By Raphael Batter and Gregory Katz, The Huffington Post – August 29, 2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/british-parliament-syria-vote_n_3839067.html

LONDON — British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes Thursday, a stunning defeat that will almost guarantee that Britain plays no direct role in any U.S. attack on Bashar Assad’s government.

A grim-faced Cameron conceded after the vote that “the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action.”

Watch video

The prime minister said that while he still believed in a “tough response” to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad’s regime, he would respect the will of Parliament.

Responding to the vote, the White House said that a decision on a possible military strike against Syria will be guided by America’s best interests, suggesting the U.S. may act alone if other nations won’t help.

The defeat was as dramatic as it was unexpected. At the start of the week, Cameron had seemed poised to join Washington in possible military action against Assad. The suspected chemical weapons attacks took place Aug. 21 in suburbs east and west of Damascus. The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders has said the strikes killed 355 people.

Gruesome images of sickened men, women and children writhing on the floor drew outrage from across the world, and Cameron recalled Parliament from its summer break for an emergency vote, which was widely seen as a prelude to international action.

“The video footage illustrates some of the most sickening human suffering imaginable,” Cameron told lawmakers before the vote, arguing that the most dangerous thing to do was to “stand back and do nothing.”

But the push for strikes against the Syrian regime began to lose momentum as questions were raised about the intelligence underpinning the move. During a debate with lawmakers, he conceded that there was still a sliver of uncertainty about whether Assad truly was behind the attacks.

“In the end there is no 100 percent certainty about who is responsible,” Cameron said, although he insisted that officials were still as “as certain as possible” that Assad’s forces were responsible.

That was not enough for Britain’s Labour Party, which is still smarting from its ill-fated decision to champion the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The party announced its opposition to the move despite Cameron’s concessions, which included a promise to give U.N. inspectors time to report back to the Security Council and to do his outmost to secure a resolution there.

He also promised to give lawmakers a second vote in a bid to assuage fears that Britain was being rushed into an attack.

Cameron’s impassioned pleas and hours of debate failed to dispel lingering suspicions that what was billed as a limited campaign would turn into an Iraq-style quagmire, and the prime minister lost the late-night vote 285-272. Some lawmakers shouted: “Resign!”

Tony Travers, the director of the government department at the London School of Economics, said Cameron had clearly miscalculated when he brought Parliament back early from its summer recess. He said the move had been unpopular even within Cameron’s Conservative Party.

“Clearly this will be seen as a defeat, it suggests he got the politics wrong, both with the opposition and with some members of his own party,” Travers said. “It’s not great, it’s not brilliant, nor is it the end of the world for him. He’s lost votes before. It doesn’t necessarily stop them taking further action, but they are going to have to start again really.”

He said there was “not a lot” of public support for British military activity in Syria.

Defense Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed that British forces would not be involved in any potential strike, something he said would doubtless upset Washington – and please Assad.

“It is certainly going to place some strain on the special relationship,” Hammond told BBC radio. “The Americans do understand the parliamentary process that we have to go through…. Common sense must tell us that the Assad regime is going to be a little bit less uncomfortable tonight as a result of this decision in Parliament.”

By Andrew Johnson, National Review Online – August 29, 2013

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/357156/ron-paul-chemical-weapons-false-flag-andrew-johnson

Ron Paul has forcefully come out against American intervention in Syria in an interview on FOX and warned of a potential a set-up by al-Qaeda to trigger Western intervention and aid in hopes of toppling the Assad regime.

“Assad, I don’t think is an idiot — I don’t think he would do this on purpose in order for the whole world to come down on them,” the former Texas congressman told Fox Business Network last night. “The implication is Assad committed 100,000 killings — there are a lot of factions out there, why don’t we ask about al-Qaeda?”

“I think it’s a false flag — I think really, indeed,” he added.

Paul said that al-Qaeda forces masquerading as rebels might be trying to receive arms from the U.S. and other members of the international coalition by making the chemical-weapons attack appear to be done by the regime. He also suspected that the U.S. is hesitant because it doesn’t have enough proof of Assad’s culpability.

