WE! Magazine Online

Where Progressive Vision Meets Political Reality

Subscribe via Email

Rule of Law Vetoed by President Obama

Training for war?

by Ron McBride

Every officer in the United States Army asks themselves this same question. Most rely on someone with a higher rank to tell them what to do. But eventually the higher ups reach a stopping point.

The National Training Center in Fort Irwin, CA prepares units for war, and allows them to make mistakes without dead or wounded soldiers, to learn from these mistakes, so that in real life they can perform their duties with reduced casualties.

The in-depth planning for units to prepare for deployment into war zones, is done long before the up to brigade size forces arrive at the National Training Center.

At present there are two war zones which the United States Military Forces must prepare for. Each requires a different approach and different scenarios within those war zones. The hostile environments in Iraq and Afghanistan require specialized training, each must include how to behave and react in these two regions.

Each unit must have tight security procedures, and in many cases require a local fixer who can communicate and translate for the U.S. forces.

Each unit must be familiar with GPS, Satellite Communications, body armor and ballistic helmets. Most receive some training in boot camp, but this is just what it’s called, basic training. Further training is required before deployment into a war zone.

The Operations Center at Fort Irwin, plans far in advance of an arriving force. One of their biggest problems is how to provide a realistic opposing force (OpFor) that will put the visiting units through their paces. OpFor is the Blackhorse Brigade, they not only act as enemy forces, but have 17 villages that not only look like an Iraqi village or an Afghan one, but is populated with shop keepers, residents, villagers, police forces and home grown terrorists.

The Ops Center, keeps tabs on the progress of visiting units, as well as the whereabouts of all the OpFor teams. Centralized planning and decentralized execution is practiced each day, and the end result is a very high standard of junior leadership. The American Noncommissioned Officers, many who have seen one or more tours of duty in one of the zones of conflict, are the best trained Noncom’s on earth.

Noncom’s train the troops under them to be able to utilize both tactical maneuver and operational maneuvers. Tactical maneuver is designed to gain an advantage over an enemy in combat, while operational maneuver is designed to use less fighting to accomplish the same mission. These noncom’s are the backbone of the American Army.

These American soldiers try to avoid confrontation with the civilian population, unit commanders at all levels strive to maintain a balanced approach to these civilians, deterrence, reassurance and attrition are the three mainstays of this approach, keeping them in balance is the challenge.

To aid these commanders on the ground, support helicopters and vehicles are provided to allow for various tactical actions. Some times these must be conducted in rapid succession to support local operations. Such rapid response to potential situations will usually stop them before they develop into something quite serious.

Least I forget, intelligence is a key function of these operations especially in insurgency areas. The result of these intelligence actions allows commanders to assess the opposition’s capabilities. These military units in areas like Iraq and Afghanistan are used in a wide variety of conflicts, and are expected to be part of the diplomatic process as well.

As you can see, there is a lot more to training a soldier, officer and unit than learning how to handle and fire a gun properly. The NTC’s realistic approach provides training that heretofore was not possible. It covers all areas mentioned above.

But there is a lot more to a soldiers life than just training for conflicts what ever form they may take. For example many are married with families, and when it comes time for deployment, it can sometimes lead to hard ships. At NTC the Commanding General and his staff strive to provide the best life style possible for their charges, not just the soldiers but their spouses and children as well.

An example that I saw when visiting the NTC recently was that all the reserved parking areas for high ranking officers are no more. Under a program began by former commanding general Pittard, these parking slots have been convert to “expectant mothers and those with children under 1 year of age”. These signs much like the handicap signs one sees in all shopping areas, are a subtle reminder that the brass cares.

The one thing I take offense with, is the privitelization of many services on military bases that was begun under the George W. Bush administration. From PX to fueling stations, from housing to fast food, anywhere you go on base they advertise that you don’t pay taxes, therefore the assumption is that things are much cheaper. Not true. For example cigarettes are $3.00 a carton higher than they are off base where you are paying taxes. Food costs are about the same, although in some cases they are higher than at say Wal-mart.

Gasoline prices at the gas stations are the same price, up to 10 cents higher, if military personnel aren’t paying taxes, why are the prices higher?

I called it a corporate coup, they call it looting… either way, we got robbed…

by Larisa Alexandrovna

Now, let me explain the Wall Street scam, subsequent crisis, and bailout in a very brief, but effective way for you:

A thief breaks into your house, steals everything, and leaves you nearly broke. Law enforcement responds by visiting with the thief and the resellers of the thief’s stolen goods in a very friendly setting, perhaps lunch at the Four Seasons. Law enforcement then takes the information to government officials who respond by writing the thief and the resellers a check from what is left of your checking account. They decide this too over lunch, perhaps also at the Four Seasons and on your dime.

Then the same government officials declare that a new and better alarm system should be installed in your home and in the home of all Americans, at a high cost to you of course (The reality is that the alarm system worked perfectly, but that does not matter).

The thief and the resellers in turn thank these government officials by contributing to their electoral coffers, so they stay in office to help with future robberies. The alarm companies also thank these same government officials by also contributing to their electoral coffers.

It sounds obscene and seems impossible that such a scam would be taking place, right? You would be outraged if someone who robbed you was rewarded with money from your checking account, right? You would go ballistic if this happened to you, right? Well it is happening to you. This is exactly what is happening to you. The only difference is that you don’t realize it because of the confusing nature of how this was done and the jargon used to describe it. Forget derivatives and the other voodoo of it. You were robbed. The robbers are getting rewarded with what is left of your savings. Get it now?

The role of government in the modern era has become rather clear to me: it acts as a broker for the transfer of public money to private hands. There is no actual governing.

http://www.atlargely.com/2009/03/i-called-it-a-corporate-coup-they-call-it-looting-either-way-we-got-robbed.html

My Take on Limbaugh

by Ron McBride

I have been quite silent of late, letting those evil ones hang themselves, and brother let me tell you they are doing a terrific job of doing just that.

My father and grandfather railed against the ignorance of Sen. Joe McCarthy back in the 50’s when I was in my formative years. Since neither are around now I guess its up to me to pickup the mantle and wade into the fray.

Rush Limbaugh is a joke to 75% of Americans and to nearly everyone else in the World.

But we know that he isn’t a joke, he is a dangerous rabble rouser who will more than likely create the spark that causes some nut to attempt to do harm to our President.

McCarthy shot to the forefront of the media efforts when he held a press conference and waved a piece of paper that he claimed was a “list” of names of Communists in positions of influence. In hindsight we now know from information gathered from aides of his that it was not a list of names. That was created later to keep the media following him around and build support for what he hoped was a run for the White House. Self Serving? you know it.

Rush’s ridiculous charges against any Democrat he places in his sights are more of the same. His efforts are more than self serving they are distracting from the efforts of many on both sides of the aisle who want to get this country and Washington in particular, straightened out and back on the right path.

Limbaugh said:

“If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to this guy, say ‘okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: ‘I hope he fails’.

This was Rush’s response to what Obama said previously to Republicans in Washington. Obama was telling the Republicans they need to move beyond the movement-conservative ideology that has shaped their politics since the Reagan years and seek a more pragmatic approach to opposition.

Limbaugh’s baseless remarks, represents belligerence to the fullest! He has a finely honed ability to twist and distort reality. His rants are affected by chronic inaccuracy, and the bad part is that he is not accountable to anyone. He lies and then builds on each new one.

Rush’s favorite phrase is, “I’m not making this up, folks, it’s time to duck and cover.” When you hear these words you know that somewhere, somehow he heard someone say maybe a word or two that he could distort and twist into another Great Lie. If this idiot, yes I said idiot, (he was an idiot back here in Cape Girardeau, MO where he grew up, and he hasn’t changed much since then) is representative of GOP values, then I am glad I was never lured into their regressive cells. Yep, I said regressive instead of our Progressive values, the GOP who follow Rush’s lead have their proverbial heads up their regressive… well you know what I mean.

Four Integrity Tests for President Obama

THE COVER UP OF THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION

Hi, dear readers, here is the update you’ve been waiting

for.

by Les Aaron

And my full apologies for the delay….

: “Freedom Lost”. (Working title: Where Power Corrupts)
THE COVER UP OF THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION

Re those of you who have signed on, here’s where the book stands.
We had to put off the final draft based on recently available information.
Final updates reflecting this new information obtained from various sources
have been added to the original draft, have been okayed, and will go for
production printing in thirty days with delivery within a reasonable time after
that.

At the last edit meeting, the final count edited the book down from over 800
pages to approximately 622 pages including text notes and references, and
a backgrounder spelling out the rationale for the book, research results,
bibliographies, etc. This book has been my most ambitious venture to date, and,
incidentally, my 17th printed book. And the one I am most excited about.

As you know, the story had to be prepared in novel form to not only protect
various sources; but also because not all of the information can be
confirmed. Moreover, the story projects into the future, a future which cannot
be known but only speculated about. Much of its information from what is known
about the Peace and Prosperity Partnership—not the part that has been
published and talked about, but the “dark side” of the treaty that has yet to
be revealed by government sources. Many of us believe it to be a Trojan horse
bill that extends the concepts built into NAFTA in ways that virtually no one
could imagine. In this scenario, it is envisioned that NAFTA may be the
stalking horse for the Peace and Prosperity Partnership, which then, we
believe, becomes consistent with the New World Order thinking introduced by the
Illuminati in past manuscripts. The French Socialists have warned that it might
come to this and have been addressing this issue since the fifties. The real
threat here is not a treaty but global domination.

. Diderot and Montaigne warned us against what could happen to a democracy
if it lost its moorings and the wrong people ran it; This treaty is the
vehicle that will in the end, if it is realized, transform America from the
democracy we knew and loved into a place that we couldn’t even begin to
recognize.

And this Treaty is being handled so cleverly, so discretely that nobody
takes issue with what they think it represents, which, as I point out in the
story, deceptive and has little to do with the treaty’s true intentions..
When questioned, government spokespeople denied that there was any ulterior
intent, and attempt to further obfuscate, deny and misdirect inquiries
resulting in a stalemate. Ultimately, we felt that we had enough information to
go forward despite the government’s persistent efforts to halt our
investigation.

My book, takes issue with the government’s penchant for secrecy and saying
one thing and doing another. Secrecy and obfuscation have been the hallmarks
of this past administration; so it is no surprise that what passes for an
innocuous treaty is, in reality, so much more. But even if we accept that
notion, the end result still boggles the mind. For many of us, including
myself, who at first believed that the ideas represented in the searches and
background were farfetched, a study of the history of the way this government
has subverted the truth forced us to reexamine our assumptions. Now, we believe
that the government of Bush was knee deep in a plot so at odds with what a
democracy stands for that it is really hard to come to grips with. There are
few analogies except perhaps for the Garden of the Finzi Continis that perhaps
comes closest but the reality is still mind boggling to the extreme. And if
only part of it is to be realized, we really need to stand up and be counted.
So far, nobody has refuted the arguments laid out which are based on
letters, memos and corroborative pieces of evidence gathered from disparate
sources.

The subject of this book will rock your socks off. Be prepared.
As I mentioned, to avoid litigation, we have fictionalized the account, but
by so doing we have added a story line that hopefully you will find involving
and provocative.

Thanks for your patience. I hope to be able to fulfill all of the
outstanding orders within a reasonable time after we receive the first issues,
assuming that we have made all the necessary changes and corrections.
Those who would still like to be included in the first printing, let me know
now.

Those first editions will be standard book sized, with full color front and
back covers, and signed.

Your patience is most appreciated.

Thank you.
Les Aaron

An Open Letter to President Obama

An Open Letter to President Obama About the Republicans (From a Former Republican)

by

Frank Schaeffer

Mad as the Dickens!

by Ron McBride

I am mad as the dickens over the way people who oppose President Obama have managed to control the dialogue on Television and Radio in regards to his policies.

We the grassroots that took back our country, need to step up once again and carry the fight to those right wing nuts.

We need to write our local media outlet, whether its just a weekly paper, television or radio station our the local cable network outlet. We need to tell our representatives how we feel.

If we had desired tax cuts and conservative policies we would have elected McCain and what’s her name. We didn’t we voted to save jobs, we voted for small business policies that made sense, we voted to cut off corporate greed.

Most of all we want Congress to compromise and find a working balance that employees out of work Americans, we want a stimulus plan that builds and repairs infrastructure not only for the here and now but for our children and grandchildren so they can be employed as well. And most of all we in the low and middle income class’ want a stimulus package that puts funds in our hands so that we can pay down debt, and purchase not only necessities but a few frills that would kick start the economy once again.

The opposition acts like the Obama plan is already in place and it was a failure. Why? Because they want to maintain their positions of power and control.

What has happened to all of you who claim to have been part of the revolution that put Obama in the White House? Where are all the phone calls and organized groups that should be leading the support for President Obama. Lets give the man a chance to prove himself right or wrong.

Michael Steele, the RNC Chairman said the government never created a job. Is this guy blind or just ignorant. Even I who wasn’t even born during the depression, knows that hundreds of thousands were put to work for the government, building structures for parks and educational institutions, yes and even homes were built of native stone clear across this country. Another example was the Hoover Dam, not only was it the new energy generator of its day, but is still producing power today, this is the type of jobs that government can provide and should.

Lets don’t forget the National Interstate Highway System created under President Eisenhower that is still the vital transportation corridors that it claimed 50 years ago it would become. These are examples of the intelligence used by both Republican and Democratic Administrations in planning for the future, they provided jobs then and are still providing jobs today.

These were the stimulus packages of yesteryear, and they did stimulate our economy in such a way that great commerce emerged that was the foundation for today’s technology.

Ignorance such as exhibited by Mr. Steele is the reason that you and I and everyone we know should be making phone calls, marching in the streets, going door to door and building a national wave of support for President Obama and his plans to change America into the great country it once was.

VCs need to move beyond solar, biofuels and cars

by Rob Day

http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2008/12/29/newscolumn1-VCs-need-to-move-beyond-solar-biofuels-and-cars.html

According to the most recent numbers from the venture networking organization Cleantech Group LLC, solar, biofuels and transportation accounted for 60 percent of the global venture dollars put into the clean tech category during the third quarter of 2008. Solar by itself was more than 40 percent.

There’s much more to clean tech than just solar, biofuels and electric vehicles. At my firm, @Ventures, we think of the category more as “natural resource optimization.” That means we look not only at the three “headliner” technologies mentioned above, but also energy efficiency, water technologies, efficient materials use and cleaner use of incumbent technologies. But right now in the clean tech venture industry, clearly most dollars are going into a very small portion of the overall clean tech landscape.

If the goal of venture capital investors is to maximize returns, there’s a big problem with such a concentration of investments in general and into these subsectors in particular. The team at @Ventures recently posted a presentation (a link to which can be found at www.ventures.com), drawing upon the senior team’s deep experience in venture capital and the entire team’s experiences in clean tech, to draw out and discuss this and other challenging trends. The team members have invested in all three headliner categories in the past — and have learned a lot of lessons along the way. Limited partners, the investors who provide the funds that VCs put to work, should take particular note of some of these trends.

The first problem for LPs arising from such a concentration of effort is that it artificially limits the pool of investment opportunities. While the overall clean tech sector remains underinvested relative to the magnitude of the challenges facing our economy and society, by focusing on just a couple of technologies the broader VC community ends up over-crowding these subsectors. The world needs cost-effective solar, but does the venture capital community need to back 150 different solar startups, as some have identified?

While so many efforts in technologies like solar may seem like a good thing in concept, in reality it means VCs urging their entrepreneurs to take riskier approaches in an attempt be the “one winner.” That could mean more failures and fewer sustainable companies for the long run. So such over-crowding may not just be bad for VCs and LPs, it might be bad for the overall solar industry. Competition is good for customers, but over-crowding such a nascent market may not really help.

The second problem is that the three headliner subsectors are capital-intensive. In other words, you need tens of millions of dollars of investment in order to get the first dollar of revenue, since you need to build large manufacturing facilities. The bigger checks going into these startups mean that investors could see higher losses with each entrepreneurial failure. It also means that IPOs or the acquisition of the company might not provide good returns relative to the amount of capital that went into the company. According to Ernst & Young, the average venture-backed solar company has already taken in $40 million in venture dollars (and counting), compared to VC-backed energy efficiency companies at an average capital raised to date at $14 million.

The third problem is that the economics of these three subsectors are some of the most challenging of any across the clean tech landscape. Without regulatory support, the cost per kilowatt-hour of solar and per mile for biofuels and EVs remains unattractive for many potential buyers. While I am a strong proponent of these innovations over the long run, for now at least the customer economic value propositions pale in comparison to those of companies in subsectors like energy efficiency and smart grid, where the paybacks for customers are much shorter.

Fortunately, New England clean tech entrepreneurs and venture capital investors appear to be actively pursuing efforts across the broader energy, water and materials spectrum. In that the third quarter, for example, New England-based clean tech startups like Advanced Electron Beams Inc. of Wilmington (energy efficiency), FloDesign Wind Turbine Corp. of Wilbraham (wind), and Environmental Operating Solutions Inc. in Bourne (water) raised venture financings, to name just a few.

This is encouraging, but New England clean tech needs to continue to move beyond the headliner subsectors of solar, biofuels and transportation. Broadening our clean tech industry into more sectors will bolster the jobs creation potential for the New England region, and will also provide more diversification for the inevitable sectoral downturns. From an investor’s perspective, it means finding good investment opportunities where others may not be looking.

Rob Day is a Boston-based principal with @Ventures, focused on investments in the clean tech sector, and co-leader of the Renewable Energy Business Network. You can reach him at cleantechvc@gmail.com.

Conservative vs Progressive

The never ending battle continues

By Ron McBride

There are two ways to try to problem-solve ethnicity-colored conflicts, approaches that have traditionally been pegged as right and left. Or conservative and progressive. There is no conservative solution anymore. There is no “winning” an ethnic conflict by force.

Conservative, by its very definition, values tradition, the way things were before, and prefers incremental change, if any. Progressives’ value change and radical change more, thinking a better society is ahead of us - they are less enamored of the way things were.

Changes in our environment - physical and sociopolitical - forces change and evolution on us, which means those who are more willing to adapt to new circumstances stand a better shot at surviving. We don’t live in a static world, and clinging to tradition or resisting change, can be deadly - for a species, a person, for an idea, for a movement. All nations were once kingdoms and aristocracies, and democracy and meritocracy would have been considered radical or progressive, not conservative ideas. A couple hundred years ago, saying a slave should be free would have been progressive, not conservative. Fifty years ago, opposing segregation would have been a progressive opinion, not a conservative one.

It seems conservatives keep on being on the losing side of history. There’s an arc of progress, and it moves inexorably in one direction.

A good chunk of what it means to be conservative is a suspicion of other groups, and a heightened sense of the worth of one’s own group. Which is why conservatives are usually seen as more jingoistic, patriotic, nationalistic, willing to use force, proud of their culture and its icons, militaristic, vengeful, harder on immigrants, guarded about nations that have a culture different than theirs, and assume that the world out there is an unfriendly place. That is essentially, tribal… It harkens back to when our ancestors were always fighting for survival, where other groups could raid them in the night and kill them. Where bloodlines mattered. The conservatives had primacy, especially when the tribe felt it was under existential threat. Oh how things haven’t changed!

Progressive is on the other side of that continuum. While there is still an instinctive distrust of other groups we are genetically wired with, progressives downplay that instinct and the other instincts mentioned above. They try to “understand” the other groups more, and are more willing to see value in their practices. I am not exactly sure how this trait became an advantage, but it must have been one in times between wars. Maybe it was the cooperation attitude (vs. the competitive one of the conservative tribe’s people). Maybe it was the ability to make alliances with other groups so that survival against larger aggressors would be possible. Maybe it was the ability to be open enough to other groups to inter-marry, resulting in alliances or cooperation. Maybe it was the curiosity to experiment with new things (stone tools, LSD, etc!) that helped the progressives demonstrate their value for survival.

Maybe both were needed - the conservative who was best at ensuring short-term physical security, and the progressive on whom cooperation, change and innovation depended. In other words, all progress.

However the march of civilization and checks and balances has made it so that physical security is a concern only in certain isolated hotspots around the world now. Only a minority of people live in existential fear of being snuffed out by members of another “tribe.” And some of that fear is not real - like people in Wyoming who feel physically at risk from Al Qaeda, because of what they watched on TV after Sept 11.

Hence, the need for conservatives is ebbing around the world, and the definition of what it is to be a conservative is constantly in retreat. What would have been considered conservative 100 years ago would be considered racist or KKK-territory now. Conservatives keep on getting more liberal over the decades, especially on the group/race issue.

Conquest, to change facts on the ground permanently through force does not work in most cases now. Saddam found that out in Kuwait, Israel will find that with the 1967 advance and annexation of East Jerusalem, and in a way, so have we in Iraq. Before the “underlying grievance” could be brutally suppressed. Now we live in an interconnected world that makes it harder to dominate that way.

The sun is not only setting continually on conservatives, but there are no “conservative solutions” possible in ethnic conflicts in this day and age, because of constraints that exist and will only get stronger.

Gone are the days that force alone could ensure a resolution by brutally killing and dominating a population until it gave up. Gone are the days of “victory.” Now an international system tamps down on such “crushing” victories. We, even as a hyper power, are too dependent on the rest of the world for our standard of living to do something so heinous that it stops working with us - like nuke a nation that didn’t nuke us. Israel, despite being joined at the hip of said power, recognizes even it cannot be completely immune to civilian death tolls of the other side. There are also internal, domestic pressures as well - as democracies, we can’t let our king go around butchering people we see on TV - it affects our own high opinion of our humanity. But there are exceptions - warlords in Africa can engineer genocides that are enabled by a paucity of visual evidence - but that domination does not always come without consequence or retribution. Justice comes slowly, but it does come in many places.

Structurally, when there is a substantial conflict and complete domination by one is not possible, the final, stable equilibrium resolution exists in the middle of the two positions. Now imagine each side has a progressive party and a conservative party. The final status solution lies closer to the positions of the progressive parties of each side. They have to climb-down much less than the conservative parties of each side. So the progressive parties have a better chance of resolving the conflict, as long as they have enough authority among their people. This is sometimes the problem progressive/moderate peacemakers have. Their chosen solution is the ultimate solution, but they can’t sell it. Sometimes they need a conservative/warrior to provide “cover” for the peace deal.

So “understanding” Islamic fascists, while anathema to some, might be an essential tool to bring peace - and security. They are human like you and I, and despite the superficial differences we instinctively notice (language, appearance, clothing, faith, mannerisms) and latch on to because of our tribal wiring, the reality is that we have far more in common with them than our instincts allow us to recognize. They were children once, played, had friends, crushes, love their family and children deeply; enjoy food, friends and laughter. They seek dignity, an absence of humiliation, and freedom from tyranny or racism. And the ability to protect and provide for those that depend on them. These are universal human traits, and they share them with us. Everyone in Hamas. Even the suicide bombers.

Part of the environmental changes we will face is increasing cross-pollination of cultures due to labor, production and capital mobility. Teamwork, collaboration and cooperation are everywhere. Inter-ethnic marriages are on the rise. Old cultures and languages are melding, diluting, ending. People who are better able to “understand” other groups are likely to be at an advantage. Being able to put ourselves in other people’s shoes, imagine that we were born into their culture and situation. These people will command a greater following and their power will rise. Obama is a sign of that change. He is not the kind of guy to think, like Bush, that the “Islamic fascist” in inherently “evil”, and end all thought there. He would ask why, and try to understand why that guy thinks the way he does. For everything has a reason, a rational one, and usually a reasonable one.

I am convinced that 100 years from now, people in Asia, the West and in Israel will look back on this West vs. Islam string of tensions and conflicts with a snobbish eye - kind of the way we now look at past brutes like Stalin. Jews in Tel Aviv will have books that look back on the Mideast conflict with embarrassment at what they engaged in, and some of the heroes now will be regarded as brutal men. The same will happen with the Palestinians. I know some of us doubt it, but let’s dial back our cultural/ethnic urges for a moment.

The acceptable range of what is considered humane will evolve to what we consider utopian today. Some will say - that’s fine, but we live now, in the present, and should do anything we can get away with in our fights with others.

I think we should act now in a way we want to be remembered a century from now, not what we can get away with at this moment. That’s not utopian; that’s self-respect.

[Editor's Note; This article came to me in an email, not sure of who the original author is, but will award credit when identified.]

Powered by Wordpress | WP Premium theme by WP Remix
Copyright 2007. WE! Magazine Online. All rights reserved

• Home
• About WE! The People
• Discussion Group
• Our Authors
• Our Mission
• Our Vision
• Privacy Policy
• The WeDemocrats Group
• WE! Magazine Open Links Directory
• WE! Magazines Book Store
• [[WP_CLASSIFIED]]

© 2009-2010 WE! Magazine Online All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright