Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

September 29 [THREAD III]
Daly's News Online ^ | September 26 2001 | Gerry Daly

Posted on 09/27/2001 6:44:50 PM PDT by Neets

September 29

By Gerry Daly
September 26, 2001

In any social movement there is a vanguard and a mass. On one side, the vanguard, are groups of people who are more resolute and committed, better organized and able to take a leading role in the struggle, and on the other side, the mass, are larger numbers of people who participate in the struggle or are involved simply by their social position, but are less committed or well-placed in relation to the struggle, and will participate only in the decisive moments, which in fact change history.

The Marxist theory of the vanguard, in relation to class struggle under capitalism, stipulates that the working class, the mass, needs to be militantly lead through revolutionary struggle against capitalism and in the building of Socialism. - "Basic Concepts of Marxism",

Is there any doubt what would happen today if a group of hijackers tried to take over a plane on a flight of Americans? Would the people cooperate with the terrorists, or would the people rise up and do what it takes to stop them? There is no doubt. Not any longer. The people would act. No ifs, ands, or buts.

It is now clear to all that, in such a situation, it is all in the hands of the people. We can hope and pray that our government will protect us, but eventually, it still comes back to us. We have to defend our families and ourselves. Conservatives have preached this mantra often, as it applies just as well to the debate over gun control. In the end, there will be times when the government cannot respond fast enough to protect us. We must be able to act ourselves.

As President Bush leads forward what originally was called Operation Infinite Justice, we can take comfort that our government is acting to eradicate the enemies who have struck so viciously at our nation. Yet we cannot escape the reality that, in the end, the people have the ultimate responsibility. The government cannot do it all for us. We must do our part.

Another lesson from the terrorist attacks on September 11th is that intelligence is critical in defense. Knowing and understanding what the enemy will do, if at all possible, is of the highest importance. The attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon was able to occur because we did not fully know who the enemy was, where the enemy was, and what the enemy was doing.

The men who commandeered our passenger jets and flew them into their targets, our buildings and our people, learned from us. They infiltrated our society. They learned how our security works. They learned how we do things. They came to us for instruction on how to fly our planes. They learned from us.

What about Bin Laden?

In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The Soviets did so for a number of reasons. They feared Islam as a threat, since communism insists on a lack of religion. The Soviets also desired a warm water port on the Indian Ocean; the Soviet Union had no seaports that were ice-free, year round. And expanding their influence upon the Middle East was an added incentive.

Concerned with the expanding Soviet threat, the United States supported the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion, starting with the Carter administration and continuing onward. In 1986, CIA head William Casey expanded our involvement in several manners. He persuaded Congress to provide the Afghan resistance, the Mujaheddin, with Stinger missiles. These American-made missiles worked to counter the air dominance of the Soviets. Additionally, Congress authorized and provided funding for US advisors to train the guerillas. Casey also committed CIA support to an effort to recruit Muslims from around the world to come to Pakistan and fight along with the Mujaheddin (an effort the ISI, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, had been encouraging since 1982). By 1992, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries in the Middle East, North and East Africa, Central Asia and the Far East would gain knowledge and experience with the Afghan Mujaheddin.

Among these thousands of recruits was a wealthy young Saudi, Osama Bin Laden. He learned from us.

In many ways Bin Laden is another example of blowback, which is the unintended results of covert intelligence operations that come back to haunt you. That is not to say that the right decisions were not made, however. The choice at the time was between accepting Soviet expansion and the spread of Communism, or taking action and risking unintended future consequences.

There are apologists on the left and on the right stating that America brought this on itself by its actions in Afghanistan. These apologists miss the point. Ours was not an initiating action, but rather a reaction to the moves of the Soviet Union. If one pulls the string to find the root causes, fixating on the United States involvement in Afghanistan is stopping at a mid-point. Examining the root cause heads right back to Marxist expansionism.

Bin Laden learned more than just guerrilla tactics, it would seem. To understand exactly what lessons he did learn, we should look to how the United States has endeavored to bring down hostile regimes. Our efforts generally have three prongs.

We try to foster political change within the nation by finding sympathetic people who can be organized and mobilized to attempt to bring about political change. We attempt to assist with armed resistance, providing them with financial backing and with weapons and training. And we strike economically, via sanctions and other methods.

These three prongs are intended to sow the seeds of dissention within the population, so as to make them yearn for a change in power. The intention is to make the people rise up against the regime, to not be complacent and accepting of the status quo.