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the Swiss finance minister, was responsible for working out a tax agreement with the United States.

sage: “Watershed deal” indeed! This call for transparency of banking secrecy falls well within the frames of the expectations of the global reset, Frank-Dodd act, etc. As we are undergoing a complete global restructuring of the finance sector honesty, openness and total transparency will be the mainstays rather than exceptions, in my opinion.

By Lynnley Browning, The Telegraph – August 29, 2013

http://tinyurl.com/ner2xzk

Switzerland and the United States reached a watershed deal on Thursday to punish Swiss banks that helped wealthy Americans stash money in hidden offshore accounts, closing the door on an era of bank secrecy and tax evasion.

The formal agreement, which was announced on Thursday by the Justice Department in Washington and will be presented by Swiss authorities on Friday, outlined formulas for Swiss banks to pay up to billions of dollars in fines and disclose information about American account holders, a joint statement said.

The deal calls for stiff measures that lift the veil of Swiss secrecy. Banks will be required to provide the details on accounts in which American taxpayers have an interest through treaty channels, inform on other banks that transferred money into secret accounts or that accepted money when secret accounts were closed, disclose all cross-border activities, and close the accounts of Americans who are evading taxes.

Significantly, the deal does not cover 14 Swiss banks and Swiss branches of international banks that are under criminal investigation by the United States authorities, including Credit Suisse, Julius Baer and several regional banks. Instead, it effectively covers the rest of the Swiss banking industry, home to a tradition of bank confidentiality and laws that have not considered tax evasion a crime. By some estimates, Switzerland is home to more than $2 trillion in overseas deposits.

“This program will significantly enhance the Justice Department’s ongoing efforts to aggressively pursue those who attempt to evade the law by hiding their assets outside of the United States,” Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general, said in a statement.

He added that the program, outlined over 11 pages, “is intended to enable every Swiss bank that is not already under criminal investigation to find a path to resolution.”

The agreement said that Swiss banks that follow the program will be eligible to enter nonprosecution agreements that do not involve guilty pleas or criminal penalties.

Mr. Holder’s statement suggested that some unidentified Swiss banks were not cooperating and thus could face indictment. The agreement, he said, “creates significant risks for individuals and banks that continue to fail to cooperate, including for those Swiss banks that facilitated U.S. tax evasion but fail to cooperate now, for all U.S. taxpayers who think that they can continue to hide income and assets in offshore banks, and for those advisers and others who facilitated these crimes.”

The agreement will also turn up the heat on American clients who have not already entered voluntary disclosure programs with the Internal Revenue Service.

Banks that enabled tax evasion after the United States authorities began their investigation will face more severe punishment. Banks that held accounts as of Aug. 1, 2008, will pay a fine equal to 20 percent of the top dollar value of all nondisclosed accounts. The fine increases to 30 percent for secret accounts opened after that date but before March 2009, and to 50 percent for accounts opened after that.

American officials were angered that some Swiss banks accepted clients who were fleeing UBS, the largest Swiss bank, about 2009, when it averted indictment by reaching a $780 million deferred prosecution agreement with United States officials.

The Justice Department has not put a final tally on the amount that Swiss banks will pay in fines under the deal, an American government official said, in part because it does not yet know the number. Both sides signed the final deal after the Swiss Federal Council on Wednesday instructed the country’s finance officials to put the finishing touches on the agreement.

Switzerland has been locked in thorny negotiations with Washington over the tax evasion issue since 2009. Scores of Swiss bankers, lawyers and American taxpayers have been indicted in recent years, including Wegelin & Company, the oldest Swiss bank, which went out of business. Negotiations took a turn for the worse in recent years amid conflicts between Justice Department officials and Michael Ambuehl, the former top Swiss negotiator who stepped down in May.

A previous attempt by the Swiss government to arrange a deal failed in June when Parliament balked, reflecting concerns about privacy and complaints that the agreement was being negotiated in secret. Legislators then called on Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the Swiss finance minister and president of the Federal Council, to work out an agreement with Washington.

A stumbling block may still exist. The deal calls for both sides to use information exchange channels outlined in existing treaties. But the United States has not yet ratified a 2009 treaty protocol that would ease that disclosure, with Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, blocking approval, arguing that it would give the I.R.S. too much power and violate Americans’ right to privacy.

sage: This is a very long article but well worth the read. I think it’s HUGE news: not only does it fully summarize the Black Budget’s expenditures, it appears in a mainstream outlet. No longer can the secretive Black Ops existence be hidden or shuffled under the carpet. In the Washington Post article itself are many offshoot articles containing more in-depth information and interactive graphs – I’ve put the links to three of those at the very end of this story.

By Barton Gellman and Greg Miller, Washington Post – August 29, 2013

http://tinyurl.com/p7ly7ml

U.S. spy agencies have built an intelligence-gathering colossus since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but remain unable to provide critical information to the president on a range of national security threats, according to the government’s top-secret budget.

The $52.6 billion “black budget” for fiscal 2013, obtained by The Washington Post from former ­intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, maps a bureaucratic and operational landscape that has never been subject to public scrutiny. Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses the money or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress.

The 178-page budget summary for the National Intelligence Program details the successes, failures and objectives of the 16 spy agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community, which has 107,035 employees.

The summary describes cutting-edge technologies, agent recruiting and ongoing operations. The Post is withholding some information after consultation with U.S. officials who expressed concerns about the risk to intelligence sources and methods. Sensitive details are so pervasive in the documents that The Post is publishing only summary tables and charts online.

“The United States has made a considerable investment in the Intelligence Community since the terror attacks of 9/11, a time which includes wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology, and asymmetric threats in such areas as cyber-warfare,” Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. wrote in response to inquiries from The Post.

“Our budgets are classified as they could provide insight for foreign intelligence services to discern our top national priorities, capabilities and sources and methods that allow us to obtain information to counter threats,” he said.

Among the notable revelations in the budget summary:

●Spending by the CIA has surged past that of every other spy agency, with $14.7 billion in requested funding for 2013. The figure vastly exceeds outside estimates and is nearly 50 percent above that of the National Security Agency, which conducts eavesdropping operations and has long been considered the behemoth of the community.

●The CIA and the NSA have begun aggressive new efforts to hack into foreign computer networks to steal information or sabotage enemy systems, embracing what the budget refers to as “offensive cyber operations.”

●Long before Snowden’s leaks, the U.S. intelligence community worried about “anomalous behavior” by employees and contractors with access to classified material. The NSA planned to ward off a “potential insider compromise of sensitive information” by re-investigating at least 4,000 people this year who hold high-level security clearances.

●U.S. intelligence officials take an active interest in friends as well as foes. Pakistan is described in detail as an “intractable target,” and counterintelligence operations “are strategically focused against [the] priority targets of China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Israel.” The latter is a U.S. ally but has a history of espionage attempts against the United States.

●In words, deeds and dollars, intelligence agencies remain fixed on terrorism as the gravest threat to national security, which is listed first among five “mission ob­jectives.” Counterterrorism programs employ one in four members of the intelligence workforce and account for one-third of the intelligence program’s spending.

●The governments of Iran, China and Russia are difficult to penetrate, but North Korea’s may be the most opaque. There are five “critical” gaps in U.S. intelligence about Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs, and analysts know virtually nothing about the intentions of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

For the first time, we know where the $52.6 billion we spend on intelligence operations goes. Here’s the rundown.

Formally known as the Congressional Budget Justification for the National Intelligence Program, the “top-secret” blueprint represents spending levels proposed to the House and Senate intelligence committees in February 2012. Congress may have made changes before the fiscal year began on Oct 1. Clapper is expected to release the actual total spending figure after the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30.

The document describes a constellation of spy agencies that track millions of surveillance targets and carry out operations that include hundreds of lethal strikes. They are organized around five priorities: combating terrorism, stopping the spread of nuclear and other unconventional weapons, warning U.S. leaders about critical events overseas, defending against foreign espionage, and conducting cyber-operations.

In an introduction, Clapper said the threats facing the United States “virtually defy rank-ordering.” He warned of “hard choices” as the intelligence community — sometimes referred to as the “IC” — seeks to rein in spending after a decade of often double-digit budget increases.

The current budget proposal envisions that spending will remain roughly level through 2017 and amounts to a case against substantial cuts.

“Never before has the IC been called upon to master such complexity and so many issues in such a resource-constrained environment,” Clapper wrote.

An espionage empire

The summary provides a detailed look at how the U.S. intelligence community has been reconfigured by the massive infusion of resources that followed the 2001 attacks. The United States has spent more than $500 billion on intelligence during that period, an outlay that U.S. officials say has succeeded in its main objective: preventing another catastrophic terrorist attack in the United States.

The result is an espionage empire with resources and a reach beyond those of any adversary, sustained even now by spending that rivals or exceeds the levels at the height of the Cold War.

The current total budget request was 2.4 percent below that of fiscal 2012. In constant dollars, it was about twice the estimated size of the 2001 budget and 25 percent above that of 2006, five years into what was then known as the “global war on terror.”

Historical data on U.S. intelligence spending is largely nonexistent. Through extrapolation, experts have estimated that Cold War spending probably peaked in the late 1980s at an amount that would be the equivalent of $71 billion today.

Spending in the most recent cycle surpassed that amount, based on the $52.6 billion detailed in documents obtained by The Post plus a separate $23 billion devoted to intelligence programs that more directly support the U.S. military.

Lee H. Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who chaired the House Intelligence Committee and co-chaired the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, said that access to budget details will enable an informed public debate on intelligence spending for the first time, much as Snowden’s disclosures of NSA surveillance programs brought attention to operations that had assembled data on nearly every U.S. citizen.

“Much of the work that the intelligence community does has a profound impact on the life of ordinary Americans, and they ought not to be excluded from the process,” Hamilton said.

“Nobody is arguing that we should be so transparent as to create dangers for the country,” he said. But, he added, “there is a mind-set in the national security community: ‘Leave it to us, we can handle it, the American people have to trust us.’ They carry it to quite an extraordinary length so that they have resisted over a period of decades transparency. . . . The burden of persuasion as to keeping something secret should be on the intelligence community, the burden should not be on the American public.”

Experts said that access to such details about U.S. spy programs is without precedent.

“It was a titanic struggle just to get the top-line budget number disclosed, and that has only been done consistently since 2007,” said Steven Aftergood, an expert at the Federation of American Scientists, a Washington-based organization that provides analyses of national security issues. “But a real grasp of the structure and operations of the intelligence bureaucracy has been totally beyond public reach. This kind of material, even on a historical basis, has simply not been available.”

The only meaningful frame of reference came in 1994, when a congressional subcommittee inadvertently published a partial breakdown of the National Intelligence Program. At the time, the CIA accounted for just $4.8 billion of a budget that totaled $43.4 billion in 2012 dollars. The NSA and the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates satellites and other sensors, commanded far larger shares of U.S. intelligence budgets until years after the Cold War ended.

During the past decade, they have taken a back seat to the CIA.

The NSA was in line to receive $10.5 billion in 2013, and the NRO was to get $10.3 billion — both far below the CIA, whose share had surged to 28 percent of the total budget.

Overall, the U.S. government spends 10 times as much on the Defense Department as it does on spy agencies.

“Today’s world is as fluid and unstable as it has been in the past half century,” Clapper said in his statement to The Post. “Even with stepped up spending on the IC over the past decade, the United States currently spends less than one percent of GDP on the Intelligence Community.”

Dominant position

The CIA’s dominant position is likely to stun outside experts. It represents a remarkable recovery for an agency that seemed poised to lose power and prestige after acknowledging intelligence failures leading up to the 2001 attacks and the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The surge in resources for the agency funded secret prisons, a controversial interrogation program, the deployment of lethal drones and a huge expansion of its counterterrorism center. The agency was transformed from a spy service struggling to emerge from the Cold War into a paramilitary force.

The CIA has devoted billions of dollars to recruiting and training a new generation of case officers, with the workforce growing from about 17,000 a decade ago to 21,575 this year.

The agency’s budget allocates $2.3 billion for human intelligence operations and $2.5 billion to cover the cost of supporting the security, logistics and other needs of those missions around the world. A relatively small amount of that total, $68.6 million, was earmarked for creating and maintaining “cover,” the false identities employed by operatives overseas.

There is no specific entry for the CIA’s fleet of armed drones in the budget summary, but a broad line item hints at the dimensions of the agency’s expanded paramilitary role, providing more than $2.6 billion for “covert action programs” that would include drone operations in Pakistan and Yemen, payments to militias in Afghanistan and Africa, and attempts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program.

The black budget illuminates for the first time the intelligence burden of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For 2013, U.S. spy agencies were projected to spend $4.9 billion on “overseas contingency operations.” The CIA accounted for about half of that figure, a sum factored into its overall $14.7 billion budget.

Those war expenditures are projected to shrink as the United States withdraws forces from Afghanistan. The budget also indicates that the intelligence community has cut the number of contractors it hires over the past five years by about 30 percent.

Critical gaps

Despite the vast outlays, the budget blueprint catalogues persistent and in some cases critical blind spots.

Throughout the document, U.S. spy agencies attempt to rate their efforts in tables akin to report cards, generally citing progress but often acknowledging that only a fraction of their questions could be answered — even on the community’s foremost priority, counterterrorism.

In 2011, the budget assessment says intelligence agencies made at least “moderate progress” on 38 of their 50 top counterterrorism gaps, the term used to describe blind spots. Several concern Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, an enemy of Israel that has not attacked U.S. interests directly since the 1990s.

Other blank spots include questions about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear components when they are being transported, the capabilities of China’s next-generation fighter aircraft, and how Russia’s government leaders are likely to respond to “potentially destabilizing events in Moscow, such as large protests and terrorist attacks.”

A chart outlining efforts to address key questions on biological and chemical weapons is particularly bleak. U.S. agencies set annual goals for at least five categories of intelligence collection related to these weapons. In 2011, the agencies made headway on just two gaps; a year earlier, the mark was zero.

The documents describe expanded efforts to “collect on Russian chemical warfare countermeasures” and assess the security of biological and chemical laboratories in Pakistan.

A table of “critical” gaps listed five for North Korea, more than for any other country that has pursued or is pursuing a nuclear bomb.

The intelligence community seems particularly daunted by the emergence of “homegrown” terrorists who plan attacks in the United States without direct support or instruction from abroad, a threat realized this year, after the budget was submitted, in twin bombings at the Boston Marathon.

The National Counterterrorism Center has convened dozens of analysts from other agencies in attempts to identify “indicators” that could help law enforcement officials understand the path from religious extremism to violence. The FBI was in line for funding to increase the number of agents who surreptitiously track activity on jihadist Web sites.

But a year before the bombings in Boston, the search for meaningful insight into the stages of radicalization was described as one of the “more challenging intelligence gaps.”

High-tech surveillance

The documents make clear that U.S. spy agencies’ long-standing reliance on technology remains intact. If anything, their dependence on high-tech surveillance systems to fill gaps in human intelligence has intensified.

A section on North Korea indicates that the United States has all but surrounded the nuclear-armed country with surveillance platforms. Distant ground sensors monitor seismic activity and scan the country for signs that might point to construction of new nuclear sites. U.S. agencies seek to capture photos, air ­samples and infrared imagery “around the clock.”

In Iran, new surveillance techniques and technologies have enabled analysts to identify suspected nuclear sites that had not been detected in satellite images, according to the document.

In Syria, NSA listening posts were able to monitor unencrypted communications among senior military officials at the outset of the civil war there, a vulnerability that President Bashar al-Assad’s forces apparently later recognized. One of the NRO’s functions is to extract data from sensors placed on the ground near suspected illicit weapons sites in Syria and other countries.

Across this catalogue of technical prowess, one category is ­depicted as particularly indis­pensable: signals intelligence, or SIGINT.

The NSA’s ability to monitor e-mails, phone calls and Internet traffic has come under new scrutiny in recent months as a result of disclosures by Snowden, who worked as a contract computer specialist for the agency before stockpiling secret documents and then fleeing, first to Hong Kong and then Moscow.

The NSA was projected to spend $48.6 million on research projects to assist in “coping with information overload,” an occupational hazard as the volumes of intake have increased sharply from fiber-optic cables and Silicon Valley Internet providers.

The agency’s ability to monitor the communications of al-Qaeda operatives is described in the documents as “often the best and only means to compromise seemingly intractable targets.”

Signals intercepts also have been used to direct the flight paths of drones, gather clues to the composition of North Korea’s leadership and evaluate the response plans of Russia’s government in the event of a terrorist attack in Moscow.

The resources devoted to signals intercepts are extraordinary.

Nearly 35,000 employees are listed under a category called the Consolidated Cryptologic Program, which includes the NSA as well as the surveillance and code-breaking components of the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines.

The NSA is planning high-risk covert missions, a lesser-known part of its work, to plant what it calls “tailored radio frequency solutions” — close-in sensors to intercept communications that do not pass through global networks.

Even the CIA devotes $1.7 billion, or nearly 12 percent of its budget, to technical collection efforts, including a joint program with the NSA called “CLANSIG,” a covert program to intercept radio and telephone communications from hostile territory.

The agency also is pursuing tracking systems “that minimize or eliminate the need for physical access and enable deep concealment operations against hard targets.”

The CIA has deployed new biometric sensors to confirm the identities and locations of al-Qaeda operatives. The system has been used in the CIA’s drone campaign.

Spending on satellite systems and almost every other category of collection is projected to shrink or remain stagnant in coming years, as Washington grapples with budget cuts across the government. But the 2013 intelligence budget called for increased investment in SIGINT.

Counterintelligence

The budget includes a lengthy section on funding for counterintelligence programs designed to protect against the danger posed by foreign intelligence services as well as betrayals from within the U.S. spy ranks.

The document describes programs to “mitigate insider threats by trusted insiders who seek to exploit their authorized access to sensitive information to harm U.S. interests.”

The agencies had budgeted for a major counterintelligence initiative in fiscal 2012, but most of those resources were diverted to an all-hands emergency response to successive floods of classified data released by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.

For this year, the budget promised a renewed “focus . . . on safeguarding classified networks” and a strict “review of high-risk, high-gain applicants and contractors” — the young, nontraditional computer coders with the skills the NSA needed.

Among them was Snowden, then a 29-year-old contract computer specialist whom the NSA trained to circumvent computer network security. He was copying thousands of highly classified documents at an NSA facility in Hawaii, and preparing to leak them, as the agency embarked on the new security sweep.

“NSA will initiate a minimum of 4,000 periodic reinvestigations of potential insider compromise of sensitive information,” according to the budget, scanning its systems for “anomalies and alerts.”

For more detailed and further information about this story:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/inside-the-2013-us-intelligence-black-budget/420/

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/2013-us-intelligence-budget-additional-resources/421/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/29/your-cheat-sheet-to-americas-secret-intelligence-budget/

Hi Miguel,

Seeing everything that is occuring around us and reading some of your posts, I can see where the good vibrations intermingle with the bad, sometime making it difficult to understand certain actions, however perhaps I will live long enough to sort these things out. I do know that by entering your other forums, (although not always posting in them as I am still limited as to what I can and cannot do)the beautiful things about nature, the paintings by various artists, and the ingenuity of ancient civilizations help me to understand that all is not lost. I amsure that a lot of this beauty will remain. I am saddened however, with the west coast fires that are devasting homes and trees and basically closing yet another chapter of beauty. Perhaps if we look at things in a theatrical mode, we may find that the story of our lives are coming to an end, and as each disaster strikes, another curtain closes. Perhaps I will leave at intermission as I do not believe that I want to be here as that final curtain goes down and the theatre lights go out.

Perhaps one of the highlights of this play was the chance to know you.

GOD BLESS YOU

~Mike~

http://www.countryvalues65.com