Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
Power Independence > News > News > The Big Picture

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ...  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
The Big Picture  Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Oct 11th, 2007 02:18 pm
  PM Quote Reply
181st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6688

America and Britain, the Anglo-American alliance, have engaged in an ambitious project to control global energy resources. Their actions have resulted in a series of complicated reactions, which have established a Eurasian-based coalition which is preparing to challenge the Anglo-American axis.

 

People can pretend that the U.S. Neo-convicts (con men) are not criminals.

Pretending does not make things go away.

 

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Oct 17th, 2007 12:23 pm
  PM Quote Reply
182nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.wtprn.com/Topoff_4.html

The mayor answered saying that he was the mayor and is in change of those decisions. He then talked about the importance of working with the Federal government in terms of the drill, but never really addressed the real question. He simply sidestepped it with a simple response, to which the coordinator of the conference added his thoughts that that directive is only for an extreme situation. Later, a man had an unrelated question for the governor about a recent scandal involved a Multnomah Country sheriff. The governor shocked the crowd by refusing to answer the question and stormed off the stage. I will remember that moment with a smile for a long time.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Oct 17th, 2007 12:47 pm
  PM Quote Reply
183rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1572571220071016

Earlier, in comments aimed at the United States, Putin said during his talks in Iran: "We should not even think of using force in this region."

 

In a final declaration, the Caspian nations backed Putin's call, saying "under no circumstances will they allow (the use of their) territories by third countries to launch aggression or other military action against any of the member states".

 

The countries also backed the rights of signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- which includes Iran -- to develop peaceful nuclear energy.

 

The U.N. Security Council has imposed two rounds of limited sanctions on Iran, which were backed by Russia and five other world powers -- the United States, France, Germany, Britain and China. Washington and Paris are pushing for tougher steps.

 

Sanctions = injure people = make people less powerful.

The effort inevitably punishes the weaker people. Please understand this to be true.

This is very simple. Power-full people punish power-less people. They do so when power-less people gain more power.


Read and find the part in the article that refers to Russian POWER being used to help increase Iranian POWER in the form of a Nuclear POWER PLANT.

If Iran can begin to generate a lot more electric power from uranium (cost/benefit), then, Iran can sell more of the stuff they now use to make electric power. 

 
Example: 

Suppose that Iran is now using Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas to make electricity. Suppose that a new Nuclear plant is built and this new Plant runs on cheap uranium. Suppose this is true. Now Iran no longer has to use up Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas to make electricity.  

This is a simple trade of expensive costs for inexpensive costs. It is important, of course, to add the cost required to get rid of the nuclear waste. I have a friend who was a professional welder working on tanks that store nuclear waste. The process is expensive.  

Suppose; however – that Iran does manage to gain more power with this trade. If so, then, Iran will end up dumping more Oil on the market and Iran is selling Oil off the dollar. That is a HUGE attack on Dollar Hegemony. The value of Oil goes down (because the supply increases) and the value of the dollar goes down (because the supply of the dollar is increasing AND the demand for the dollar is decreasing).

This is a HUGE attack on the Dollar Hegemony. If you can understand this, then, you can understand all the FORCE being applied against Iran. 

If not, then, not.

 

Last edited on Wed Oct 17th, 2007 12:48 pm by Joe Kelley

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Oct 18th, 2007 09:06 am
  PM Quote Reply
184th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski193.html

Another reason is a uniquely American rationale, and it relates to our currency, and our debt situation. Saddam Hussein decided in November 2000 to sell his Food for Oil program oil sales in euros. The oil sales permitted in that program weren’t very much. But if the sanctions were lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been setting a standard away from, and competing with, US paper.

The U.S. dollar was, and remains, in a sensitive period because we are a major debtor nation now. Our currency is still globally popular, but these days that’s more due to habit than its reliability as a currency backed up by a government that the world trusts not to print boatloads of bills for no productive reason. To the extent that oil, almost the new gold in terms of in-demand commodity reliability, is traded on the euro, global confidence in the dollar and global bank reserve demand for the dollar shifts negatively.

In any case, the first executive order regarding Iraq that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq’s oil back to the dollar.