Bin Laden and his terrorist organizations learned these lessons. The strikes at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon weakened us, at least temporarily. It has cast doubts upon our ability to defend our citizens. It harmed us economically. Beyond the direct costs of the buildings and the lives, we see hundreds of thousands of Americans cast out of employment by industries struggling for their very survival in the aftermath. We see incredible amounts of paper wealth vanish as the stock markets tumble. It is not surprising that in the aftermath, we have not been on the lookout for the third prong, the political thrust.

Thankfully, we Americans are a hearty lot, and have not succumbed to the chaos that has been thrust upon us. Instead of us ripping apart, we have joined together. But just as our operations in hostile regimes have not been short term in nature, the odds are that the terrorists operations were not culminated from their end with these attacks. These were just another step on a journey, which they believe will have many more steps.

The purpose of terrorism is to create fear, as well as doubt within a populace of the government's ability to protect the people. This is just an interim purpose, however. There is a reason that the terrorists wish to create fear; they wish to enact some sort of change, to encourage the people to force some sort of political change. What is the political purpose that Bin Laden wishes to achieve in the United States?

"But I am confident that Muslims and this nation of 12,000 million Muslims, will, God willing, be able by counting on the help of God to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America. [snip]

"The American forces should expect reactions to their actions, from the Muslim world. Any thief or criminal or robber who enters the countries of others in order to steal should expect to be exposed to murder at any time.[snip]

"But to count of these non-believers, who steal the wealth of Muslims then give back some crumbs to certain Islamic states or mini-states reflects a flawed understanding of their duties...

"...the world is governed by the law of the jungle." ABC News interview with Osama Bin Laden

The views expressed by Bin Laden are that the United States is a nation that plunders the resources and the labor of poor Muslims. He believes that an uprising of the oppressed will eventually lead to a toppling of the world's one remaining superpower. Where will allies in this effort be found? What people and groups share enough of his views as to make an alliance possible?

One such sympathizer might be Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General for the Lyndon Johnson administration. In 1992, Clark founded the International Action Center, which enjoys the continuing support of the ex-Trotskyist, pro-Stalinist Workers World Party. While the original teachings of Karl Marx are decidedly atheistic, Clark sees a natural alliance. "Islam has probably a billion and a half adherents today. And it is probably the most compelling spiritual and moral force on earth today. (source). "Islam is the best chance the poor of the planet have for any hope of decency in their lives. It is the one revolutionary force that cares about humanity..." (source)

The International Action Center is an umbrella group which shares its offices and its telephones with such groups as Iraq Sanctions Challenge, Peace for Cuba, U.S. Out of Korea Committee, Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Mideast, and Millions for Mumia, which works to free cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal who was convicted using evidence obtained under the powers of anti-terrorist legislation. The structure of the groups, including how frequently new ones appear and disappear, and including how much of their funding comes through charitable donations, is very similar to terrorist networks and cells.

There are ties between Clark and Bin Laden. In 1998, two American embassies in Africa (one in Nairobi and one in Dar es Salaam) were bombed. Four men were eventually captured and tried in the United States, and all were convicted. The prosecution established through phone records and wiretap transcripts that Bin Laden had direct contact with the Nairobi cell that carried out the attack.

One of the defendants, Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali, signed a confession regarding his involvement in the Nairobi cell. This Saudi national was riding in the truck that carried the bomb to the embassy, but instead of becoming a martyr and dying in the subsequent blast, he fled on foot. He was treated at a hospital nearby, and was arrested. In addition to his confession, he was in possession of keys that fit into a padlock on the rear of the truck bomb. After his conviction, the defense presented Ramsey Clark as a witness as they argued against the death penalty. (More information regarding the trial can be found here).

How has Clark responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11th? On September 29th, there will be a demonstration in Washington, D.C. Ramsey Clark is leading the effort.

Shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center, a website called "Beat Back The Bush Attack" (note: they have subsequently changed their name) announced that they would be organizing a demonstration. "Now is the time for all people of conscience, all people who oppose racism and war to come together. If you believe in civil liberties and oppose racism and war, join us on September 29 in front of the White House. We urge all organizations to join together at this critical time" their announcement stated.

The temptation is there to dismiss this group of people as misguided kooks or irrational pacifists. This would be a mistake. The organizers of this protest are hoping for a repeat of the troubles that occurred in Seattle in November, 1999. The site's FAQ makes this clear:

Should I bring a gas mask? A helmet?
Since Seattle, there have been an increasing number of major demonstrations and convergences that have been targeted with a high level of repression by the state. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THE DEMONSTRATIONS IN DC WILL FALL INTO THE SEATTLE CATEGORY. Everyone is advised to take this seriously and take precautions. Basically, this means ensuring that you are protected against the types of maneuvers that the cops have clearly utilized over and over against very large demonstrations. Namely, the types of things to protect yourself against are teargas, pepper spray and projectiles. So, this means you should:

The mainstream media currently is portraying the protesters of the war on terrorism as pacifists. They are not. These are the same folks that terrorized Seattle in 1999 under the umbrella group Mobilization for Global Justice, and who tried to do the same in Washington, DC in April 2000 under the name A16.

The type of protest that occurred in Seattle in 1999 takes months of preparation and organization. Travel plans had to be made for the various anarchists. Staging areas had to be set up. Lodging for those taking place had to be arranged. The logistics behind such an endeavor would make it impossible for such an uprising to be impossible to coordinate on such a short notice.

However, the protest on September 29th was planned long ago, long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The domain was registered July 21, 2001. According to their website, they were going to protest the Bush administration's policies regarding the IMF and World Bank, although the phrase "Beat Back The Bush Attack" seems more fitting for the protest of the war against terrorism.

The plans for these protests hit a bit of a snag when the United States reacted with restraint not seen under the Clinton administration. To date, there has been no Bush attack to beat back; unlike Clinton, Bush has said that he has no desire "to send some $2 million missiles at a $10 tent and hit a camel in the butt" to satisfy the desire for quick retaliation. Coupled with the fact that Bush's approval ratings have soared to the 90% level, a change in approach was needed. The group behind quickly redesigned their site from leading the charge to "Beat Back The Bush Attack", to "International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism)". They registered a new domain ( to front this effort, and both websites currently have essentially the same content.

The shifting focus of this protest shows that the people involved have one goal in mind, and it is not the stated intent, which has shifted from protesting the IMF and World Bank, to protesting President Bush's retaliation to the attacks, to now protesting racism and the coming war on terrorism. The real goal is disruption, as well as to gain publicity, and to put political pressure on the government of the United States to move away from capitalism.

The front page for both of these sites currently shows no link between their efforts and the International Action Center, merely showing Clark as the first of the "initial signers" for their declaration.

One can find who is the primary contact for an internet domain by performing a whois query against the domain names databases. A whois query on shows that the organization behind the website is called "World View", and is based in Jersey City, NJ, and lists an administrative contact of Sara Flounders Kramer. The email address given for the administrative contact is A whois query for, though, shows the organization to be the IAC, and provides the same email address for the administrative contact. Sara Flounders (sans the Kramer surname) is listed as the administrative and billing contact for the IAC's website. Both and are hosted on machines running in Boca Raton, Florida. The contact for, as found using whois, is Elijah Saxon, who gives his email address as being from the domain (University of California, Santa Cruz, where he is probably an alumni). Saxon also has registered, which says it is part of Global Update, which also has a domain.,, and all indicate that they operate out of Seattle, Washington.

What is They provide "Tech support for the revolution" according to their main page. The vanguard, it would seem, has gone high tech. also provides hosting for "Direct Action Networks", which function like cells for activities promoting "radical social change" and "social justice", which are the new catchphrases used to hide the true nature of their activities, which is the promotion of Marxism.

Here is how describes themselves: is a project of the Red Cursor Collective, a 100% volunteer effort of activists using technology for radical social change. We provide training, web hosting, listservs, email accounts, and any kind of tech support needed by the activist community.
The page says that, currently, their "costs greatly exceed the donations we have received". If donations do not currently meet costs, yet they are operating, from where are they currently getting their funding?

Many of the IAC's initiatives are funded by contributions from The People's Rights Fund, a 501c3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization. A search on "Peoples Rights Fund" and Flounders (for Sara Flounders, who is a co-director at the IAC) shows that the contributions have been both frequent and varied in their purpose. Many of the contributions were directly to the IAC. Others were made to other organizations that tie back to the IAC and/or Clark.

Where does the People's Rights Fund get their money? Their website makes no mention. However, at least part of their funding comes from Fidelity Investment's Charitable Gift Fund. One can only wonder how well Fidelity has screened their recipients, if the money from this fund is being funneled to Marxist advocacy groups. One can only wonder who at Fidelity realizes that their fund was used as a conduit to funnel funds for the planning and execution of the massive demonstrations-turned-riots of November 1999 in Seattle, or the similar demonstrations in Washington, DC, of April 16, 2000 that were limited in their destructiveness by police raids the night before. These raids found riot gear, gas masks, staging locations, and involved the arrest of senior IAC members. One can only wonder how Fidelity feels about their fund being used as a conduit to funnel funds for the planning and execution of the coming September 29th demonstration against the war on terror. One can only wonder how well Fidelity would react to this information becoming widespread public knowledge.

What is particularly troubling to me is the fact that none of this is getting serious attention by the mainstream media. The New York Post and the Washington Times have written a few articles mentioning the political views of Clark and his involvement at the epicenter of the coming protests. There has been little coverage beyond this, however, and that is alarming. If a part-time free lance writer can pull the strings and find the information shown here using nothing more than a web browser as his only tool, why have the mainstream media not investigated the same, using their more formidable avenues of investigation?

Maybe eventually they will, especially if the demonstrations on Saturday turn violent. The aforementioned FAQ on ominously asks the question "Will the protests be 'violent'? " but leaves it unanswered. If the media ever does get around to pulling these strings, there are some other things for them to investigate.

While I watch the news reports this weekend, with the inevitable reports of violence breaking out at a demonstration for peace, I will be wondering why the media did not see it coming, and I will be wondering what else they have not seen. I will be watching the attempt to form a vanguard, as I pray for the mass that is sufferring from the aftermath of the attacks of September 11th.

TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
September 29 [Thread II]
1 posted on 09/27/2001 6:44:50 PM PDT by Neets (for Hugh Akston)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OneidaM Hugh Akston Dog Gone dirtboy RaceBannon
2 posted on 09/27/2001 6:49:24 PM PDT by Cool Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneidaM
3 posted on 09/27/2001 6:58:38 PM PDT by IRtorqued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneidaM
4 posted on 09/27/2001 7:07:57 PM PDT by father_elijah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneidaM
Now my head REALLY hurts. Good lord!
5 posted on 09/27/2001 7:16:57 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneidaM
6 posted on 09/27/2001 7:17:08 PM PDT by e_castillo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneidaM
I hope you don't mind me adding this to your thread. Thanks in advance.


September 27, 2001

The Washington Times
By Robert Stacy McCain

Ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, communists are taking over Washington — or at least, the National Mall. Most in the media would have you believe that the protesters who will gather Saturday across from the White House are a "broad coalition" of groups (as CNN decribed the 1999 rioters in Seattle) or perhaps a "various political, social and religious organizations" (as the New York Times described this summer's rioters in Genoa, Italy). Hogwash. They're communists, and some of them are honest enough to admit it.

One of the most vocal promoters of Saturday's demonstration is the International Action Center (IAC). The IAC's chief spokesmen — Brian Becker and Larry Holmes — are both officials of the Worker's World Party (WWP), a Marxist organization with a record of supporting repressive communist regimes such as Cuba and North Korea.

The history of the WWP is instructive. Its founder, Sam Marcy, was a follower of Leon Trotsky, the Bolshevik leader who was purged by (and later assasinated by henchmen of) Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. Marcy split from the Socialist Workers Party after his fellow Troskyists refused to endorse the USSR's 1956 invasion of Hungary. So Messrs. Becker and Holmes, whose party began by defending Kruschev's military conquest of Hungary, now want to protest war and "American imperialism." Isn't that nice?

But the WWP and the IAC aren't the only commies backing Saturday's demonstrations. Among those sponsoring, promoting and supporting the rally at the Washington Monument is the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

The Young Communist League, youth affilate of the CPUSA, carries this message on its Web site, "We extend our invitation for people to come to Washington D.C. for the Peoples' Summit . . . on September 29th."

Like the WWP and the IAC, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) has its own front group, Refuse & Resist (R&R), founded in 1987 by veteran RCP activist Clark Kissinger. Mary Lou Greenberg, another RCP member, is also on the National Council of R & R, a sponsor of Saturday's protests.

Kissinger — who recently served a 90-day jail sentence for probation violation — was national officer of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in the 1960s, was involved in the 1968 riots in Chicago, then left SDS. A follower of Mao Zedong, Kissinger has been affiliated for more than 20 years with the Maoist RCP. Last year, Kissinger offered this bit of analysis: "The problem in this country is the oppressive system of capitalism that exploits people all over the world, that destroys our planet, that oppresses minority people, that sends people to the death chambers in droves. That is a problem that has to be done away with. Is there a solution? Yes. Revolution is the solution." Advocating Maoist revolution — and promoting the ubiquitous hero of the left, Philadelphia cop-killer Mumia-Abu Jamal — has won R&R and RCP the support of rockers like Rage Against the Machine and Chumbawamba.

The communist influence on Saturday's protest extends far beyond the participation of avowed Marxists, Trotskyists and Maoists. Among the scheduled speakers are members of the Institute for Policy Studies, a think tank which during the Cold War consistently trumpeted the Soviet position, "supporting the goals and causes of virtually every revolutionary terrorist movement backed by Havana, Hanoi, and Moscow," according to one historian.

Want more? Should any protesters manage to get themselves arrested Saturday, they will call on the attorneys of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), organized by lawyers for the Communist Party in 1936. The NLG is affiliated with the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, described by the CIA in 1978 as "one of the most useful Communist front organizations at the service of the Soviet Communist Party."

Being old enough to remember the Cold War and to have cheered the collapse of the Soviet empire, I have to scratch my head at the crowds of young people — most of them rich, white college kids – who flock to these protests organized by communists. Did America endure a four-decade nuclear standoff with the Evil Empire, so that its children could grow up to be commies?

I suppose many young people are victims of their Baby Boomer teachers, who taught them that the "peace" movement of the 1960s was all sunshine and light. Guess nobody bothered to tell the kids about the bombings perpetrated by the Weather Underground and the murders committed by the Black Panthers, to say nothing of the millions enslaved and slaughtered in Vietnam and Cambodia because of the "peace" resulting from communist victory.

So hundreds of young people will be out in front of the White House, supporting the communist attack on "American imperialism."

It doesn't really matter what they're protesting, of course. Saturday's demonstrations were originally organized to protest against "globalization" during the the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund meetings. Those meetings were canceled after the Sept. 11 bombings, so suddenly the focus was shifted to opposing U.S. efforts to strike back against terrorism. It makes no difference to the commies, you see. Whatever the cause, the enemies are the same: America and capitalism.

Some may ask why the "anti-globalization" movement doesn't purge all these communists. The simple answer is that, if all the communists were purged, there wouldn't be any movement left. Behind all the rhetoric about protecting the environment and relieving poverty in the developing world, this movement is unadulterated Marxism — anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, anti-American. A better question is this: Why are we sending aircraft carriers halfway around the world to look for enemies, when our nation's worst enemies — communists proclaiming an anti-American jihad — will be right there in front of the Washington Monument on Saturday?

Robert Stacy McCain is an assistant national editor for The Washington Times.

7 posted on 09/27/2001 7:18:22 PM PDT by Roebucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin, GEC
You hadn't seen this yet?

Wait until you see the information GEC has to add.

GEC, can you do the honors again?

You have no concept about how much money some of these leftist charities have to disburse. Go ahead, take a guess at the yearly income of the one that GEC dug up...

8 posted on 09/27/2001 7:24:28 PM PDT by Hugh Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Roebucks
Outstanding piece.
9 posted on 09/27/2001 7:28:07 PM PDT by Hugh Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hugh Akston
No, I haven't..........I've been very busy this week. And now I have a really, really bad TENSION headache. :-)
10 posted on 09/27/2001 7:32:41 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Go ahead- take a guess.

(sorry about your headache)

11 posted on 09/27/2001 7:34:42 PM PDT by Hugh Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OneidaM
12 posted on 09/27/2001 7:40:21 PM PDT by boxlunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugh Akston
Just one of them? A billion dollars?
13 posted on 09/27/2001 7:43:01 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Now that would certainly be alarming. :-)

Hopefully GEC will post the info here, but it was on the order of $53M in revenues each year.

14 posted on 09/27/2001 7:45:44 PM PDT by Hugh Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hugh Akston
Agreed. it seemed an appropriate place to park it. Thanks again.
15 posted on 09/27/2001 7:45:57 PM PDT by Roebucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Hey, you haven't got anything better to do unless you're on your way to Afghanistan, right?
16 posted on 09/27/2001 7:48:28 PM PDT by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hugh Akston
The other very interesting part of their plan is the lawyers built into the structure. "If one or more of our protestors lands in jail, they have a built in legal tean to represent them."- paraphrasing of course...
17 posted on 09/27/2001 7:50:24 PM PDT by Roebucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hugh Akston
Bumping the comsymp-thumping thread! ;^)
18 posted on 09/27/2001 7:56:16 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: piasa
This is just amazing. Ramsey Clark, that old fart, would love to overthrow our government.
19 posted on 09/27/2001 7:58:59 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I've always been amazed that scum like him don't get in car wrecks or come down with cancer. Instead they just keep going, and going, and going...
20 posted on 09/27/2001 8:06:52 PM PDT by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson