Blog Archives

An Open Letter to Barack Obama

https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Come_And_Take_It_Mural.jpg

“Come and take it” is an American patriotic slogan most notably used in 1778 at Fort Morris in Georgia during the American Revolution, and later in 1835 during the Texas Revolution. The phrase is similar to Molon labe, which is a classical expression of defiance reportedly spoken by King Leonidas I in response to the Persian army’s demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae.

 

January 11, 2013

Dear President Obama:

Both Attorney General Eric Holder and Vice President Joe Biden have said you are weighing using “executive action” to implement gun registration and licensing beyond even the ban on semi-automatic firearms proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein and others.

When the National Firearms Act passed in 1934, Congress still understood that it didn’t have the power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate Title II weapons, so it imposed a tax – an exorbitant tax, perhaps, but still a tax. Since then, however, overbroad interpretations of its power to regulate “interstate commerce” have become the norm, and Congress now feels free to legislate gun laws.

IT’S CALLED ‘USURPATION OF POWER,’ MR. PRESIDENT

“usurpation: …the unlawful or violent seizure of a throne, power, etc.” – Webster’s Dictionary

Apparently, however, even congressional usurpation of power is no longer sufficient for you: What you now threaten violates Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. Since you seem to have forgotten it, here it is:

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”

Is your usurpation of power by circumventing the legislative process a bid to turn our Republic into an autocracy? What will be your next Executive Order? Will it give you another four – or perhaps forty – years in the White House?

IT’S NOT ABOUT GUNS, IT’S ABOUT FREEDOM

Do you expect the American people to take so lightly this assault on their freedom?

They won’t, Mr. President. Millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens will refuse to comply, and by so doing become criminals. But I suspect you know that, don’t you? Maybe that is exactly what you want because, as George Orwell noted in his book “1984,” government has no control over the law-abiding; it can only control people who violate existing law, such as it may be.

And what happens next, Mr. President? Do S.W.A.T. teams break into the homes of our citizens at night to confiscate arms and arrest offenders? Make no mistake: That is what enforcing this law will require.

And what happens when, inevitably, some resist? Do you honestly believe people will go peacefully into bondage? How many will die as the direct result of your actions?

There is no need to send the Secret Service to my door, Mr. President (although I suspect you might anyway). I am not advocating violence; I am merely saying what others are afraid to.

The real question, Mr. President, is whether you so hunger for power that you are willing to foment what might be the next American Revolution. Will that be your enduring legacy?

At the Battle of Thermopylae, King Leonidus I, facing demands by the numerically superior Persian army for the Spartans to surrender their arms, responded with what is now expressed as “Molon labe.”

It means, “Come and get them.”

Armatissimi e liberissimi,

F. Paul Valone II
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
Executive Director, Rights Watch International

Source

Obama vs. the Brass: Benghazi Cover-up, Agenda to Gut Military?

Written by  William F. Jasper

An awful lot of America’s top military brass have been taking hits lately. Is it just a coincidence that several four-star generals and a two-star admiral get the axe or resign in disgrace within the space of less than a month? Do any of these have anything to do with the administration’s Benghazigate scandal? Or are they, as some military observers suspect, only the first installment of the Obama agenda to decimate the military services?

General David Petraeus, of course, has been at the center of a media storm since his resignation as CIA director on November 9, amid revelations of an extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell, his biographer.

Here is a timeline of recent casualties in the highest echelons of the U.S. military services:

  1. • General Carter Ham — On October 18, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that Gen. Ham was being replaced as the commander of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). Panetta gave no explanation for Gen. Ham’s removal.
  2. • Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette — On October 28, the commander of the John C. Stennis carrier strike group in the Middle East, was abruptly removed from command and returned to the U.S.
  3. • General David Petraeus — On November 9, General Petraeus, former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, resigned as head of the Central Intelligence Agency.
  4. • General John Allen — On November 13, news stories reported that Gen. Allen, who was Gen. Petraeus’s successor in Afghanistan and a top nominee for NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, was embroiled in a potential scandal involving emails with Jill Kelley, a socialite at McDill Air Force base. Allen has insisted that there was no improper relationship between himself and Mrs. Kelley, but his career path to the top NATO post has been scotched, and the ongoing investigation could potentially lead to his resignation.
  5. • General William “Kip” Ward — On November 13, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta demoted Gen. Ward, the former head of U.S. AFRICOM, stripping him of his fourth star, following a lengthy DOD Inspector General probe that found Ward guilty of lavish spending and extravagant travel.

The removal of General Ham and the resignation of General Petraeus have particularly stirred widespread concern that both cases may be driven by White House efforts to smother exposure of the administration’s handling of the deadly September 11, 2012 “consulate” debacle in Benghazi, Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed (see here and here).

The timing of the resignations, removals, revelations and demotions were bound to spark suspicions of a Benghazi connection, particularly in the case of Gen. Petraeus, who was scheduled to testify this week in congressional inquiries into the deadly Libyan attacks. His resignation put his appearance before the committees in doubt. However, members of Congress have let it be known they expect him to testify.

In a November 12 interview with NBC News, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the Obama administration is behaving in an “unacceptable” manner and she is ready to subpoena information it is denying her committee.

“I believe that Director Petraeus made a trip to [Libya] shortly before this became public,” Feinstein said. “I believe that there is a trip report. We have asked to see the trip report. One person tells me has read it. And then we try to get it, and they tell me it hasn’t been done. That’s unacceptable. We are entitled to this trip report, and if we have to go to the floor of the Senate on a subpoena, we will do just that.”

Director Petraeus went to Capitol Hill on September 14 for a closed-door, classified briefing of legislators. During that briefing, it has been reported, he upheld the now-debunked false story that the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi had resulted in response to popular outrage over an anti-muslim Internet video.

However, it has also been reported that Petraeus privately stated to one member of Congress, “Do you want the official line or do you want the real truth?”

Today Senator Feinstein announced that Petraeus will be “talking to the committee,” but was unclear as to whether that meant he would be testifying publicly and under oath or just briefing committee members in closed session. “He is very willing and interested in talking to the committee,” Feinstein told reporters today. “It’s just on Benghazi. Our hearings are on Benghazi and the intelligence that preceded Benghazi and the intelligence that determined the security.”

Another big question that has not yet been answered is whether Gen. Carter Ham will be testifying. In defending the administration’s decision not to send aid to the besieged “consulate,” Secretary Panetta claimed that Ham had “very strongly” backed Panetta’s assessment that since the situation on the ground in Benghazi was so uncertain, no attempt should be made to send military assistance to the American personnel who were under attack. However, according to unconfirmed reports, Ham, instead of backing the Obama/Panetta order to “stand down” and let Americans die, had decided to go ahead and launch a rescue effort. Reportedly, he was immediately arrested by his second in command and prevented from initiating the rescue.

If this account is true, then obviously that would be a huge story, with enormous ramifications. Gen. Ham should definitely be called to testify publicly and placed under oath to determine precisely what did transpire the night of September 11-12.

Spiking Benghazi: The Media Fix

There is little doubt that Team Obama was fully aware that the Benghazi disaster could blow up in their faces just as the neck-and-neck presidential was headed into the closing stretch. A CBS News national telephone poll of likely voters conducted October 25-28 did not portend well for Obama. Locked in a dead heat with Mitt Romney, and with the economy in shambles and sliding toward a fiscal cliff, the Obama White House could ill afford a late-inning foreign policy disaster, especially when Obama propagandists were touting foreign policy and national security as their candidate’s great strength.

According to the CBS poll, only 38 percent of voters approved of President Obama’s handling of the September 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. Over half of all voters (51 percent) disapproved. And an even higher 57 percent of the crucial independent voters disapproved of his handling of Benghazi. And those negatives had developed with all of the major media faithfully retailing the White House talking points on Benghazi and steadfastly censoring any reports that challenged the crumbling administration narrative. Genuine journalistic digging and real news reporting would have been a game changer in the tight presidential race.

The Media Research Center (MRC) reported on November 1:

  • For the sixth night in a row, ABC World News, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News refused to give one single second of coverage to a Fox News report that the Obama Administration denied help to those attacked and killed by terrorists at the US consulate in Benghazi on September 11. According to a Media Research Center analysis, ABC, CBS, and NBC have failed to cover this devastating story — not to confirm it, not to knock it down, and never mind do their own investigation. The story broke last Friday, long before Hurricane Sandy swamped the news cycle.
  • Further, neither The Washington Post nor The New York Times has committed a single inch of their newspapers to a news story about this report.
  • According to Fox News, “sources claim officers at the nearby CIA annex in Benghazi were twice told to stand down when they requested to help those at the consulate. They later ignored those orders. Fox News was also told that a subsequent request for back-up when the annex came under attack was denied as well.”

“The liberal ‘news’ media’s refusal to cover this story exposes how corrupt they have become,” declared Media Research Center President Brent Bozell. “Four Americans died in Libya in a coordinated terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. The Obama Administration has been caught in a maze of falsehoods. This reeks of a cover-up. This scandal could and would derail the Obama re-election efforts. ABC, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post, and the New York Times are so vested in the re-election of Barack Obama that they are deliberately spiking this huge story. It’s sickening.”

Mr. Bozell continued:

  • The Obama administration’s cover-up of their deceitful response to the Benghazi terrorist attack is without a doubt the biggest political news story of 2012. The American people have a right to know what really happened before they cast their ballots on Election Day.
  • If ABC, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post, and the New York Times refuse to ask the tough questions, then they no longer serve any purpose. And if they’re sitting on evidence to help Obama win re-election, they’re as guilty in this cover-up as is the administration.

As the Media Research Center pointed out in a previous analysis, while the major media were spiking the Benghazi story, they were lavishing friendly coverage on President Obama and swamping viewers with celebrity gossip and buzz on the latest consumer gizmos and Hollywood releases.
And, of course, one of the most blatant examples of the media covering for Obama was the spectacle put on by CNN’s Candy Crowley in the second Presidential debate, where she shamelessly dropped her supposedly neutral role as moderator to take over and respond to Mitt Romney’s challenges to Obama regarding Benghazi.

Decimating the Military: Obama’s “Night of the Long Knives”?

While the cashiering of CIA Director General Petraeus and AFRICOM commander General Ham certainly suggest a connection to the administration’s ongoing heavy-handed effort to keep the Benghazi disaster from developing into a post-election crisis for the White House, the other aforementioned military resignations and demotions may be signaling something even bigger.

A number of political and military analysts interviewed by The New American believe the Obama administration is in the process of “purging” the U.S. Armed Services, and that we will see a much larger number of line officers removed for various scandals, especially those deemed “politically incorrect,” or those who may be occupying a post that the Obama administration wants to open up for a more “progressive” candidate.

Some are predicting that the bloodletting in the ranks thus far is but the opening salvo in Obama’s “Night of the Long Knives,” a reference to Adolph Hitler’s murderous purge of Ernst Rohm and other Nazis, as well as non-Nazi political opponents whom he saw as obstacles to his consolidation of dictatorial power.

New Zealand researcher Trevor Loudon, author of Barack Obama and the Enemies Within, and editor of the highly acclaimed New Zeal blog at TrevorLoudon.com, told this writer during an interview two weeks before the election:

  • It’s very clear that President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and many of those around them absolutely “loathe the military,” as Hillary once put it. [Defense Secretary] Panetta, while he was a congressman, was very heavily involved with the Institute for Policy  Studies, a very radical Marxist think tank, which supported the Soviet objective of subverting and eviscerating the U.S. military services. Panetta, together with David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, and others in the administration, really do see the U.S. military, as it currently is, as the enemy.

Former Navy SEAL Steve Elson echoes that assessment. “President Obama and the people running his administration really do hate the military,” Elson told The New American. “It’s not just that they ‘don’t understand the military culture,’ [as some critics claim]; they really just don’t like us. In fact they hate us.” Elson continued:

They’re fine with using us, sending us all over the world whenever it works to score political points for them. They don’t mind getting us killed, sending us out with treasonous ROEs [rules of engagement], as in Iraq and Afghanistan, where soldiers and marines were ordered stand guard, go into hostile zones without loaded weapons. Or, as in Benghazi, they cowardly sit in the Pentagon and the White House watching and doing nothing while brave men die.

  • Too many of the top brass are playing the political correctness game when they should be refusing to carry out these immoral and traitorous orders. In the end, it didn’t help Petraeus either. He played their games and went along with their political correctness, and look where it got him. Fine, he deserved it, as far as I’m concerned. But the guys that are out there with their lives on the line don’t [deserve it]. As you can see, I’m anything but politically correct, but I’m only saying out loud what most active duty soldiers will tell you privately. Obama and those running his administration will destroy the U.S. military, if the American people let him, if they don’t wake up to what he is doing.

Related articles:

Petraeus Resignation Suggests Possible White House Cover-Up
The Other Petraeus Scandal: Accelerated Militarization of the CIA
Benghazi Backfire: Was Obama Arming Jihadists?
Did Obama Watch in “Real Time” as Benghazi Attack Unfolded?
The Trouble With Leon Panetta
Leon Panetta and the Institute for Policy Studies

Book Review: Barack Obama and the Enemies Within

Source

Why Won’t the President Take Questions?

Posted August 14, 2012

MEMO

FROM: RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer @seanspicer

TO: Interested Parties

RE: Why Won’t the President Take Questions?

It’s been almost eight weeks since President Obama last took questions from the White House press corps. Since then, a lot has happened, and the American people are demanding answers on a growing list of issues.

When will President Obama quit ducking and dodging? When will he hold himself accountable?

Here are just some of the questions Americans have for President Obama–and that he has yet to answer:

1) Why did you cut $700 billion from Medicare?

Even as he talks Medicare on the campaign trail, the president has not explained why he robbed Medicare–and the seniors who depend on it–to bankroll Obamacare.

2) Do you condemn the Obama SuperPAC’s desperate and despicable ad campaign?

As a candidate, then-Senator Obama promised to “walk the walk” and denounce independent organizations that ran indefensible ads on his behalf. Yet when the Obama SuperPAC Priorities USA produced an ad attempting to exploit a woman’s death for political gain, he remained silent. He previously gave his blessing to the SuperPAC and allows his cabinet and top staff to fundraise for it, but he lacks the courage to take responsibility for their appalling behavior.

3) How do you explain the July increase in unemployment and slowing GDP growth?

Last month, unemployment increased to 8.3 percent, marking the 42nd straight month of unemployment above 8 percent. We learned in July that GDP growth slowed, meaning the economy is losing steam. Yet the president cannot say why four more years of the same failed policies will turn around this dangerous trend.

4) Why is your plate too full for your own Jobs Council?

President Obama has not convened his Jobs Council in over seven months. The White House says he’s too busy, but he has found time for 130 political fundraisers since the last meeting of what he claimed was not a “show council.” (He has attended more than 200 fundraisers since April 2011.) So much for making jobs a “number one” priority.

5) Did you approve of David Plouffe’s profiting from a sponsor of terrorism?

Right after announcing his return to the Obama White House, David Plouffe accepted a $100,000 speaking gig with a company who had ties to sponsors of terrorism. It hardly seems responsible to give someone a high level security clearance after exhibiting such poor judgment.

6) Can you explain to business owners your “You didn’t build that” comment?

Small businesses are struggling in the Obama economy–especially in the wake of Obamacare. Entrepreneurs and innovators are rightfully outraged that the president would denigrate their hard work and attack them both with his policies and his words.

7) Do you condone your staff using personal email accounts to conduct government business?

We learned recently that former Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina used a private account to email lobbyists about “rolling Pelosi” during Obamacare negations. This seems highly hypocritical for the self-proclaimed “most transparent administration in history.”

8) Why didn’t you stop the restructuring of Solyndra’s loan?

Nearly everybody in the president’s inner circle knew Solyndra was headed for disaster. But the White House and the Administration approved of a loan restructuring plan that put taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions more. The president has not explained how he let this happen.

9) Why did you invoke executive privilege on the Fast and Furious scandal?

Americans deserve answers on how this failed operation turned into a tragedy. But the president is hypocritically impeding transparency and accountability.

10) Can you reconcile the conflicting responses to national security leaks?

Keeping America safe and secure is of paramount importance, but the president has yet to see fit to answer the charges, from Dianne Feinstein no less, that sensitive information has been leaked by his administration for political gain.

Surely President Obama can find time to answer ten simple questions. Or is running from his record the official platform of the Obama campaign?

Source

U.S. Taxpayers Subsidize Afghan Insurgents

https://i0.wp.com/thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/punch1.jpg

 May 8, 2012 @ 9:22 am
by Malou Innocent

Less than a week after President Barack Obama made a surprise visit to Afghanistan and proclaimed, “We broke the Taliban’s momentum,” the chairs of the Senate and House intelligence committees offered a candid assessment of the U.S. mission. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), alongside Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” “I think we’d both say that what we found is that the Taliban is stronger.” Their observations are the type of unvarnished truth that our military and civilian leaders typically avoid. U.S. and NATO officials meeting in Chicago later this month should take heed, especially since American taxpayer dollars are helping to fund the insurgents we’re fighting.

In a not-much publicized report last August from the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, researchers found that after the illegal opium trade, the largest source of funding for the insurgency was U.S. contracting dollars. It found that Afghan companies under the Host Nation Trucking program use private security contractors who then turn around and pay insurgents and warlords who control the roads we must use. Although the Commission on Wartime Contracting report did not mention how much was funneled to the insurgency, a similar protection racket was also uncovered a couple of years ago.

Task Force 2010, assembled by General David Petraeus, examined the connections between insurgents and criminal networks on the one hand and Afghan companies and their subcontractors for transportation, construction, and other services on the other. The task force estimated that $360 million in U.S. tax dollars ended up in the hands of insurgents and other “malign actors,” including criminals, warlords, and power-brokers.

The $360 million “represents a fraction of the $31 billion in active U.S. contracts that the task force reviewed,” Associated Press reporters Deb Riechmann and Richard Lardner explained. As Brussels-based International Crisis Group observed in a depressingly frank June 2011 report:

Insecurity and the inflow of billions of dollars in international assistance has failed to significantly strengthen the state’s capacity to provide security or basic services and has instead, by progressively fusing the interests of political gatekeepers and insurgent commanders, provided new opportunities for criminals and insurgents to expand their influence inside the government. The economy as a result is increasingly dominated by a criminal oligarchy of politically connected businessmen.

Is it any wonder why pouring massive piles of cash into a broken and war-ravaged system resulted in failure? Those who follow the news from Afghanistan will see how rent-seeking inadvertently strengthens that country’s twin evils: corruption and insecurity. As journalist Douglas A. Wissing writes in his eye-opening new book, Funding the Enemy: How U.S. Taxpayers Bankroll the Taliban, in addition to foreign development advisers preoccupied with their own career advancement, development money itself was not countering the insurgency but rather paying for it. Combined with an enemy whose strategy was always about exhaustion, the result has been catastrophic.

Wissing writes, “I learned that the linkage between third-world development and US national security that foreign-aid lobbyists peddled to American policymakers was a faith-based doctrine with almost no foundation in research.” Year after year, the American public was spoon-fed government reports that lacked honesty about why our top-down security and development programs were constantly failing. Buildings were poorly constructed. Projects were bereft of proper oversight. Schools were built without teachers to staff them. Road construction contracts financed insurgent racketeering operations.

The undistorted evidence of a European-based think tank, a bipartisan congressional commission, and a report from military experts, assembled by the war’s former commander, leads to one conclusion: the war is inadvertently throwing American taxpayer dollars at insurgents killing American troops. What about this self-aggrandizing system is making Americans safer? Moreover, what about the safety of the Afghans whom planners in Washington swore to protect from the Taliban? In spite of the tripling of U.S. troops since 2008, a recent report by the U.N. mission concluded that 2011 was the fifth straight year in which civilian casualties rose.

As Feinstein said to CNN on Sunday, “The Taliban has a shadow system of governors in many provinces. They’ve gone up north. They’ve gone to the east. Attacks are up.” After over a decade of inadvertently funding the enemy and alienating the local people, Americans should not be surprised with such a dire outcome. If anything, they should be surprised that their elected leaders are finally telling the truth.

Cross-posted from the Skeptics at the National Interest.

Source

When the U.S. government embraces gangsters

Written by Fcadmin | 07 April 2011

The construction industry has a bad reputation of fraud, cost overruns, and safety violations that’s well-earned.  So the federal government and New York state came up with a crimebusting taskforce – including the U.S. Departments of Justice, Labor and Transportation, the IRS, the New York State Inspector General, and the New York City of Department of Transportation – aimed at construction activity.

They knew they were going after the five Mafia families, but they also ended up with a big catch – the gigantic firm known as Tutor Perini.

Fraud, conspiracy

Last month, according to the New York U.S. Attorney’s Office,  “Following a four-week trial, a federal jury in Brooklyn found Zohrab B. Marashlian, the former president of Perini Corp.’s Civil Division, an international construction services corporation, guilty of fraud and conspiracy to launder money.  The charges arose out of Marashlian’s false representation to New York government agencies that Disadvantaged Business Entities (DBEs) were performing work in connection with major public works contracts, when, in reality, Marashlian had non-disadvantaged businesses favored by Perini Corp. do the work.”

Tutor Perini paid Marashlian $14 million in salary while all this was going on.  Two days before Marashlian was to receive a multiyear prison sentence, he committed suicide.  A fellow employee is currently doing a long prison term for the same case.

Perini has been caught doing such things over and over again.   It is like DBE fronting and fraud are part of its business model.

From the Seattle News: “In February, Tutor-Saliba and Perini agreed to pay $19 million to settle racketeering and fraud allegations in a San Francisco airport project.  In 2004, Perini agreed to pay the federal government $998,500 to settle fraud claims in the construction of an embassy building in Venezuela.  The companies are embroiled in an 11-year legal battle over $16 million in extra costs on a Los Angeles subway job.  Perini sued for more than $170 million in cost overruns on three New York City projects during the 1990s before settling for about $22 million.”

Growing anyway

Any Black-owned firm doing any of the above would be permanently banned from doing anymore federal contracting.  But Perini has actually grown exponentially in the government contracting field.

How can this be?  Well, the principal owner of Tutor Perini is Richard Blum, the husband of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee – which oversees the U.S. Department of Defense.

Since joining the U.S. Senate, Feinstein and her husband have enjoyed billions of dollars in defense contracts.  She voted for the Afghanistan war, and their company is rolling in directly related contracts.  She voted for the Iraq war, and their company has been rolling in Iraqi contracts ever since.

American soldiers die and the senator and her husband prosper handsomely and with reckless abandon.  It got so ridiculous that when she became the chair of the Armed Services Committee, even her counterparts said, “That’s enough!”  She stepped down from her chair seat, but is still on the committee – and the dollars continue to roll in.

Obama participates

Feinstein voted for the stimulus bill and Perini was showered with more federally funded contracts.  President Obama even participated in this one.  He kicked off the highway contracts with a press conference at a highway construction site in Virginia, showing the world what the stimulus money was doing.  The contractor he put on display was Cherry Hill Construction.  Who owns Cherry Hill Construction?  Tutor Perini!

It gets worse.  The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Minority Business Development Agency has organized a public relations program that touts, “MBDA Unveils First U.S. Global Construction Program for Minority-Owned Firms.”  The instructor of the program is none other than Tutor Perini!  Sending minority firms for instruction by Tutor Perini is like sending maidens to a brothel – something real bad is going to happen.

Every penny of the abuse and waste is our tax money.  We need to clean this up.

Harry Alford is the co-founder and president/CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. Contact him via www.nationalbcc.org.

( Original Article )

www.flcourier.com

%d bloggers like this: