnt is paying for 1 thought a time- but in all ( sorry from all, in will be the next step ) heads of its employees. All citizens may be seen as long but welcomed perspective.

Is CPSU experience studied too quicly or vv?

13 Posted on 07/29/1999 09:50:54 PDT by vvz
[ Reply | To 11 | Top | Last ]


To: eroteme

Thanks for pointing out that truth and facts are not mentioned and that the information need only be "coordinated, integrated, deconflicted and synchronized with the [IPI] to achieve a synergistic effect."

Of interest as well is the timing of this. What's the point of setting this up now? They have little chance of winning the WH, and they know it.

My guess is that too many people didn't accept the Yugo spin. That's a problem for those that wanted the war and planning the next one. There's nothing partisan about international affairs or most natioanal affairs for that matter.

14 Posted on 07/29/1999 09:51:49 PDT by Mike Willmeng
[ Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen

Doesn't matter. I didn't believe the bastards then and I won't in the future.

15 Posted on 07/29/1999 09:57:01 PDT by Billthedrill
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Billthedrill

BUMP

16 Posted on 07/29/1999 11:14:16 PDT by Born in a Rage
[ Reply | To 15 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen

THANKS.

TRIED MY HAND AT EDITING A LITTLE..

.

Morton H. Halperin is a Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations [NWO] based in its Washington Office.

He served as a Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy at the National Security Council (February 1994-March 1996). In 1993 he was a consultant to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and was nominated by the President for the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and Peacekeeping.

Dr. Halperin also served for three years in the federal government in the 1960s. In 1969, he was a Senior Staff member of the National Security Council staff with responsibility for National Security planning. From July 1966 to January 1969, he was in the Department of Defense where he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs), responsible for political-military planning and arms control [NWO]. In that capacity Dr. Halperin had responsibility within DOD for the initial preparations for the strategic arms talks with the Soviet Union [betrayal of US] as well as for the NPT.

From November 1992 to February 1994, Dr. Halperin was a Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. [NWO] From September 1969 to December 1973, Dr. Halperin was a Senior Fellow associated with the Foreign Policy Division of the Brookings Institution[NWO]. In the early 1960s, he was on the faculty of Harvard University [NWO] where he was an Assistant Professor of Government and a Research Associate of the Harvard University Center for International Affairs[NWO].

Dr. Halperin served from 1975-1992 as Director of the Center for National Security Studies, which deals with secrecy, surveillance, and other threats to civil liberties in the name of national security. From 1984 to 1992, he was also the Director of the Washington Office of the American Civil Liberties Union [unbelievable] (ACLU), with responsibility for the national legislative program of the ACLU.

Dr. Halperin has also taught and conducted research on nuclear strategy and arms control issues at a number of other universities including Columbia, University of London, MIT, Yale, and The George Washington University[NWO].

He has authored, co-authored and edited more than a dozen books including Strategy and Arms Control (co-authored, 1961) and Nuclear Fallacy (1987). He has also contributed articles on arms control and nuclear strategy to a number of collected volumes, newspapers, magazines, and journals, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Harpers, Foreign Affairs, and Foreign Policy.

Born in Brooklyn, New York in 1938, Dr. Halperin received a BA from Columbia College in 1959 and in 1961 received a Ph.D. from Yale University in International Relations. Dr. Halperin is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute of Strategic Studies. He is the recipient of numerous awards including a five year MacArthur Foundation Fellowship.

17 Posted on 07/29/1999 11:20:23 PDT by Joe Montana
[ Reply | To 12 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen

If you do a Google search on about any of these slime you'll see the good ol CFR jump out and grab you.

Try --- Jamie Metzl --- on this ---- Google

This is a good listing of the hives' activity ------ Washington Project

18 Posted on 07/29/1999 11:45:10 PDT by NDCORUP
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Joe Montana

This post needs to be linked to this one for obvious reasons ---- Senate caves to CFR

19 Posted on 07/29/1999 13:27:50 PDT by NDCORUP
[ Reply | To 17 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen

So now, this administration is going to overtly and blatantly control the news, there goes democracy folks, guess that means that the only truth people will get, will be on the net...... that is until Clinton finds a way to control that too.

20 Posted on 07/29/1999 17:25:44 PDT by Great Dane
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen

Far too much of the truth slips out on Radio Free Europe. This must be unacceptible for Klin Toon, who signs their checks.

The harlots in the lamestream lie constantly, and they're not even on the government payroll.

21 Posted on 07/29/1999 18:02:23 PDT by Hamiltonian
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Joe Montana

Thanks for the 'flag'.

22 Posted on 07/29/1999 18:05:44 PDT by boyd
[ Reply | To 11 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen

A former senior Clinton administration official charged yesterday that a new multiagency plan to closely control the dissemination of public information abroad is really aimed at "spinning the American public."

Anybody have any idea who this "former senior Clinton administration official," who was in it recently enough to have knowledge of this scheme, may be?

23 Posted on 07/29/1999 18:12:07 PDT by aristeides (demosthenes@olg.com)
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: eroteme

"These people do nothing, nothing that is not to their own personal political advantage, yet this seems at complete odds with that. Though they'd get to use it for a year, this tool would then fall to the Republicans. So what do they know about this election that we don't?"

A very perceptive observation.

One that bears repeating.

Bumpity, bumpity.

24 Posted on 07/29/1999 18:22:36 PDT by okie01
[ Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: eroteme&all

These people do nothing, nothing that is not to their own personal political advantage

For all being and future Freepers- Read this slowly three times if you'll find idea- they are morons - in your mind!

25 Posted on 07/29/1999 23:49:01 PDT by vvz
[ Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen

Mr. Clinton in April issued Presidential Decision Directive 68, ordering the creation of the International Public Information (IPI) system, designed to make sure that all government agencies disseminating information abroad share a single message.

Much like his domestic directives to the media?

26 Posted on 07/30/1999 00:08:50 PDT by enough is enough
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: vvz

You said: For all being and future Freepers- Read this slowly three times if you'll find idea- they are morons - in your mind!

This doesn't make any sense so I don't understand what you're trying to say, but if perchance you are contending that the Clintons and their criminal cabal are morons, you are dangerously mistaken.

27 Posted on 07/30/1999 13:15:39 PDT by eroteme
[ Reply | To 25 | Top | Last ]


To: MI_too

"The IPI plan calls for establishing a system of control over all government information going abroad..."

I assume this includes the internet and all domestic domains.

28 Posted on 07/30/1999 13:28:26 PDT by Justa
[ Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen

Only more evidence of the likely inevitably of a 'forced debate'...

29 Posted on 07/30/1999 13:41:55 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen

According to an anonymous source the world is about to end, according to a source that spoke on condition of remaining un-named, most people will give credance to anything originating from a place or person that won't stand in the light to be seen. According to a former Clinton buisiness associate, Bill wants to take Milosevic's job. The point of this comment is to promote the boycott of news that comes from anonymous souces..we don't know who they are, we don't know their possible motives and we can't bank on the information originating from such sources so for all intents and puposes this type of info is useless.

30 Posted on 07/31/1999 02:00:01 PDT by Stay'n Alive
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: eroteme

"So what do they know about this election that we don't? Why are they not afraid to create this propaganda bureacracy now in their waning months? This does not settle well at all."

Wonder if it has anything to do with the $40M White House $40 million Y2K Information Coordination Center (ICC). This Y2K ICC is purported to be a large network that will be able to track users' banking and financial information, as well as other computerized data, ostensibly to locate online criminal behavior - particularly "cyber-attacks." You put these two together and you have a data gathering and a data dissemination network.

31 Posted on 07/31/1999 02:26:05 PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen

They haven't even completely gotten rid of the 2nd amendment, now they are already working on the first. Maybe this will wake the media sheep up, though I doubt it.

32 Posted on 07/31/1999 03:42:47 PDT by DaiHuy
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: DaiHuy

BTTT--a very important post--

33 Posted on 07/31/1999 04:17:09 PDT by CDHart
[ Reply | To 32 | Top | Last ]


To: CDHart

bummp

34 Posted on 08/01/1999 18:13:41 PDT by rack42
[ Reply | To 33 | Top | Last ]


To: Stand Watch Listen

"It would be a mistake to turn the U.S. public information system into a tool of a partisan agenda," said Mr. Cohen. "It cannot be driven by any political-correctness agenda that will not be representative of what the American people think or that will reflect only a social-change agenda of extremist activist groups," he said.

Ha Ha Ha!

Ho Ho Ho!!

Where have you been these last six years, Mr. Cohen? It's already a Done Deal!

35 Posted on 08/01/1999 18:41:57 PDT by Gritty
[ Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: eroteme

These people do nothing, nothing that is not to their own personal political advantage - I meant this your phrase should be read slowly In case persone will find itself with idea that they are morons. That means that I've never thought that Clinton&Co are or were morons, and want to give some cure from considering clinton as moron to others!

may be words were not clear!

I guess , as an author of initial idea you must post it as short article to all-cos my explanation appeares to be unclear even for you.

36 Posted on 08/01/1999 22:30:14 PDT by vvz
[ Reply | To 27 | Top | Last ]


To: vvz

Thank you for clarifying your comment. I did misunderstand you, and am glad to know that you are not among the many who actually buy into the "incompetence" cover story that this administration uses so well. If the Clintons and their hand-picked criminal conspirators were half as incompetent as they pretend to be, every now and then, just by chance, they would do something that would benefit the United States.

The Machiavellian brilliance of allowing (indeed, encouraging) the perception that they're screw-ups cannot be overstated. Imagine the wholehearted commitment it takes to a cause, to the promotion of a long-range plan, to subject oneself to global ridicule and humiliation, just as long as the agenda is served. Chilling, isn't it?

37 Posted on 08/02/1999 07:31:26 PDT by eroteme
[ Reply | To 36 | Top | Last ]


To: eroteme

They 've began to point up some traces of such a plan! By the way, in short terms Yugobomb is in US favour!

Why they are morons is enough for so many people? easy??

38 Posted on 08/02/1999 07:38:34 PDT by vvz
[ Reply | To 37 | Top | Last ]


To: All

Question: What is the difference between the United States and a third world dictatorship?

Answer: In a third word dictatorship, the people know that the press is controlled by the government.

39 Posted on 08/02/1999 11:54:53 PDT by Magician
[ Reply | To 38 | Top | Last ]


To: Magician

CFR=NWO

40 Posted on 08/02/1999 12:51:07 PDT by Prince Igor
[ Reply | To 39 | Top | Last ]


To: Magician

CFR=NWO

41 Posted on 08/02/1999 12:51:25 PDT by Prince Igor
[ Reply | To 39 | Top | Last ]


To: Gritty

Right... And don't forget, there are "congressional controls", now. How comforting!

42 Posted on 08/02/1999 13:10:59 PDT by Monkeywrench
[ Reply | To 35 | Top | Last ]


To: MadasHell

MAH, thought this would be of interest to you.

43 Posted on 09/19/1999 00:48:12 PDT by Uncle Bill
[ Reply | To 42 | Top | Last ]


To: Monkeywrench

Bttt

44 Posted on 08/06/2000 07:08:30 PDT by Uncle Bill
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | Top | Last ]


To: Uncle Bill, Robert Drobot

Bump for new eyes.

45 Posted on 07/01/2001 01:20:53 PDT by meadsjn
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | Top | Last ]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

[ Top | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC