Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Pictures are Worth a Thousand Words!
by Bobby Dean Phillips
of Stop TxDOTNow.org in Houston

Just a few pictures of the billboard we had put up on I-10 actually in the area where we fought off the elevated lanes...Hope this gives you some inspiration....

http://www.stoptxdotnow.org/maps/comparison.htm




Here is our vision for Cottage Grove Park, as opposed to that of TxDOT.

Bobby Dean Phillips of StopTxDOTNow.Org will be speaking in Austin on Thursday, Sept. 7th at 7pm at the ACC Pinnacle Campus, Student Commons Room, at 290 West in Oak Hill. For more information, you can also visit www.Fix290.org.

By Bobby Dean Phillips
Houston, Texas

George Eliot GeorgeEliot2009@yahoo.com

Monday, August 28, 2006

PODER Working to Defeat Toll Roads
By Fancy Fairchild

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A397690

Dear Editor,
Re: "More Toll Road Tremors" [News, Aug. 18]: Mike Heiligenstein, director of CTRMA, used our tax dollars to make dopey commercials (Hey kids! Tolls are great!) to coax and lull people into accepting tolls. Drawbacks, such as rising costs of goods and services caused by tolls, traffic snarls caused by drivers avoiding tolls, or that it's a misdemeanor (with all the costs and penalties that implies) to drive on toll roads without paying are "conveniently ignored" by Heiligenstein.

In 2004 Heiligenstein said it would take a gas-tax increase of $2 to $3 per gallon to avoid toll roads. CAMPO's estimate was that it would take 2 cents per gallon to avoid them. The power and money CTRMA will have in the future hinges on how many toll roads Heiligenstein can sell. Contrast his motives with those of PODER – working to save East Austin's poor and working class from financial hardship.

PODER didn't "conveniently ignore" anything. There is a disproportionate number of freeways being converted to toll roads in east Travis County. TXDOT, CTRMA, and CAMPO are components of a toll-road machine started by Rick Perry. They never even tried to think of other ways to meet our road needs. There are viable alternatives, but this machine is powerful and money-driven. Grassroots toll-opposition groups are not Luddites – we are trying to keep our tax-paid transportation infrastructure from being a revenue source for private interests.

During the meeting, CAMPO's chairman Gonzalo Barrientos bullied PODER's speakers until one man was roundly applauded for saying he wasn't going to take Barrientos' disrespect anymore. Let's see a report on that in the Chronicle.

Fancy Fairchild

Elgin

George Eliot GeorgeEliot2009@yahoo.com

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Strayhorn Outlines Transportation Plan To TxDOT On Last Day of Comments
Expand Existing IH 35, Implement Ports to Plains, Telecommuting Expansion, Appoint Inspector General over TxDOT

(Austin) – On the final day the Texas Department of Transportation accepted comment on the Trans Texas Corridor, Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Independent Candidate for Governor, today told the agency her administration will expand IH-35 using existing rights of way, implement the ports to plains initiative, expand her successful use of telecommuting and appoint an inspector general to oversee the agency and a transportation ombudsman to talk to Texans.

“This agency is not listening to the people,” Strayhorn said. “At 56 hearings over 21 days, TxDOT ignored the overwhelming majority of people who testified against the Trans Texas Catastrophe. They even went so far as to tell Texans that they could not stop this boondoggle – even if they elected a new governor.

“Well, they are dead wrong. I will blast this corridor off the bureaucratic books and replace it with a common-sense plan to address our transportation needs.

“My plan is a better approach than the Governor’s secret agreement with a company based in Madrid, Spain, to seize more than half a million acres of private Texas property and build toll roads across the state,” she said. “The Governor said if someone has a better idea then lay out that plan. Today, I am outlining a better plan – one that puts Texans first, not special interests.”

Strayhorn’s plan includes protecting Texas farm and ranch land, improving coastal evacuations, increasing capacity of existing freeways and railways, encouraging family-friendly telecommuting, and appointing an independent inspector general over TxDOT as well as an ombudsman to listen to the people.

“Texas property belongs to Texans, not foreign companies,” Strayhorn said. “To meet our transportation needs we need freeways not toll ways, and we must use existing rights of way and increase efficiency of existing roadways and ports. We must not destroy our precious farm and ranch land.”

Strayhorn testified against the Trans Texas Corridor at 14 public hearings held by the TxDOT, at which she detailed revenue sources available to the state instead of tolls. The Governor refuses to back off his Trans Texas Corridor plan, despite widespread opposition from Texans at the hearings.

“I stood with Texans from the Rio Grande Valley to the Red River who oppose the Governor’s attempt to seize land and build toll roads across Texas,” Strayhorn said. “I listened to the people of Texas and the people of Texas are overwhelmingly opposed to this $184 billion boondoggle.

“Texans deserve to hear the truth,” she said. “And the truth is much of the work to help Texans get from here to there has already been done.”

Strayhorn submitted three reports to TxDOT – their own 1999 state analysis calling for the expansion of IH 35 using existing rights of way, the Ports to Plains study that will relieve existing congestion by improving transportation from South Texas through West Texas using existing roads, and her recommendation to expand telecommuting.

“Family friendly telecommuting is up to 15 percent in my agency,” Strayhorn said. “The employees love it, it keeps folks off the road, and it works,” she said.

Strayhorn will:
  • Increase capacity on IH-35 using existing rights of way without tolls and prioritize the West Texas Ports-to-Plains highway system;
  • Appoint an independent inspector general and an ombudsman at TxDOT;
  • Increase the use of Texas ports from Orange to Brownsville and improve rail and road systems from the coast to the interior of Texas;
  • Improve and increase efficiency of the state’s rail system along existing rights of way; and
  • Use telecommuting and staggered work schedules to ease traffic congestion and decrease pollution.
“Texas once had and can again have a freeway system that is the envy of the nation,” Strayhorn said. “I am adamantly opposed to any toll roads in Texas.”

Strayhorn’s transportation plan is part of her Texas First Agenda, a series of initiatives and solutions that she will be releasing in the coming weeks.


Statement of Carole Keeton Strayhorn August 21, 2006
  • This is the last day the Texas Department of Transportation is accepting comments on the Trans Texas Corridor and I am outlining my transportation plan and submitting three documents I hope they will consider as they review this ill-conceived project.
  • The documents show how we can expand IH-35 using existing right of ways, implement the ports to plains initiative and expand my successful use of telecommuting.
  • As part of my plan, I am also announcing today that I will appoint an inspector general to oversee the agency and a transportation ombudsman to talk to Texans.
  • This agency and the Austin establishment are not listening to the people. At 56 hearings over 21 days, TxDOT ignored the overwhelming majority of people who testified against the Trans Texas Catastrophe. They even went so far as to tell Texans that they could not stop this boondoggle – even if they elected a new governor.
  • Well, they are dead wrong. I will blast this corridor off the bureaucratic books and replace it with a common-sense plan to address our transportation needs.
  • My plan is a better approach than the Governor’s secret agreement with a company based in Madrid, Spain, to seize more than half a million acres of private Texas property and build toll roads across Texas. The Governor said if someone has a better idea then lay out that plan.
  • I went to the hearings and I listened to the people and today I am outlining a better plan – one that puts Texans first, not special interests.
  • My plan includes protecting Texas farm and ranch land, improving coastal evacuations, increasing capacity of existing freeways and railways, encouraging family-friendly telecommuting, and appointing an independent inspector general over TxDOT as well as an ombudsman to listen to the people.
  • Texas property belongs to Texans, not foreign companies. To meet our transportation needs we need freeways not toll ways, and we must use existing rights of way and increase efficiency of existing roadways and ports. We must not destroy our precious farm and ranch land.
  • I testified against the Trans Texas Corridor at 14 public hearings held by TxDOT, where I detailed revenue sources available to the state instead of tolls.
Four points -- 4 billion dollars in Texas Mobility Bonds
An additional 3 billion dollars in revenue bonds
Increased federal dollars
And increased tax collection at the state level
  • The Governor refuses to back off his Trans Texas Corridor plan, despite widespread opposition from Texans at the hearings.
  • I stood with Texans from the Rio Grande Valley to the Red River who oppose the Governor’s attempt to seize land and build toll roads across Texas. I listened to the people of Texas and the people of Texas are overwhelmingly opposed to this $184 billion boondoggle..
  • Texans deserve to hear the truth. And the truth is much of the work to help Texans get from here to there has already been done..
  • Two of the reports I am sharing with the people of Texas and that I am sending to TxDOT are their own -- a 1999 state analysis calling for the expansion of IH 35 using existing right of ways, let me make very clear, using existing right of ways without tolls, and the Ports to Plains study that will relieve existing congestion by improving transportation from South Texas through West Texas using existing roads, and without tolls, and my own recommendation to expand telecommuting..
  • Family friendly telecommuting is up to 15 percent in my agency. The employees love it, it keeps folks off the road, and it works..
  • My plan -- I will:

    1. Increase capacity on IH-35 using existing right of ways without tolls and prioritize the West Texas Ports-to-Plains highway system;
    2. Appoint an independent inspector general and an ombudsman at TxDOT;
    3. Increase the use of Texas ports from Orange to Brownsville and improve rail and road systems from the coast to the interior of Texas;
    4. Improve and increase efficiency of the state’s rail system along existing right of ways; and
    5. Use telecommuting and staggered work schedules to ease traffic congestion and decrease pollution.
    Texas once had and can again have a freeway system that is the envy of the nation. I will make that happen.
    6. I am adamantly opposed to any toll roads in Texas.
END

by Carole Strayhorn


George Eliot GeorgeEliot2009@yahoo.com

Monday, August 21, 2006

TxDOT Seeking Submissions for Transportation Publication

TxDOT has a new quarterly magazine and its first publication is now available online. The quarterly called Horizon is seeking manuscripts, preferably original, (i.e.,articles, commentary, and book reviews) which are timely in scope and relevant to transportation.

If you know of someone with credentials/background in transportation or finance who is in a position to offer an authoritative perspective that challenges TxDOT's PR blitz please forward this information to them.

Alice M., Citizens for a Better Waller County


Horizon, a quarterly policy publication, examines topics across all modes of transportation, reflecting the concerns of policymakers and leaders in government, industry and the general public. It provides analysis and commentary from transportation experts.

Summer 2006: The Future of Transportation Finance (ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/gbe/horizon/horizon_summer2006.pdf) [pdf, 42 pages, 2.25 mb]

A Quiet Crisis in Transportation Finance: Options for Texas by Martin Wachs, Ph.D., RAND Corporation. Discusses transportation financing choices facing state and local governments.

The Return of Private Toll Roads by Robert Poole and Peter Samuel, Reason Foundation. Outlines the history and significance of tolling.

Mobility: All Roads Lead to Texas by Joseph Giglio, Ph.D., Hudson Institute. Emphasizes the need for innovative funding strategies for mobility projects.

Thinking about the Future of the Highway Program by Kenneth Orski, Editor, Innovation Briefs. A commentary challenging us to engage in the important transportation funding conversation.

Coming Fall 2006: Innovations in Project Delivery

To subscribe to Horizon
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/services/government_and_business_enterprises/horizon/sub_form.htm

Fall 2006 Issue Theme: Innovations in Project Delivery
Deadline for Submissions: August 31, 2006 to John Sabala at TxDOTHorizonEditor@dot.state.tx.us • (512) 416-2386.

Submission Guidelines for authors Horizon is a journal of the Texas Department of Transportation, Government and Business Enterprises Division. It provides innovative and trend-setting articles about transportation policies in Texas and throughout the world. Research findings and policy issues are presented in accessible language to allow for discussion among policy-makers, professionals, and citizens.

The journal seeks manuscripts, preferably original, (i.e., articles, commentary, and book reviews) which are timely in scope and relevant to transportation.

1. Submit manuscripts by email in MS Word format to the Editor at: TxDOTHorizonEditor@dot.state.tx.us

2. Acceptance of manuscripts for publication is subject to approval by the editorial staff.

3. The author must inform the editor if the article has appeared in, or was submitted to, any other publications. The author must provide written approval from the publication in which his article appears. If the article was presented as a paper at a seminar or other event, please state the location, time, and event.

4. Sales presentations for organizations, promoting a particular product or service, are not suitable for publication.

5. The text of manuscripts is to be double-spaced and 12-point type. Articles are limited to a maximum length of 2000 words (approximately 5-6 pages); commentary and book reviews are limited to a maximum of 1000 words.

6. The manuscript should have a title page which includes the names, affiliations, addresses (mailing and email) and phone numbers of all authors. Brief biographical sketches for all authors should be included with the manuscript.

7. Include an abstract that briefly describes the contents, procedures, and results of the manuscript and does not exceed 100 words.

8. Endnotes are to be used rather than footnotes and placed at the end of the manuscript. Footnotes may be occasionally used within the document for clarification purposes, but not for citing references.

9. The Modern Language Association Style (MLA) is to be used for endnotes and references. At the end of the manuscript, complete references are listed alphabetically (not by number) by author surname, government agency, or association name.

10. Photo/Art Guidelines.
• If you provide photos, please include caption, photographer’s credit, and written permission from the photographer for each image.
• If sending compressed files, please send as a self-extracting file (SEA).
• All photos must be scanned or saved at 300 dpi or greater and sent separately from the document. Please send photos in high resolution: JPG, TIFF or GIF file formats.

George Eliot GeorgeEliot2009@yahoo.com

Friday, August 18, 2006

25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back
and
8 Traits of The Disinformationalist: What to Look For

by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000, 2001 All rights reserved (Edited June 2001)

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)


Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.
Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues. Example: Media was present in the courtroom (Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby) when CIA agent Marita Lorenz 'confession' testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported was that E. Howard Hunt lost his libel case against Liberty Lobby (Liberty Lobby's newspaper, The Spotlight, had reported Hunt was in Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane's remarkable book, Plausible Denial, for the full confessional transcript. Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and can make it public yourself.. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely complicit in a cover up. In this case, it would be the entire Time-Warner Media Group, among others. This author is relatively certain that reporters were hand-picked to cover this case from among those having intelligence community ties.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit. Example: 'How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint.' Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern of abuse of power that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)?

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
'You can't prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his 'proof' that flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he really had was the same old baseless rumor that's been floating around the Internet for months.' Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a similar statement by a Congressman, neither of which had actually seen Pierre's document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger's credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 - create rumor mongers)?

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight 800, a straw man is used. The disinformationalist, later identified as having worked for Naval Intelligence, simply stated: 'If these images exist, the public has not seen them. Why? They don't exist, and never did. You have no evidence and thus, your entire case falls flat.' Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with respect to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation tactics (rule 4 - use a straw man)?'

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. Example: 'You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory.' Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Willis DeCarto has successfully handled lawsuits regarding slanderous statements such as yours. Your undemonstrated charges against the messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the issues, and fly in the face of reason. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?'

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint. Example: ''This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.' Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again. Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. If you do not like reading 'this crap', why do you frequent this NG which is clearly for the purpose of such discussion? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)?'

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. Example: 'With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies.' Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. If you think what has been presented are 'lies', why not simply so illustrate? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question motives)?'

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. 'You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals nor have they ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots.' Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. You simply cite 'Jane's-like' information to make us think you know what you are talking about. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 - invoke authority)?'

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. Example: 'Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.' Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?'

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source. Example: 'Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago.' Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant to truth. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 - associate charges with old news)?'

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues. Example: 'Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used.' Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy it makes us feel, so much so that we are to ignore more important matters being discussed. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?'

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues. Example: 'I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and in Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and the secret Grand Jury, and on, and on, and on. It's hopeless. Give it up.' Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 - enigmas have no solution)?'

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. Example: 'The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story -- often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up.' Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony 'confession' by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. THAT, would have been the biggest story of the Century, but they didn't print it, did they? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 - Alice in Wonderland logic)?'

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10. Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?' Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray's innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place. Example: 'The cargo door failed on Flight 800 and caused a catastrophic breakup which ruptured the fuel tank and caused it to explode.' Proper response: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the Warren Report. This was eloquently defeated in court but media blindly accepted it without challenge. Thus rewarded, disinformationalists do not shrink from its application, even though today, thanks in part to the movie, JFK, most Americans do now understand it was fabricated nonsense. Thus the defense which works best may actually be to cite the Magic Bullet. 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic bullet was invented. You invent a cargo door problem when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the cargo door hinges and locks disprove you. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 - fit facts to an alternate conclusion)?'

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
Example: 'You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can't you accept the Police reports?' This is a good ploy, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches too long and the teeth weren't his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it -- all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy. Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up other criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the discussion, you can respond... 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention ONLY because of highly suspicious matters such as the simultaneous and mysterious vanishing of three sets of evidence. The suspicious nature itself tends to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 - vanish evidence and witnesses)?'

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. Example: 'There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn't happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election: Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform.' Assistant's response. 'You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on...' One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one... Proper response: 'You are both avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response to a new topic -- a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is not germane, and take it to one of the more appropriate politics NGs. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?'

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.' Example: 'You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.' After a drawing an emotional response: 'Ohhh... I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help...'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's here it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)?'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Example: 'All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!' Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press -- as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team -- as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, -- about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren't qualified. Then you demand us to produce evidence which you know is not accessible to us, evidence held by FBI, whom we accuse of cover up. Thus, only YOU are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)?'

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications. Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy 'confession', since Jack and Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination (see below.) Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in time... 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have been designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt, James McCord, and others, met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose 'Solidarist confession' was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation of the murder AWAY from CIA. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 - false evidence)?'

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
Example: According to one OK bombing Federal Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested. Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover up. This happened locally in Oklahoma, and as a result, a new Grand Jury has been called to rehear evidence that government officials knew in advance that the bombing was going to take place, and a number of new facts which indicate it was impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have done the deed without access to extremely advanced explosive devices such as available ONLY to the military or intelligence community, such as CIA's METC technology. Media has refused to cover the new Oklahoma Grand Jury process, by they way.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively. Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Read The Professional Paranoid or Phsychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by Alex Constantine for more information. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is no such thing as Mind Control. Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you are not well equipped to fight this tactic.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes. Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (Flight 800?) to talk about -- or, keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the focusing on the whole gun control thing? Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the 'news flap' or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your opponents.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes. Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (Flight 800?) to talk about -- or, keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the focusing on the whole gun control thing? Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the 'news flap' or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your opponents.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health. Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to flight 800 -- send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn't work, you can always plant drugs and bust them. Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same thing.)

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown. Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play or deceit as part of a deliberate cover up.

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:
Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.

By H. Michael Sweeney

George Eliot GeorgeEliot2009@yahoo.com

Monday, August 14, 2006

Consultants look at how to add MoPac lanes

One solution might be toll lanes added in middle near tracks.

By Ben Wear

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/08/12mopac.html

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Consultants hired to figure out how to squeeze two more lanes onto MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) say they'll likely unveil a tentative solution by December.

These fourth lanes on each side of what is currently a six-lane expressway probably would be open only to buses and cars equipped to pay tolls with electronic windshield tags, according to John Kelly, a consulting engineer hired by the Texas Department of Transportation to devise short-term and long-term improvements to MoPac.

Given the space constraints, Kelly said, the toll lanes probably would be segregated from the existing, free-to-drive lanes with painted stripes or perhaps with permanent, flexible pylons that bend back when hit by a car. The other lanes will remain free.

Kelly said the agency will hold two open houses in September to gather comments and ideas from the public before releasing the recommended design two or three months later.

If all goes as planned, Kelly said, the expansion, which would run from Town Lake to about Parmer Lane, could have federal approval by the end of 2007. At that point, construction would depend on the Texas Transportation Commission's setting aside money to do the project. To date, the commission has tended to look favorably on toll road projects.

Kelly, a former district engineer with the state Transportation Department who now works for DMJM Harris, said the design likely would involve moving the inner edge of the freeway toward the Union Pacific railroad track that sits in the highway median as far north as RM 2222 before crossing over east of the highway.

Engineers have little choice, given widespread and vocal community opposition about five years ago to plans at the time to widen the highway or build elevated sections.

"If you can't go out and you can't go up, you have to go in," Kelly said.

Kelly said the consulting team has met with Union Pacific to discuss how the highway might get some space while simultaneously leaving enough room for a second track to be added eventually for either freight service or passenger rail.

He said the design also will take into account the possibility of having a passenger rail station at 35th Street.

The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization board, which governs transportation planning in Central Texas, voted in 2005 to allow MoPac from Town Lane to Parmer to add a "managed lane" on each side, stipulating that the road could not be widened.

Managed lanes, in some projects, allow cars with multiple occupants to drive free along with those paying tolls.

But Kelly said that in this case, with no physical barrier separating the lanes and no toll booths, it may make sense to allow only transit vehicles and cars with toll tags.

George Eliot GeorgeEliot2009@yahoo.com

Friday, August 11, 2006

Across the country, Americans fight to protect their property.

Will the Government Take Your Home?

From Parade Magazine http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_08-06-2006/AEminent_Domain
www.Statesman.com


By Sean Flynn
Published: August 6, 2006


Joy and Carl Gamble bought an English stucco house in Norwood, Ohio, in 1969. They raised two children there and worked seven days a week in their small grocery store to pay off the mortgage. “ We had the house fixed up just the way we liked it,” Carl says. “When we retired, we planned to sit down and enjoy it.”

But now the Gambles live in their daughter’s basement. Their house stands vacant in the weedy field that was their neighborhood—seized by the city and transferred to a developer who wants to build shops, offices and condominiums.

In Long Branch, N.J., Denise Hoagland, 39, has an endless view of the Atlantic Ocean from the cottage she and her husband, Lee, bought 13 years ago. Their garden blooms with so many flowers that their three daughters call home “the place where the butterflies fly.” But Long Branch wants to take their home and about 35 other properties so a developer can build luxury condos. “It’s theft,” Denise says. “It’s legalized theft.”

Technically, it is a forced sale, because the government has to pay for the property. And it is legal: In June 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments can seize homes to make way for private development. The decision in Kelo v. City of New London triggered a sort of government land-grab.

In the one year since Kelo, more than 5,700 homes, businesses and even churches were threatened with seizure for private development, according to the nonprofit Institute for Justice (IJ), and at least 350 were condemned or authorized for condemnation. By comparison, about 10,000 were similarly threatened or taken over from 1998 through 2002.

Government always has had the power to force the sale of private property for public use—a process known as eminent domain. But what is “public use”?

Historically, it meant highways, railroads, schools and sweeping urban-renewal projects, such as the redevelopment of the Baltimore waterfront. But Kelo made clear that middle-class homes could be replaced with malls, offices, luxury homes—anything that might increase tax revenue.

“It’s a blatant example of reverse Robin Hood—taking homes from the poor and the middle-income and giving them to the rich,” says Scott Bullock, the IJ attorney who argued (and lost) Kelo.

“The fact is, a shopping mall does usually produce more taxes than a house,” says IJ attorney Dana Berliner. “An office building does produce more taxes than a church. But if that’s the rule—that anyone’s home can be taken away from them because something else will produce more taxes—then no one’s home is safe.”

But Kelo also has sparked a backlash. In the past year, more than two dozen states introduced or passed legislation and constitutional amendments to stop what critics call “eminent domain abuse.” Even the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill aimed to restrict eminent domain. Residents also are fighting back through courts of law and public opinion.

In Norwood, the Gambles and two other property owners represented by IJ brought their case to the Ohio Supreme Court. (At press time, the court had yet to rule.) [See editor’s note below.] In Long Branch, two dozen residents, also working with IJ, are suing to stop their neighborhood from being replaced with 185 condominiums. And in Lakewood, Ohio, my hometown, the people of Scenic Park waged such a successful public campaign three years ago that voters spared their homes from being taken.

In each city, the process unfolded almost identically: A private developer, with the government’s backing, wanted a big piece of property—cliff-side homes with valley views in Lakewood, ocean-front cottages in Long Branch—and tried to negotiate deals with each owner. When some refused to sell, the cities threatened to invoke eminent domain to clear the holdouts.

In order to do that, however, city officials first needed to declare the neighborhoods “blighted.” But the legal designation of “blight” bears little resemblance to a commonsense definition. In Lakewood, for example, Scenic Park is a charming neighborhood of older, well-kept homes. But because they lack such modern touches as attached two-car garages and central air-conditioning, the city deemed them blighted—a standard by which more than 80 percent of Lakewood, even the former mayor’s home, would likewise be blighted.

“We always bit on the word ‘blight,’” says Julie Wiltse, 63, who helped neighbors distribute 20,000 fliers and sponsor a series of blight events: a Blighted Block Party, a Blighted Chili Cook-off, even a Blighted Groundhog Day (which predicted four more months of blight). TV cameras and newspaper reporters loved that stuff.

“We were very successful in explaining to the community, ‘If we’re blighted, you’re blighted,’” Wiltse says.

Likewise, the Hoaglands’ neighborhood in Long Branch isn’t “blighted” in any meaningful way. With one or two exceptions, it’s a few blocks of low-key bungalows where families have lived side-by-side for decades, even generations. The shabbiest touches, ironically, are the posters in nearly every home’s windows with the words “eminent domain abuse” inside a red-slashed circle and the several homes that have been bought by the developer and boarded up. What the area doesn’t have, however, are the $500,000 condos or the restaurants with $12 hamburgers that were built immediately south of the neighborhood.

“When they want to revitalize,” says William Giordano, 41, whose great-grandfather built his house, “suddenly we’re not good enough to live here.”

The city has put prices on the houses it wants to take: $400,000 for the Hoaglands’ house, $374,000 for Lori Ann Vendetti’s, $410,000 for the home her parents built across the street and $325,000 for Anna DeFaria’s tiny gray cottage. Those might sound like hefty sums, but not on the Jersey shore. “ I can’t get anything in Long Branch for three and a quarter,” DeFaria says, “let alone an ocean view.”

But what’s money? “The memories are here,” says Lori Ann Vendetti. “They can come in with a million dollars, two million—we won’t take it. A lot of people think we’re bluffing, that everyone has a price. The Vendettis don’t have a price.”

Neither do the Gambles. Most of the properties that the Gambles and their Norwood neighbors owned—6 9 out of 75—were sold to the developer, who was required by the city to pay at least 25 percent above market value. Three others later settled with the developer. Then the city used eminent domain to claim the last three, concluding that the neighborhood was deteriorating, based on a study that was paid for by the developer.

Tim Burke, a lawyer for the city, argues that the government had to clear the holdouts, especially because there were so many other property owners who had agreed to sell. “Would Norwood have used eminent domain if it had to acquire 69 of the properties? Clearly not,” he says.

As Burke explains it, Norwood is an old industrial town that lost its industry and a third of its population. The city needs to redevelop to generate new revenues, and clearly most of the Gambles’ neighbors weren’t opposed. “When you’re a community like Norwood, you’ve got to be concerned with the entire citizenry,” Burke says. “And, yeah, there are going to be instances where, in order to better the lives of the many, the property of the few will have to be taken.”

But what if you’re one of those few? “That this is happening here,” says Joy Gamble, “in the land ‘ of the people, for the people, by the people…’” The thought trails off, and she just shakes her head.

What You Can Do

Stay informed: Eminent domain projects usually are years in the making—but quietly and without public reference to “eminent domain.” Watch for words like “redevelopment,” says Scott Bullock, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice.

Make noise: March, rally, call local newspapers and TV stations. Try to turn community opinion to your side.

Ask for help: Several organizations may take your case for free. But even if you have to hire your own lawyer, you can fight City Hall.

Pester your state legislators now: Some states already have passed new rules that restrict eminent domain.

Fight for the best deal: If you simply cannot save your home, make it as expensive as possible. An analysis by The Cincinnati Enquirer revealed that owners in Norwood, Ohio, were paid on average twice the appraised value of their homes. However, the ones who fought got even more.

Editor’s Note

On July 26, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the city of Norwood can't use eminent domain to take Carl and Joy Gamble’s home solely for economic development. The United States Supreme Court had ruled previously that there is nothing unconstitutional about a government taking private property, with just compensation, solely for economic development but left it to state courts to decide whether such takings violated their own state constitutions. The Ohio Supreme Court further rejected Norwood’s claim that it also could use eminent domain to eliminate the Gambles’ neighborhood because it was a “deteriorating area.” The court ruled that the phrase “deteriorating area” was too vague—that it was, in effect, a standardless standard. The court ruling means the development group has to return the house to the Gambles. “Our state supreme court did what the the U.S. Supreme Court did not do: It protected our home,” Joy Gamble told reporters.



George Eliot GeorgeEliot2009@yahoo.com

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Port of Corpus Christi signs pact with Spanish firm to develop terminal

San Antonio Business Journal - 2:18 PM CDT Wednesday
http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2006
/08/07/daily24.html


The Port of Corpus Christi plans to commit $83 million to develop a new container terminal along the Gulf Coast. The Port of Corpus Christi is in negotiations with Dragados-S.P.L. in Madrid, Spain, toward a definitive construction and long-term concession agreement for the La Quinta Trade Gateway Container Terminal.

The Port of Corpus Christi plans to secure the $83 million in funds from a range of sources, including project revenue bonds, state and federal grants, available cash, proceeds from the sale of general obligation bonds, private investors and federal loan programs.

Under this plan, the Port of Corpus Christi would own the terminal while Dragados-S.P.L. would manage it under a long-term partnership.
Dragados-S.P.L. has developed international port operations throughout Spain, South America, France, Portugal, Italy, Morocco, Chile, the Dominican Republic and China.

The company has operations in port operation, shipping, transit, combined transport and specialized logistics.

George Eliot GeorgeEliot2009@yahoo.com
08.08.06 CorridorWatch.org

PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Linda Stall 512.784.6539 (San Antonio)


HUNDREDS OF TEXANS ARE LOCKED OUT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IN SAN ANTONIO

SAN ANTONIO - Apparently TxDOT didn't realize that San Antonio is the 2nd most populated city in Texas. In fact the Alamo city is. And TxDOT might take note that it is also the 7th most populated city in the entire United States. Really something we would have expected them to have already known.

Hundreds of Texans were unable to attend and participate in the TTC-35 DEIS Public Hearing held in a San Antonio high school on August 8, 2006. When the East Central High School Cafeteria reached it's 600 person capacity the doors were closed. Many of those left standing outside had driven great distances, some from as far away as Houston.

How did this happen? Was TxDOT unaware that metropolitan Bexar County's population had grown to near 2 million? Did they really expect that a meeting room with a 600 person capacity would be adequate, especially given the vigorous debate over the TTC and toll projects in Bexar County?

This stands in stark contrast to Temple, population less than 55,000. When a stunning 1,600 people showed up for the TTC-35 DEIS Public Hearing in Temple, TxDOT needed only add an additional 100 chairs to accommodate the crowd. And that wasn't the only big turn out by Texans who want to let TxDOT know what they think about the TTC. Waco attracted more than 1,000 and 700 in Floresville, a stones throw from San Antonio.

What were they thinking? Were they thinking? Some suspicious types might even suspect an evil plot designed to repel the thongs of unhappy citizens who or taking advantage of their right to express their unhappiness. Certainly people will give a second thought before drive to San Antonio if there's a chance they'll end up standing outside instead of listening and speaking inside.

CorridorWatch.org however is more inclined to suspect it was just horribly poor planning. The kind of planning we fear will be commonplace with the massive Trans Texas Corridor project that's currently being designed in secret without coordination with regional transportation planners or meaningful citizen review and comment.

Of course TxDOT will hold an additional Public Hearing in San Antonio in an attempt to reach those who were turned away. Will they move to a larger facility where everyone, even if there's more than 600, can be assured that they can get inside the building? No they won't.

The next San Antonio DEIS Tier One Public Hearing will be held on Thursday, August 10, 2006, again at the East Central High School cafeteria, 7173 FM 1628, San Antonio, Texas. The meeting room will open at 5:00 p.m. for open house style displays and discussion with a formal presentation beginning at 6:30 p.m., followed by oral comments from the public.

George Eliot GeorgeEliot2009@yahoo.com

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Is the Trans-Texas Corridor I-69 really on it's way?

Here's a picture our friend Nate* took today. They had these about every five miles up and down Hwy 183 and Hwy 77 down around the valley. The last one came from his photo shop. And here's a link that you can go to for a look at their bigger plans.
http://www.texansagainsttolls.net/nasco.html



Pictures by Nate*

What concerns us is that the required TX-DOT public hearings are not over.

TX-DOT has made very little, to almost none, of this information about the roads they plan to build and the hearings available to the public when requested via the open records act.

They plan to remove farmers and ranchers from their land using eminate domain laws in HB 3588, and HB 2702.

As far as we know there has never been an election anywhere to decide that we want to build these routes, or that we want to have Trans-Texas Corridors for Texas.

And, Governor Rick Perry has signed an agreement with a Spanish corporation CINTRA, which to this day remains unavailable to the public for review.

Pictures by *Atten: Nate at GeorgeEliot2009@yahoo.com

George Eliot GeorgeEliot2009@yahoo.com

Monday, August 07, 2006

Editorial on Tolls in Austin is Timeless

Here's a letter to the editor that I found from two years ago when CAMPO voted to implement a toll road system on Austin roadways. It is timeless in it's message, so I'm reprinting it here.

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/
austin/content/story.html?id=986530


Feeling the heat from tolls

Editor:

If there's an ounce of dignity and integrity, and the need to do the right thing, we must speak out against the Central Texas toll road plan. Contrary to the propaganda slung by the governor, the Capital Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Texas Department of Transportation and other special-interest entities, the toll plan is not in the best interest of Texans.

The majority of Texas residents do not want toll roads. However, officials (elected and otherwise) continue to push aside the will of the people they serve. Any reasonable person must be able to see that toll roads merely are another form of regressive taxation. While we're told that there are options in place for those who do not want to pay the tolls, the reality is quite different.

All Texas consumers will pay tolls, whether they use the toll roads or not. We will all pay tolls many times over in purchasing goods and services from businesses that will use the toll roads. Inevitably, businesses pass along such costs to their consumers. In addition, many of the roads slated for tolls already have been paid for with tax dollars. How many times should we pay for the same road?

Toll roads are nothing more than special-interest profiteering.

The toll plan should be eliminated, because the people of Texas don't want it. Special-interest officials must not determine the direction of our transportation needs. Texans must decide what is in their own best interests -- or at least the plan should be part of a public referendum.

Peter Stern, Driftwood

George Eliot georgeeliot2009@yahoo.com

Saturday, August 05, 2006

SUBMIT COMMENTS AGAINST CORRIDOR NOW!
A Report on the Central Texas Trans-TX Corridor Hearings
by Susan Garry



TAKE ACTION NOW!

Even if you have objected to the Corridor in the past, send comments in
again now. You can repeat your past objections and/or add new ones. It is
important to get these objections on the official record, which will be
reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration. This may not have an impact right now, but it is important to have these objections on the record, for future efforts.

You do not have to go into detail. You do not have to know everything that
is in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. You can simply say that you are opposed to the Corridor, and then add any specific objections that you
want.

Please mail your comments before August 21 to:

Mr. Ed Pensock, Jr., PE
Director of Turnpike Corridor Systems
Texas Dept. of Transportation
P.O. Box 14707
Austin, TX 78761-4707

You can comment online at www.keeptexasmoving.org. Click on the blue “public comments on TTC-35.” Then fill out the fields and click the “no action
alternative.”


REPORT ON CORRIDOR HEARINGS

To: Coupland Anti-Corridor/Rail Expansion (ACRE) email group
August 3, 2006

The hearings in Central Texas are finished; the schedule now moves to South Texas. Linda Curtis of Independent Texans and Linda and David Stall of
Corridor Watch continue to present the anti-Corridor position throughout the
state at as many hearings as possible, supplemented by local volunteers.

A HUGE THANK YOU TO OUR ACRE PEOPLE WHO CAME OUT TO THESE HEARINGS!

It is hard to get out to an evening hearing, but so many of our group did.
Most of our area people attended the Taylor hearing, but some were at
Georgetown, and several were at Manor. It was uplifting to see so many
friends and neighbors.


The Waco hearing saw 1,000 attendees. The Blackland Coalition folks were
determined to beat that record at the Temple hearing, and they did, with
1,600 attendees.

The Manor hearing had about 200 attendees; about 11 people there supported the Corridor. Everyone who spoke was against it. All the candidates who spoke at the Manor hearing opposed the Corridor, including Fred Head, Democrat for State Comptroller; Rock Howard, Democrat for State Senate; Ted Ankrum, Democrat for U.S. Congressional District 10; and Michael Bednarik, Libertarian for Congressional District 10.

Also speaking were Fancy Fairchild and James Shive, who heads up the fight against tolls on U.S. 290 East (Keep290Free.com), and Mary Anderson, co-director of Texans Against Tolls.

Barbara Samuelson, who opposed Krusee in the Republican primary, and who is a filmmaker, was outside the hearing filming people’s comments against the Corridor for her Trans-Texas-Corridor documentary.

AGAIN, PLEASE SEND IN YOUR OBJECTIONS AND ASK FOR THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
BEFORE AUGUST 21.

Atten: Susan Garry at TexansAgainstTolls@yahoo.com

George Eliot georgeliot2009@yahoo.com
www.TexansAgainstTolls.com

Friday, August 04, 2006

HANK GILBERT, Candidate for Ag. Commissioner Has Better Solution

While out on the road this past few weeks, I've been going to the TX-DOT hearings for NEPA--National Environmental Protection Act, to find out what the local people, the farmers, and ranchers are saying about how the Trans-Texas Corridor will impact their lives, their businesses, and their environment. I've been there to learn, to listen, and to meet folks who see lots of problems with this proposed (1200+ ft.) over sized pork trough, and to find out who's running for office that might offer some solutions.

As I consider myself to be an independent voter, trying not to endorse one party over another, I just look for the best qualified candidate who will work for the best interests of the people of Texas. At some of the hearings I met, and heard speak, a fellow named Hank Gilbert, Democratic Candidate for Agriculture Commissioner, who clearly says in his speeches "No Toll Roads, and No Trans-Texas Corridor, and No (NAIS)---National Animal Identification System." Folks are saying there are other good reasons he may make a good Agriculture Commissioner.

Hank Gilbert's Republican opponent, Todd Staples authored the Trans-Texas Corridor legislation (HB 3588) along with some other not-so-honest guys that will make sure YOU drive home on a toll road. From the way the testimony is going at the TX-DOT hearings, no one wants the toll roads, or the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), or the abuses of eminate domain that the bill packs with it. Imagine paying more than $18/day just to drive to and from work. And, believe me, folks in the rural areas have a lot of expensive driving to do these days.


But, that's the Staples and Perry TTC plan for transportation, to take it out of the hands of Texas families who have owned it for generations, and to long-term-lease this big tract of Texas land to a private corporation, part of it originating in Spain (CINTRA-Zachery).

Here's more of what Hank Gilbert is saying, and Fred Head, Candidate for Comptroller of Public Accounts Agrees!

  • Toll Roads cost too much, do too little.

  • Family farms torn apart by the hundreds of thousands of acres changed from agriculture to toll roads.

  • Increases property taxes for everyone in the State of Texas. Toll roads destroy the existing taxable land, driving up taxes for everyone whose land isn't taken by the State for the TTC.

  • Roads will be leased by a foreign company (CINTRA) with questionable finances for their exclusive benefit.

  • If the tolls don't pay enough to CINTRA, then Texas taxpayers will bear the burden.

  • Land for toll roads will be taken from private property owners, destroying family farms and residences in their path.

  • Toll roads will hurt small businesses who can't afford to relocate or pay a massive concession to CINTRA.

  • TTC will destroy agriculture, one of the backbones of the Texas economy, by making it impossible for farmers and ranchers to obtain financing.

Hank Gilbert, Democratic candidate for Agriculture, says his solution is better. He proposes:
  • Widen existing federal highways with federal dollars.

  • Keep existing business in our towns and cities alive.

  • Destroys no farmland since the right of way is already owned by the State

  • No tolls required.

  • Safer and better for the environment.
www.HankGilbert.com

'Ol George

Feel free to reeducate me if you disagree at georgeeliot2009@yahoo.com
http://www.texansagainsttolls.net

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Lockhart Post-Register Reports --

http://www.post-register.com/index.php?Name=Home

Strayhorn Speaks out on Trans-TX Corridor
















I attended this TX-DOT hearing in Lockhart on Monday, and one in Gonzales on Tuesday, where Carole Strayhorn spoke. Click here and you might be able to download a rough clip of her live speech.



Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwVPkP9eEsQ

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSjWItz_bXA



I scanned the article from the Lockhart Post-Register. Attached. Sounds like the Mayor and Mr. Morris Alexander and Dorothy Schulle and Kathi Bliss have an agenda.


N. Thomas / Aug. 2, 2006

George Eliot
georgeeliot2009@yahoo.com

www.TexansAgainstTolls.com