Translate

Dec 2, 2009

YOUTUBE: George Carlin - Saving the Planet

 


YOUTUBE: George Carlin - Saving the Planet

Carlin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw


The Latest Narishkeit from Abe Foxman (or as I call him, the Jewish "Jesse Jackson")

Abe Foxman, America's resident religion baiter, was causing tsooris again. The American Defamation League's notorious noodnik went whining to the officials at the University of California-Santa Barbara to demand that theyinvestigate:

"…[Sociology Professor William] Robinson for introducing materials critical of Israeli state policies in a course on globalization in January.

The materials included a photo essay that Robinson forwarded to students from the Internet and that had been circulating in the public realm. The photos compared images of Israeli abuse against Palestinians during the recent military invasion of Gaza with Nazi abuses during the holocaust. Two students took offense at the images and withdrew from the course, prompting the Anti-Defamation League to pressure the university to investigate Robinson for "anti-Semitism."

Oy! The "nerve" of that no-goodnik Professor Robinson not clearing his curriculum with ADL Gauleiter Foxman before teaching his course. Such "chutzpah"!

When it comes to Abe Foxman, a line from the film Norma Rae says it best: "Kvetchkvetchkvetch."







--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE:

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

http://www.amazon.com/DEBATING-HOLOCAUST-Thomas-Dalton-ebook/dp/B002SN9HEW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259095221&sr=1-2


Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Controversy Erupts on Holocaust Denial Scene

 


  http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1101#

Revisionism, Interrupted

Controversy Erupts on Holocaust Denial Scene
By Heidi Beirich
 
 
The small, bizarre world of Holocaust denial — where anti-Semites use shoddy science and tortured historical analyses to try to undermine what they sarcastically call the "Holohoax" — is in an uproar. The brouhaha was set off in January, when Mark Weber, who heads the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), the oldest and for decades the most important American denial outfit, published an explosive essay asking "How Relevant Is Holocaust Revisionism?"

Weber's unexpected conclusion: not very.

Weber's essay argues that the decades-long "Holocaust revisionist" effort has been "as much a hindrance as a help" in fighting what he has now decided is the real enemy — "Jewish-Zionist power." Weber advocates a shift in the movement toward "the real world struggle" against Jewish power. For Weber, debating the existence of the World War II Holocaust of European Jewry has become a waste of time.

Weber's recent speeches have reinforced his move from Holocaust denial — a sort of once-removed assault on the Jews — to a more direct attack on Jews and also Israel. At a July IHR meeting held in Costa Mesa, Calif., Weber hauled out plainly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, complaining about those "who control political and cultural life, including the education system and the mass media." From the looks of his audience, Weber has ditched his usually professorial-looking denier allies for hard-core anti-Semites, neo-Nazis and heavily tattooed racist skinheads.

Weber did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Weber's indictment of Holocaust denial as a lost and ultimately unimportant battle has fractured the denialist community and put Weber's future at IHR in doubt. Since its founding in 1978, IHR has been the leading American purveyor of denial propaganda. Created by veteran anti-Semite Willis Carto, IHR published the premier periodical on the topic, The Journal of Historical Review, with the look and feel of a real academic publication but without any of the usual academic standards. In 1993, Weber helped wrest IHR away from Carto in a nasty legal battle that even featured a standoff at the group's then-headquarters in Newport Beach, Calif.

Until Weber took over, IHR was known predominantly for two things: the Journal and, starting in 1979, nearly annual Holocaust denial conferences that included prominent movement figures and featured anti-Semites like Wolf Rudiger Hess, son of Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess, and Maj. Gen. Otto Ernst Remer, an officer under Hitler whose anti-Semitic activities resulted in his 1986 conviction under German hate-crime laws.

Both efforts would fall by the wayside once Weber took over IHR as its director in 1995. In 2002, Weber stopped publishing the Journalbecause of a "lack of staff and funding." IHR now has been reduced to little more than publishing Web commentary on news articles and various posts from Weber, who also gives a few speeches each year. And the group has held only two conferences since 1994.

Though Weber's failure to bring IHR's journal back from the dead had been criticized, most notably in a 2002 essay by imprisoned denier Germar Rudolf, most of Weber's fellow travelers kept their concerns private. Most importantly, IHR's board stood by him. But Weber's January essay changed that.

In the essay, Weber wrote that the movement had achieved "little success in convincing people that the familiar Holocaust story is defective." He berated denialists for being of little use in defeating the more serious problem facing the world — "a phenomenal increase in Jewish influence and power." Noting that IHR's sales of materials related to the Holocaust were in steady decline while requests for interviews and materials on "the role of Jews in society" were on the rise, Weber argued that denial no longer played "a central role" in the battle against Jewish influence, which should now focus on fighting "Jewish-Zionist power."

Perhaps more heretically, Weber's essay went on to affirm that at least some of the Holocaust actually occurred. Citing Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, Weber wrote, "Jews in Europe were, in fact, singled out during the war years for especially severe treatment." Weber concludes that Jews in Europe were "wiped out" and, when the war ended in 1945, most of them "were gone."

The Counterattack
Days after Weber posted his essay, the former editor of IHR's Journal, Theodore O'Keefe, mocked Weber for turning his back on "breakthroughs" — the result of years of hard work by deniers — in exchange for "a few more radio interviews and speaking invitations." O'Keefe assailed Weber for abandoning the truth for a "Halfocaust." He said Weber deserved no sympathy after "the responsibility that he has shirked, and the trust he has betrayed in his striving to replace veracity with expediency."

O'Keefe's sentiments were reiterated by many other deniers, including Arthur Butz, a well-known Holocaust denier who teaches engineering at Northwestern University and is the author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry. Butz wrote that "Weber is not a revisionist" and "not one of us." Richard Widmann, webmaster of the denialist Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH), said IHR "is no longer part of our struggle. The time has come to move on." And French denier Serge Thion reacted viscerally to Weber's use of the word "hindrance" to describe Holocaust denial. "A Hindrance? Certainly not," Thion wrote, adding that denial was a "hammer for many anvils."

In February, a more personal attack came from the wife of Ernst Zundel, a man who is a prolific neo-Nazi publisher and propagandist now serving time in Germany for Holocaust denial. The Zundels had been close to Weber, whom they at one time employed as a spokesman. Saddened by it all, Ingrid Rimland Zundel slammed Weber in her newsletter,Power: Personal Opinions of Ingrid Zundel. Under the title "'Friendly Fire' from unexpected quarters," Rimland Zundel denounced Weber for his "act of duplicity," "perplexing" views, and "having run IHR right into the ground." She also reproduced excerpts of several other attacks on Weber.

Rimland Zundel declined to comment on the conflict, telling the Intelligence Report that it was "a family quarrel."

The clearest condemnation of all came from Robert Faurisson, a French Holocaust denier who was fined for defamation by a French court in 1983 when his revisionist writings were found to violate hate-speech laws. In the March edition of CODOH's Smith's Report, Faurisson wrote a lengthy attack on Weber entitled "Mark Weber Must Resign from the Institute for Historical Review."

Faurisson demanded that Weber leave IHR and create a different institution to fight "Jewish-Zionist power." Faurisson implied that a cowardly Weber was leaving the movement for fear of being jailed, writing that Weber is "fully aware that it's always highly dangerous" to question the Holocaust. Faurisson's conclusion was that Weber "disgraced himself" and "must therefore resign."

By June, a new website had appeared under the title of "Mark Weber Must Go." That same month, both Weber and Bradley Smith, the American denier who founded and runs CODOH, were interviewed for a four-part story that ran in the pages of Tablet, a liberal online magazine of Jewish news, ideas and culture. Most of the story consisted of each man calling the other a fraud. Weber denounced Smith and Faurisson as having "their identities tied to Holocaust revisionism in a way that isn't healthy." The Tablet article did confirm, after years of rumors, that Weber indeed has a sister who converted to Judaism.

Weber & Friends
Though hot and heavy in the Holocaust denial community, the controversy over Weber's views didn't even come up at his July speech in Costa Mesa, Calif., where he spoke about the non-Jewish victims of World War II, or what he called "the unknown Holocaust of non-Jews," along with Jewish control of such things as the media. Weber also told the audience that California now has a "third-world population" due to immigration from Latin America.

That seemed to suit the audience just fine and none of them asked him about his January essay denouncing Holocaust denial. That's probably because the hotel conference room where Weber spoke was filled with extremists who would certainly agree that the Jews in general are a better target than the Holocaust. A particularly notable audience member was Kevin MacDonald, the California State, Long Beach, professor who says that Jews are genetically driven to undermine white society by pushing liberal policies such as non-white immigration. Also there was white nationalist activist Jamie Kelso, who for years worked for former Klansman David Duke and, more recently, as a moderator of the racist website Stormfront.org.

The other speaker on the bill that day was David Irving, probably the best-known Holocaust denier in the world. Irving started his talk by alleging that the numbers of dead in the Allied bombing of Dresden, Germany, were severely undercounted. He then described a bizarre conspiracy involving Enigma coding machines and a massive British spy operation after the war that gave Britain access to the secret message traffic of several small nations in the Southern hemisphere. Telling the audience "many people in this room will not want to hear this," Irving, like Weber, admitted that more than 1.2 million Jews were killed at several camps. But he added that he thought this was all the work of Heinrich Himmler. Hitler, he said, merely wanted "to move Jews to Madagascar."

 

--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE:

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

http://www.amazon.com/DEBATING-HOLOCAUST-Thomas-Dalton-ebook/dp/B002SN9HEW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259095221&sr=1-2


Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

UCLA Courses: "Remarkable Jews" and "Racist White People"

 

Dear friend,
 
Check out these two UCLA Extension classes for January 2010, one dealing with Jews in American and their remarkable achievements, and the other dealing with "Whiteness" in American history and all the effects of lingering white racism and white privilege. Pay $535 to challenge your "preconceived racial assumptions" about white people, but only $80.00 to be informed of the wonderful Jews. 


The Jewish People and America
 General Interest 731.003

Reg. # Status Location Start Date Fee
V4915 Restricted WestwoodWestwood: G33E UCLA Extension Bldg. 10995 Le Conte Ave.
1/7/2010 $80 Add to Cart

Permission to enroll required. Further information will be displayed in the Shopping Cart. Learn about the extraordinary relationship between a wandering people and a golden land. Discover the lessons it teaches us about the evolution of the Jewish people from hopeful immigrants seeking a haven to esteemed citizens who found a home. This program documents remarkable achievement in the face of obstacles and ingenuity in creating opportunity in a new land. This story about Jewish hopes and the realities of the American promise provides penetrating insight into how an immigrant people forged liberating New World Jewish identities across the American landscape in commerce, arts and culture, sciences, law, higher education, medicine, entertainment, and more. This course chronicles not only what is familiar in our remarkable Jewish American life and times, but also shines a light onto what has been overlooked, revealing an inspiring new contextual history.

Westwood: G33E UCLA Extension Bldg.
Thursday, 1-3pm
January 7, 14, 21 & 28

https://www.uclaextension.edu/r/Course.aspx?reg=V4915


Understanding Whiteness in American History and Culture: Deconstructing White Privilege for the Reconstruction of an Anti-Racist White Identity (Online)

History XL M151C

4.00 units
Reg. # Status Location Start Date Fee
V4281 Open online 1/7/2010 $535 Add to Cart

Eurocentric American history often masks the saliency of how the formation of Whiteness ultimately supports mechanisms of race and racism. This course outlines the historical development of Whiteness and critically analyzes the sociological results that stem from its birth. Segmented into three modules, the course provides a historical framework of the birth of Whiteness; explores Whiteness (namely, White Supremacy and White Privilege) and how they impact people of color and uphold racial hierarchy; and, in acknowledging that the relevance of history is inextricably tied to modern society, draws from liberatory, transformative, and emancipatory praxis, to engage in a REconstruction of anti-racist white racial identity. Throughout the course students are expected to critically engage in dialogue and identify and challenge their preconceived racial assumptions. For technical requirements click here.

https://www.uclaextension.edu/r/Course.aspx?reg=V4281




--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE:

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

http://www.amazon.com/DEBATING-HOLOCAUST-Thomas-Dalton-ebook/dp/B002SN9HEW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259095221&sr=1-2


Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Me and the H-Bomb Part Two: The Gas Chamber of Samuel Crowell by Chip Smith

 
__,_._,___

A critique by Dagmar Brenne: Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides [2 Attachments]

 
[Attachment(s) from ReporterNotebook included below]

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides

By Thomas Dalton PhD
Theses and Dissertations Press
New York – New York 2009

A critique by Dagmar Brenne December 2009

When I was asked to read the book by Thomas Dalton, "Debating the Holocaust", I agreed, for the one reason of being able to express my opinion about the topic Holocaust, that has become pivotal in German life, and I suppose in the life of Jews as well. It is the bane of any German's existence.

But I fear this is far less a critique of Mr. Dalton's book than my own heartfelt views of the Holocaust.

German history seems to be divided into a pre- and post Holocaust era. Or even more so, pre- and post Hitler. The mantras: Hitler, Nazi, Gestapo, Holocaust, gas chambers, 6 million Jews, are following us from the cradle to the grave. It makes us outcasts in society, stands in the way of career and promotion, it has marginalised Germans and Germany and made us the pariahs in the lands we live in. You may not see it, often it is very subtle, but Germans experience it daily.

The endless vexation of the media output, to "keep the memory alive," sees to it, that Germans do not rest easily. No forgiveness, no reprieve, no lessening of Holocaust tribute demands.

In the light of this, it is hardly to be expected that the German point of view is the same as the Jewish one.

And here is the rub, the galling irritation: our side of the story is very different and so very rarely permitted to be heard. As it stands, our point of view is expected to echo the Jewish sentiments about the Hitler era. So much so, that many people who research into the Jewish situation of the so-called German third Reich are categorically labeled Nazis, anti-Semites and similar names. Name-calling is the preventative measure to deter anyone from researching into the historical era, 1933 – 1945 in an honest way. And need I stress, many find themselves in jail, their lives, their families and careers in tatters. From riches to rags is a common occurrence in which such a person finds himself.

Now comes Mr. Dalton's book, claiming to have a look at both sides.

And indeed his book is full of information about gas chambers, mass graves, the different camps, the amount of supposed Jewish deaths, the possibilities of the veracity of eyewitness reports. He wonders about the magic number of 6 Million, that will not change, regardless of anything. And many other things. It is a Jewish versus German view about: did 6 Million Jews die?

I feel a great amount of distaste at debating the Holocaust, in fact my spirit is shrieking about the topic: stop, not another book! I find it distasteful to debate an event that I am not witness to, have never been a witness to. And actually who was a witness to it? Very few living. Am I expected to earnestly discuss something with people who are no more witness to the supposed atrocities than I am? Indeed that is what is expected! An event that has not been scientifically proven, rather the opposite. The Leuchter report, the analysis of Germar Rudolf indicate that many things are an impossibility to perform within our prevailing limitations of the God-given laws of nature.

I find it utterly futile to discuss things that have neither been verified scientifically nor even acknowledged by wartime leaders, who ought to have known of these happenings.

The people who should have raised the alarm about the Holocaust, first and foremost, Eisenhower and Churchill, and Charles de Gaulle, have certainly let the Jewish side down rather dramatically with their deafening silence about any genocidal establishments, when they wrote their autobiographies.

So am I meant to appropriate the Holocaust by faith? Like my faith in Jesus? You believe because you believe by the inspiration of the Spirit of God? Or, you believe in the Holocaust because the law demands it?

How can I believe when my measure of faith is already taken up? In my case by Jesus and Christianity. Jesus and Holocaust run entirely counter to each other, one is the way to life, the other the cult of death. How can I simultaneously believe in both?

Judea Declares War on GermanyTo view the fate of Jews in Europe we need to look at the political situation. On March 24th 1933, Jews worldwide, all Jewry, men, women and children declared war on Germany. In stark words: Jews wanted to wipe Germany off the map, to kill all Germans was the goal, as per the Jewish author's Nathan Kaufmann's writing: "Germany must perish". To the Jews this was a "Holy War" against Germany.

Does not this shed a totally different light on the Jewish question in the Centre of Europe? Is not every country doing its utmost to defend itself against an enemy? Especially when the enemy lives within its own borders like the Jews did in Germany? Is not everyone in their right mind fighting back with all they have at their disposal? Are not English and USA, Australian internment camps known to us, as are the Russian Gulags? So why would German concentration camps be so baffling to the rest of the world? Have not all other countries removed their enemies into camps? Have not people died in camps under British, USA, French and Russian control?

Yes, Jews were in camps, yes Jews did die in German camps. It was war! A war declared by Jewry on Germany's people: JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY. That is what the papers said in the March 24, 1933 issue of The Daily Express of London and they meant it, of this Germans were certain! Did Germany not experience this in Versailles, did they not know this from the Bolshevists in Russia, most of whom in the higher echelon were Jews! Oh yes, the Germans knew that Jews meant business, that their intention was the destruction of Germany! The Jews had spelled it out in no uncertain terms. They desired the German genocide. Germany defended itself. It had to.

I think we should bury the Holocaust in a deep grave. The goalpost of Holocaust is forever changing. Gassings in the woods, in mobile vans, Zyclone pellets, exhaust fumes, showers, inward opening doors against which the gassing victims fell, windows in the gas chambers, chimneys that are attached to nothing in particular, colour coded smoke, streamlined factory type killings, with people queuing up for the gas chambers without resistance, geysers of blood, surviving with wolves, diaries written in biro, long before biros were marketed etc, etc, that is the Holocaust lore. We should give no more the time of day to the debaters of the event. It is futile, it never leads to any reconciliation, to a mutual understanding of the era, to peace among nations. Just more impossible reports of survivors, surfacing constantly.

I see it as nothing else but endless German bashing, a Germany forever cast outside the general brace of humanity.

I am sure Mr. Dalton's book is a jewel among Holocaust books but to me it appears as yet another book of sowing to the wind and reaping the storm. I feel a storm is coming soon, when the whole western world, impoverished, lied to, bled dry by wars and robbed by the bankers will know who it is who thieved them blind.

Maybe then we will have another Holocaust to write about.

(Few people know the facts about the singular event that helped spark what ultimately became known as World War II—the international Jewish declaration of war on Germany shortly after Adolf Hitler came to power and well before any official German government sanctions or reprisals against Jews were carried out. The March 24, 1933 issue of The Daily Express of London (shown above) described how Jewish leaders, in combination with powerful international Jewish financial interests, had launched a boycott of Germany for the express purpose of crippling her already precarious economy in the hope of bringing down the new Hitler regime. It was only then that Germany struck back in response. Thus, if truth be told, it was the worldwide Jewish leadership—not the Third Reich—that effectively fired the first shot in the Second World War. Prominent New York attorney Samuel Untermyer was one of the leading agitators in the war against Germany, describing the Jewish campaign as nothing less than a "holy war." And it was he who financed Cyrus Schofield to subvert the Bible with Zionist footnotes).


+++

NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE:

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

http://www.amazon.com/DEBATING-HOLOCAUST-Thomas-Dalton-ebook/dp/B002SN9HEW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259095221&sr=1-2


Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from ReporterNotebook

2 of 2 Photo(s)

.

__,_._,___

The Significance of Climategate

 


Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 9:10 AM
Thomas Sieger Derr

I have always thought that the global warming, or "climate change" debate, was as much about social psychology as science. Now we have the perfect example in the unseemly row over a thousand purloined e-mails to and from the scientists of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain. It's a significant scandal, and inevitably it is being called "climategate" (that ubiquitous metaphor). East Anglia is one of four centers worldwide which keep the more-or-less official records of world temperature and climate history. They were among the first to claim that human activity was causing global average temperatures to rise to dangerous levels, basing their claims on several research projects, notably on tree rings on an eastern Siberian peninsula; and they adopted Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick" graph which claimed to show a sharp upward tick in recent temperatures. When pressed to share their basic data with other scientists, who might in true scientific method see if they could reproduce the conclusions, they refused.

As I recall (and forgive my faulty memory) their lead researcher Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, told an Australian climate researcher whom he feared was skeptical, something like "I have 25 years invested in this data base; why should I share it with you who are only trying to find fault with it?" Then a Canadian statistician, Steve McIntyre, showed that Mann's graph was faulty and could not prove a sharp recent rise in temperature. And the Siberian tree rings turned out to have been cherry-picked (they weren't cherry trees, though) to fit a premature conclusion, while most of the rest in the area told a different story. So the war was on.

Now an enterprising hacker, unknown as of this moment, has released e-mails to and from the people at East Anglia which show some fairly surprising and dismaying unscientific behavior, dripping contempt for the scientists skeptical of the warming alarm and showing what appear to be attempts to manipulate data to yield a desired result. The unguarded, but now disclosed, ad hominem insults perhaps show the natural nastiness of academics whose theories, representing hard work and deep convictions, are challenged. It becomes personal. Maybe we can chalk that up to original sin. What's really serious is the perversion of the methods of science to yield a result above all challenge. The CRU repeatedly refused Freedom-of-Information requests from other scientists for its data set. Jones and his colleagues discussed ways to manipulate figures and graphs to make the temperature record prove the anthropogenic-global-warming thesis. He even proposed organizing boycotts of journals that dared to publish anything that would undermine that thesis. And now all this shoddy academic, scientific behavior is on the public record, racing around the internet.

Not surprisingly, important voices in the UK and elsewhere are calling for a formal investigation of the scandal. Of course it will be hard to agree on the make-up of an investigating panel, since the sides do not trust each other to be neutral and objective. (Lord) Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, is prominent among those calling for the investigation, but he is a well-known "climate skeptic." (Sir) John Houghton, first chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and an equally prominent advocate on the other side, says he won't support any investigation because the people calling for it are all "biased." The University, deeply embarrassed, says it won't wait for that but will finally publish the withheld data for all to see. But there's this problem: the original data have been destroyed, and only the massaged, interpreted set is left – which of course the skeptics don't trust.

We might shrug this matter off as just scientists behaving badly except for the fact that the IPCC has based its massive program on their work and is calling for policies of emissions reduction which will wreck the world's economies, all in the name of their elusive goal of stopping the temperature rise (which at the moment has stopped all by itself anyway). Our Congress is among many around the world where these policies are being seriously debated. If this current scandal should create serious doubt about the scientific basis of such advocacy, we may expect the political fate of climate bills to be even more doubtful than it is now.


--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE:

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

http://www.amazon.com/DEBATING-HOLOCAUST-Thomas-Dalton-ebook/dp/B002SN9HEW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259095221&sr=1-2


Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___