These, for me are the big three. There are other reasons, beyond American bases, American contracts, and propping up the dollar. An important factor was the neoconservative idea that the best thing we can do for Israel’s security is to be there. It is not enough to send several billions in economic and military aid each year, and it is not enough to veto UN resolutions that are unfavorable to Israel. It is not enough to have bases in Saudi Arabia and other conservative Arab monarchies and oligarchies. Some of these American friends are not friends of Israel, and it makes taking diplomatic actions against them more difficult. In the view of many neoconservatives, America needs to be there, militarily and economically in the region, working closely with Israel, our lone democratic ally and one that has the human intelligence capability on the ground that we have never had, and never will have.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Oct 18th, 2007 03:55 pm
  PM Quote Reply
185th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/18/wiran118.xml

Feeling increasingly isolated and fearing an American attack, the Islamic republic received a major boost from the visit by Mr Putin, who said US military action against Iran would be wrong. At the same time, the Russian leader resisted Iranian pressure to set a firm starting date for the nuclear power plant that Russia is building at Bushehr.

 

Power to make electricity is power to produce more purchasing power = more wealth.

Power to makes bombs is power to deter agaist aggressive attack by a rouge nation and a cirminal regime.

Power can be costly.

 

 

 

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Oct 19th, 2007 03:56 pm
  PM Quote Reply
186th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7969424888680179897

Economic Hit Man speaks again.

Below are links of organized defense against corporatism:

 

http://www.ran.org/

http://dreamchange.org/

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Oct 19th, 2007 04:53 pm
  PM Quote Reply
187th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21365339/

Air Force plans firings for nukes flown over U.S.
Armed missiles were loaded on B-52 bomber, went unnoticed for hours

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Oct 19th, 2007 05:11 pm
  PM Quote Reply
188th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://oregontruthalliance.org/?q=node/325

It's an uphill battle getting Bush functionaries to acknowledge the facts and history of 9/11, but in this video, Ginny Ross of Oregon Truth Alliance brings up the subject in the context of the current terrorism drills in Portland, Oregon -- TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield. Chertoff denies that any drills presaged the 9/11 events, despite the fact that there was a live-fly hijacking drill and a plane-into-building drill on that same day. It appears we have yet another crazy coincidence theorist on our hands. He is a firm believer that Bin Laden and his henchmen pulled it off with no involvement of the large number of drills going on that day -- some simulating the events that actually occurred.



On the day of September 11, 2001:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=911+military+drills+

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm

 

 

OPERATION NORTHERN VIGILANCE:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=OPERATION+NORTHERN+VIGILANCE

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=operation_northern_vigilance

NORAD begins Operation Northern Vigilance. For this military operation, it deploys fighters to Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian Arctic and North Pacific Ocean, scheduled for September 10 to September 14. The Russian exercise involves its bombers staging a mock attack against NATO planes that are supposedly planning an assault on Russia.

 

 

BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=BIOWARFARE+EXERCISE+TRIPOD+II
The wargames will tie Bush and/or Cheney and Rumsfeld directly into a complete paralysis of fighter response on 9/11. I have gone directly to many NORAD, DoD, NRO, and other sources and questioned them. I have knocked on many doors and I have even obtained some documents. I have obtained an on-the-record statement from someone in NORAD, which confirmed that on the day of 9/11 The Joint Chiefs (Myers) and NORAD were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved at least one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner. That is just the tip of what I have uncovered.
 

 

OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=OPERATION+VIGILANT+GUARDIAN

http://www.911massacre.com/War_Games.html

Vigilant Guardian is described as “an exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide”; as a “simulated air war”; and as “an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the United States.” According to the 9/11 Commission, it “postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union.”

 

 

OPERATION NORTHERN GUARDIAN

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=OPERATION+NORTHERN+GUARDIAN

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_exercises.html

At least five exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on 9/11.

1) Operation Northern Vigilance.
2) Biowarfare Exercise Tripod II.
3) Operation Vigilant Guardian.
4) Operation Northern Guardian.
5) Operation Vigilant Warrior.

 

OPERATION VIGILANT WARRIOR

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/vigilant_warrior.htm











Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Oct 21st, 2007 10:06 am
  PM Quote Reply
189th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5BJzEshMes

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Oct 22nd, 2007 11:42 am
  PM Quote Reply
190th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/50

The trouble with this theory, or story line if you will, is that while nobody at Minot, supposedly, noticed what was happening—even though ground crew workers spent eight hours laboring to get the pod with the six nuke-tipped missiles mounted on the plane’s wing. This despite the warheads are clearly visible and identifiable by the silver coating they exhibit when viewed through a little window in each nosecone cover, and because there are red coverings on the nuke nosecones—once the plane got to Barksdale, the ground crew there, which had no reason on earth to suspect it was looking at nuclear warheads, spotted them immediately upon going to the plane.
They had no reason to expect nukes because for 40 years it has been illegal for the military to carry nuclear weapons on bombers over US territory, and indeed since 1991, it has been illegal to even load nuclear weapons on a plane, period, even for training purposes on the ground.

How can it be that Air Force ground crew people at Barksdale could spot the nukes in a flash while nobody at Minot—not the workers who mounted the warheads on the missiles in the heavily guarded bunker, not the guards who are supposed to guard those weapons with their lives and prevent any unauthorized removal from the bunkers, not the ground crew that loaded them onto the plan, and not the pilot and crew of the bomber, who are supposed to check every missile before they take off—noticed they were nuclear warheads? (The weapons went unnoticed for 10 hours in Barksdale, but that’s only because no groundcrew visited the plane for that long, but when they did go to it, they reportedly spotted the nukes right off the bat.)

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Oct 24th, 2007 07:31 pm
  PM Quote Reply
191st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt299.html

Intellectual Fallacies of the War on Terror

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Oct 26th, 2007 04:20 pm
  PM Quote Reply
192nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502488.html

FEMA pretending to be legitimate

 

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Oct 26th, 2007 04:26 pm
  PM Quote Reply
193rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66157/

Conservative think tanks and pundits who sense this could be their last chance to implement their agenda in the Middle East have supported and disseminated such plans in the press. Despite America's many failures in Iraq, these hawks have urged the weakened president to act now, accusing him of having lost sight of his principal agenda and no longer daring to apply his own doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.

Sheer Lunacy?

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Oct 26th, 2007 04:46 pm
  PM Quote Reply
194th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak06.html?=retrieve_rss

A high-level diplomatic source in Tehran tells Asia Times Online that essentially Putin and the Supreme Leader have agreed on a plan to nullify the George W Bush administration's relentless drive towards launching a preemptive attack, perhaps a tactical nuclear strike, against Iran. An American attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as an attack on Russia.


 

Iranian hawks close to Ahmadinejad are spinning that Putin's proposal involves Iran temporarily suspending uranium enrichment in exchange for no more United Nations sanctions. That's essentially what International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammad ElBaradei has been working on all along. The key issue is what - in practical terms - will Iran get in return. Obviously it's not the EU's Solana who will have the answer. But as far as Russia is concerned, strategically nothing will appease it except a political/diplomatic solution for the Iranian nuclear dossier.

US Vice President Dick Cheney - who even Senator Hillary Clinton now refers to as Darth Vader - must be foaming at the mouth; but the fact is that after the Caspian summit, Iran and Russia are officially entangled in a strategic partnership. World War III, for them, is definitely not on the cards.

 

As if anyone needed to be reminded, the buck - or rial - stops with the Supreme Leader, whose last wish on earth is to furnish a pretext for the Bush administration to launch World War III. If Ahmadinejad now deviates from a carefully crafted strategic script, the Supreme Leader may simply get rid of him.

 

Last edited on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 04:46 pm by Joe Kelley

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 04:27 pm
  PM Quote Reply
195th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8&eurl=http://kineticreaction.blogspot.com/2007/10/confessions-of-economic-hitman.html

...there is a very strong correlation between economic growth and energy growth in any country or any region.

 

Last edited on Sun Oct 28th, 2007 04:42 pm by Joe Kelley

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 05:35 pm
  PM Quote Reply
196th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/10/22/p20501

Wayne Madsen has reported that the nukes were destined for Iraq, but were intercepted by renegade officers of the US Air Force who are opposed to attacking Iran with nuclear warheads in a plan that was devised and was being allegedly overseen by Dick Cheney. According to Madsen, a U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear weapons was scheduled to coincide with Israel's September 6 air attack on a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr az-Zwar in northern Syria. The interception of the nuclear warheads apparently caused the White House cabal to defer an American coordination with the Israeli attack until such time as the problem of the intercepted nukes was resolved on the domestic front.

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 06:22 pm
  PM Quote Reply
197th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=missing+nuke+minot

http://www.sott.net/signs/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=50516

Not seen much mention of the possibly a warhead may have gone missing during the reported B-52 transportation several days ago.Several news sources including the original (Military Times) claimed 5 nukes had been accounted for when the B-52 reached Barksdale Air Force Base."A B-52 bomber mistakenly loaded with five nuclear warheads flew from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, resulting in an Air Force-wide investigation, according to three officers who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the incident."This report has now been amended to "...mistakenly loaded with six nuclear warheads..."_http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/marine_nuclear_B52_070904w/

http://americanbadass607.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/update-more-news-vigilant-shield-08-missing-nuke/

Finding the truth is a process; at least while living.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=109644

That last one links to 'Chemtrials' which remain difficult to measure accurately.

http://www.legitgov.org/minot_afb_nukes_oddities.html

I know as much as I do because I work with a cross-trainee whose last base was Barksdale as a munitions specialist. He was involved in this process there; along with the various other missions Barksdale has (it’s a pretty critical base in the AF). Anyway, you would think there would be a pretty clear checklist for all of this, but apparently no one even bothered. Doing what they do day-to-day, is pretty standard operating procedure. People get lazy when they do the same thing day after day, and there’s no less than a half dozen teams who would be transferring these weapons around from storage until they’re loaded. The idea of someone dropping the ball in the AF is not exactly unusual (quite common, actually, heh), especially when 4:30 rolls around and everyone wants to go home. If the next step is to hand it off to the guys who remove the warhead, and it’s 1630 on a Friday, hell, let’s just leave it until Monday, since the mission doesn’t fly until Tuesday anyway. Monday rolls around, someone else takes over, and doesn’t know the job wasn’t finished on Friday. There SHOULD be some paper trail for that kind of thing, but then, like I said, people are lazy. Oh, and Minot usually fails its nuclear operational readiness inspections. ;) Sorry to kill your confidence in the military.


I’ve seen too much crazy stuff to believe in some massive conspiracy, there’s too many people involved. You’d have to kill like 50 people to “cover up” moving nukes to Barksdale. Plus, what would it achieve? There’s already more than enough nukes at Barksdale to blow the world up 3x over. Who needs 6 more? Seriously? Plus, more accidents occur with conventional than nukes, since nukes are computerized and designed to be super-duper safe. Conventional weapons are built by the lowest bidder. [Yikes!] I’d be more worried about a fully-loaded F16 flying around NYC after 9/11 sucking up a bird than a B52 with nukes flying around without anyone knowing it was loaded with nukes. The pilots couldn’t "secretly" be in on it and launch them, the interface wouldn’t be installed, the COMSEC material wouldn’t be available, etc. You’d have to kill half the base to hide the paper trail necessary to give the pilots the ability to launch.


Debunking the debunker?

3rd




The "Decider" has already stated that he believes the USA has the right to bomb Iran, and that he will not certify that he’d refuse to use nukes. "No option is off the table" as he is fond of saying. I think that’s pretty damn clear, being as it is coming from the Commander In Chief.



4th



The military reporting of these incidents is itself contrary to military secrecy, reason, and law. I suspect an altogether different agenda. I believe that this high-level press coverage of a screw up, carrying nukes on B52s, is designed to use the US Media [gasp, they’ve never done that before!] to pressure Iran to meet US demands.


http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=37481


Although there is very little news available from the mainstream media concerning the stand down by the USAF this Friday, some areas of the internet are positively buzzing about the decision and the possibility of a “Broken Arrow”

For those of you who saw the 1996 film (or are not familiar with the term already), a “Broken Arrow” refers to a missing nuclear device.

That one was dated September 12, 2007

 

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 06:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
198th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4603066186176011479&hl=en

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Oct 28th, 2007 08:11 pm
  PM Quote Reply
199th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2199855,00.html

"They [China] are now the number one trade partner with Iran. It's very difficult for countries to say we're striking out on our own when they've got their own policies on the military side, aiding and abetting the Iranian government in strengthening its own military," he told the BBC.
Mr Burns said the US still hoped Russia and China would approve a third UN security council resolution imposing new sanctions next month.
Israel, a strong supporter of the US action, said today its foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, would travel to Beijing this weekend to lobby for harsher UN sanctions on Iran.
However, China warned today that "sanctions should not be lightly imposed in international relations".
"Dialogue and negotiations are the best approach to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue," the foreign ministry said.
"To impose new sanctions on Iran at a time when international society and the Iranian authorities are working hard to find a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue can only complicate the issue."
The response of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, was more scathing. He said sanctions made a negotiated settlement harder.
"Why worsen the situation by threatening sanctions and bring it to a dead end?" he said. "It's not the best way to resolve the situation, by running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand."

 
 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Oct 29th, 2007 01:32 pm
  PM Quote Reply
200th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

Hi,

 

I found the main link today:

 

http://www.nucleardemolition.com/

 

Many of the links from that main link are broken. Can those broken links be fixed?

 

Joe

 

 

Sent to here:

 

GZero@nucleardemolition.com

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 06:53 am Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ...  Next Page Last Page    
Power Independence > News > News > The Big Picture Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems