[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Libertarians’ reality problem: How an estrangement from history yields abject failure

Trump Is Right to Meet Putin

Full transcript of Chris Wallace's interview in Helsinki with Russian president Vladimir Putin, as supplied by Fox News.

Chris Wallace interviews Russian President Vladimir Putin

Once Again, President Trump Is Magnificently Right—This Time About Russia

McCain rips Trump: 'One of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory'

Trump condemned as treasonous after press conference with Putin

How Everything is Racist, And You’re a Terrible Person

The big influence of 'Big Pink'

Documents Reveal Two US Soldiers Overheard Plot To Kill JFK—and Were Committed After Reporting It

Fox's Perino: Strzok marriage questions by GOP lawmaker 'felt like a public lynching (Relly? I don't think so, Dana!'

Trump: Strzok's testimony 'a disgrace to our country'

Trump Is Right: Mueller’s Latest Indictment Suggests He’s Conducting A Witch Hunt

Constitutional Conservatives Fail the Drug Test

Chipped Tires

A collision of views as Bath Township calls artist's work 'junk,' heads to court

How Elected Libertarians Are Making the World More Free

The fundamental contradiction of libertarianism

Dinosaur and man walking together

You're killin' me, Smalls. 'The Sandlot' celebrates 25th anniversary

Massachusetts police officer killed after attacked with rock, shot with own gun, officials say

Mike Rowe Responds to Critics Who Don't Like His Move to Christian TV Network

Police: Richmond homeowner shoots intruder several times (San Francisco)

Internet Trolls Really Are Psychos

Adam Smith to Richard Spencer: Why Libertarians turn to the Alt-Right

Libertarians’ reality problem: How an estrangement from history yields abject failure

Family Calls for Help with Suicidal Child, Cops Show Up and Kill Him

Jury Nullifies Georgia Weed Law, Finds Man Not Guilty Despite Admittedly Growing Marijuana

Former Clinton White House Staffer: It's 'Tempting to Beat the Crap out of Rand Paul'

Reality vs Fantasy: President Trump warns Europe is ‘losing its culture’ by allowing ‘millions and millions’ of migrants, PM Theresa May praises their’ fantastic contribution’

Globalization?

NATO’s Problem Is that Europeans Won’t Fight

Trump isn’t attacking NATO. He’s strengthening it.

North Carolina Scientist Proposes Using Cannabis to Combat Invasive Species

Libertarians on Liberty’s Post suppress dissent – Sad.

Why Internet Libertarians are becoming Fascists

Libertarians Are Insane

Julian Assange, CrowdStrike, and the Russian Hack That Wasn’t

Open Question: What is a Christian Libertarian?

Pakistan Hacked the DNC Server and Maybe Hillary’s Illegal Server Too

Indiana has spent over $20 million on cleanup of failed Pence family gas stations

New Mueller indictment reveals that a congressional candidate requested stolen documents from Russian hackers in 2016

New Trump Range Rover promo video with the Queen

The Short, Unhappy Life of a Libertarian Paradise

Let's be honest, America: Dogs are parasites, not man's best friend

Meet The Air Force's $1200 Cup Of Coffee

Rosenstein Delivers Indictments For 12 Russians – Then Buries in Lock-box of DOJ National Security Division…

This Honda lawn mower will go 150 mph

Cop Who Declined to Help Puerto Rican Woman Being Harassed for ‘Un-American’ T-Shirt Resigns

Man Arrested for DUI Tells Cops He Only Drank at Stop Signs, Not While Driving: Police


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles

Title: General says he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike
Source: Fox News
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 20, 2017
Author: Oliver North
Post Date: 2017-11-20 16:22:19 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 314
Comments: 24

General says he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike

Fox News military analyst Oliver North reacts on 'Fox & Friends.'

Just a day after the U.S.’s top nuclear commander said he would resist President Trump’s order if he called for an “illegal” nuclear launch, a fiery debate emerged about the president’s authority to order the firing of a warhead.

Brian McKeon, a senior policy adviser in the Pentagon during the Obama administration, said a president's first recourse would be to tell the defense secretary to order the reluctant commander to execute the launch order.

"And then, if the commander still resisted," McKeon said as rubbed his chin, "you either get a new secretary of defense or get a new commander." The implication is that one way or another, the commander in chief would not be thwarted.

Air Force General John Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), started the debate when he told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada that he had thought a lot about what to say if he received such an order.

“And if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I‘m going to say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options, of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”

Hyten said running through scenarios of how to react in the event of an illegal order was standard practice, and added: “If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life.”

It's hard to overstate how thoroughly the U.S. military has prepared for doomsday -- the day America gets into a nuclear shooting war. No detail seems to have been overlooked. There's even a designated "safe escape" door at the nuclear-warfighting headquarters near Omaha, Nebraska, through which the four- star commander would rush to a getaway plane moments before the first bomb hit.

Procedures are in place for ensuring U.S. nuclear weapons are ready for a presidential launch order in response to -- or in anticipation of -- a nuclear attack by North Korea or anyone else. There are backup procedures and backups for the backups.

Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and co-founder of the Global Zero group that advocates eliminating nuclear weapons, said the Strategic Command chief might, in effect, be bypassed by the president.

A president can transmit his nuclear attack order directly to a Pentagon war room, Blair said. From there it would go to the men and women who would turn the launch keys.

The renewed attention on these questions reflects unease -- justified or not -- about Trump's temperament and whether he would act impulsively in a crisis.

This past week's Senate hearing was the first in Congress on presidential authority to use nuclear weapons since 1976, when a Democratic congressman from New York, Richard L. Ottinger, pushed for the U.S. to declare it would never initiate a nuclear war. Ottinger said he wanted to "eliminate the prospect that human ignorance and potential human failure in the use of nuclear materials, especially nuclear weapons, will lead to the destruction of civilization."

Forty-one years later, the U.S. hasn't ruled out first-strike nuclear options and is unlikely to do so during Trump's tenure. This troubles experts who worry about a president with the sole -- some say unchecked -- authority to initiate nuclear war.

The committee chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said he was not targeting Trump. But he has publicly questioned whether Trump's aggressive rhetoric toward North Korea and other countries could lead the U.S. into a world war. In the end, Corker's hearing produced little impetus for legislation to alter the presidential authorities.

James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, saw politics at play.

"But I think it's a genuinely important subject, and I think it's one we should be debating irrespective of who the president is," he said


Poster Comment:

Brian McKeon, a senior policy adviser in the Pentagon during the Obama administration, said a president's first recourse would be to tell the defense secretary to order the reluctant commander to execute the launch order. "And then, if the commander still resisted," McKeon said as rubbed his chin, "you either get a new secretary of defense or get a new commander." The implication is that one way or another, the commander in chief would not be thwarted.

False implication. --- This is yet another effort to tar Trump as a madman.. ---

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

The renewed attention on these questions reflects unease -- justified or not -- about Trump's temperament and whether he would act impulsively in a crisis.

This is yet another obvious effort to tar Trump as a deranged madman..

It's amazing that these clowns think such constant attacks are credible.

I think everyone could agree that Trumps speaking style (and his twitters) are not politically correct, and a bit weird... But trying to say these are signs he "would act impulsively in a crisis"? Bull...

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-20   16:47:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: tpaine, Dr Strangetrump, Big Win, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#0)

hondo68  posted on  2017-11-20   17:30:12 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: hondo68 (#2)

Dr. Strangetrump?

Great ending to one of the best tragically-comic movies of all time.

You one of the poor souls infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome?.

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-20   18:26:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: tpaine, DC Turkey Hotel, Mitch McConnell, Rience Priebus (#3)

You one of the poor souls infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome?.

Who wouldn't love The Donald for using US taxpayer dollars to put up a couple of turkeys in a DC Hotel? https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/932648144348868610

We're only 20 trillion or so in debt, and the sky's the limit!

Drain the swamp. They could have stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom for free!

Or better yet, chop their heads off and get Javanka to cook them up.

hondo68  posted on  2017-11-20   19:16:56 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: tpaine (#0)

General says he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike

Of course he will refuse to obey an illegal order. Even Privates are taught in basic training that they have a DUTY to disobey illegal orders. If the military demands this of a private,WTH would they not demand it of a General Officer?

Why is this even still in the news?

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-11-20   19:51:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: sneakypete (#5)

Of course he will refuse to obey an illegal order. Even Privates are taught in basic training that they have a DUTY to disobey illegal orders. If the military demands this of a private,WTH would they not demand it of a General Officer?

We are in violent agreement.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-21   10:09:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6) (Edited)

Of course he will refuse to obey an illegal order.

If Trump reassigns the guy because of that statement the press will have a field day, claiming Trump expects his generals to obey illegal orders.

But it is disturbing that, in a time of a nuclear crisis, some general is going to second guess the President and decide for himself what is a legal order and what isn't.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-11-21   11:29:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite, y'all, sneakypete (#7)

Even Privates are taught in basic training that they have a DUTY to disobey illegal orders. If the military demands this of a private,WTH would they not demand it of a General Officer? ---- Sneakypete

Misterwhite ---- it is disturbing that, in a time of a nuclear crisis, some general is going to second guess the President and decide for himself what is a legal order and what isn't.

It's disturbing that political operatives are urging general officers to question the mental competency of the commander in chief (and his military advisors) about nuclear crisis decisions.

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-21   13:44:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: misterwhite (#7)

some general is going to second guess the President and decide for himself what is a legal order and what isn't.

In the end, everybody has to make that call about every order. Usually it's easy. Sometimes - and the deployment of nuclear weapons is one of those times - it's not.

If you're undertaking an act that involves the mass death of human beings, your soul is in the hazard. So is your own life, at the hands of human tribunals if you are judged a war criminal (this usually requires your side to lose, but in a divided country, the political opposition could regain power and then come after you.

Essentially, if you are ordered to kill people, you had better have thought it out beforehand, and you had better decide for yourself every time you do it, because get it wrong, do it unjustified, and you're going to Hell, boy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-21   14:37:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#7) (Edited)

But it is disturbing that, in a time of a nuclear crisis, some general is going to second guess the President and decide for himself what is a legal order and what isn't.

If the order comes from the commander in chief and it is authenticated by the secretary of defense, it is a LEGAL ORDER. If this is not the case, then it is an illegal order to be disregarded. SIMPLE.

There is a definite protocol that must be followed at all levels from the crew members up to and including the President. I can detail the protocol to you, but then I must shoot you….just kidding.

The aircrew I was assigned to for eight years lived 24/7 every third week in an alert bunker within a few yards of a B-58 Hustler loaded with five nukes and we were ready to get airborne in a few minutes on the way to our assigned targets.

Everyone at all levels from the air crews up to an including the President operates under the “Two-Man Policy.” That is to say that two people must validate or issue a launch order before any launch is executed. My navigator and I had to validate a launch message before our pilot was authorized to take off. We ignored an “illegal” order at least once during a tour of alert duty and sometimes as many as two or three. These were issued to keep us on our toes and ready to immediately react. There were always two individuals on duty at our Command Post and when they received an alert for an incoming message….they would sound klaxons and we would man our aircraft with engines started and awaiting a message. If the message was invalid [illegal] we would shut down the engines and return to the alert barracks. Had the message been valid [legal] we would have launched and proceeded a holding point awaiting another message to proceed on to our targets.

Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and co-founder of the Global Zero group that advocates eliminating nuclear weapons, said the Strategic Command chief might, in effect, be bypassed by the president. A president can transmit his nuclear attack order directly to a Pentagon war room, Blair said. From there it would go to the men and women who would turn the launch keys.

Bullshit. Click on Protocol….this is essentially accurate.

Highlighted from the link …

As commander-in-chief, the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. A two-man rule applies, however: the National Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary of Defense must jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The order would then be transmitted over a tan-yellow phone, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Alerting Network, otherwise known as the "Gold Phone", that directly links the NMCC with United States Strategic Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.

Poster’s comment from the thread …

Brian McKeon, a senior policy adviser in the Pentagon during the Obama administration, said a president's first recourse would be to tell the defense secretary to order the reluctant commander to execute the launch order. "And then, if the commander still resisted," McKeon said as rubbed his chin, "you either get a new secretary of defense or get a new commander." The implication is that one way or another, the commander in chief would not be thwarted.

Bad implication!

McKeon didn’t only “rub his chin,” he pulled this out of his ass. The commander in chief CAN be thwarted….by the secretary of defense.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-11-21   16:16:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: hondo68 (#2)

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-11-21   16:24:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#8)

It's disturbing that political operatives are urging general officers to question the mental competency of the commander in chief (and his military advisors) about nuclear crisis decisions.

No,it's not.

Most of our presidents have been rank amateurs when it comes to understanding military and national security matters. General officers have spent decades focused on nothing else.

Do NOT forget that it is highly likely most General Officers think that civilian political advisors are cretins with the same general level of understanding military operations as a rabid rat with syphilis. Maybe even less knowledge.

You can tell them anything,but that doesn't mean you can make them believe what you say. If there is anyone on the planet more self-confident in their own abilities and judgements than senior career military officers with stars on their shoulders,I have never met or heard of them. They have spent decades learning and understanding the consequences of using these weapons that only a fool would think one of them would just say "Yessir,yessir,3 bags full sir,FIRE THE NUKES!" without carefully considering all the known facts and most of the suspicions.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-11-21   17:09:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Gatlin (#10)

If the order comes from the commander in chief and it is authenticated by the secretary of defense, it is a LEGAL ORDER.

Yes,and no. It is STILL not a legal order unless the President and his staff have consulted with the Chief of Staffs or the US Military and they agreed with the decision.

This is the ultimate "committee decision".

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-11-21   17:13:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: sneakypete (#13) (Edited)

Yes,and no. It is STILL not a legal order unless the President and his staff have consulted with the Chief of Staffs or the US Military and they agreed with the decision. This is the ultimate "committee decision".
I don’t know where you are getting this from, Pete….that the President and Secretary of State cannot execute or launch nuclear weapons unless the Chiefs of staff have agreed with the decision. I will be please to see a reference that requires the JCS approval.

Until then, I will continue to believe that the JCS is merely a body of senior uniformed leaders in the United States Department of Defense who simply advise the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. Again, the JCS is merely an advisory group are not any part of the National Command Authority (NCA). The NCA is the ultimate source of lawful military orders and there is no statutory requirement for the NCA to have the JCS agree with a decision to execute or launch nuclear weapons.

The National Security Act of 1947 designated the Joint Chiefs of Staff as planners and advisers, not as commanders of combatant commands. In spite of this, the 1948 Key West Agreement allowed members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to serve as executive agents for unified commands, a responsibility that allowed the executive agent to originate direct communication with the combatant command. Congress abolished this authority in a 1953 amendment to the National Security Act.

Today, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have no executive authority to command combatant forces. The issue of executive authority was clearly resolved by the Goldwater- Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986: "The Secretaries of the Military Departments shall assign all forces under their jurisdiction to unified and specified combatant commands to perform missions assigned to those commands..."; the chain of command "runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense; and from the Secretary of Defense to the commander of the combatant command."

The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the Secretary of Defense jointly, or their duly deputized successors, i.e. the Vice President and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The NCA is single source for issuing an execution launch order of nuclear weapons.

Of course the JCS advises the President and the Secretary of Defense and naturally they would have consulted the JCS along with multiple other agencies before launching nukes. However, the NCA does NOT require an agreement from the JCS to execute or launch nuclear weapons.

10 USC Ch. 5: JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

Gatlin  posted on  2017-11-21   18:19:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Gatlin, just following orders (#14)

If Dear Leader Kim Jong Un ordered you to turn onto the railroad track, you would!

hondo68  posted on  2017-11-21   21:13:26 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: hondo68, tater (#15) (Edited)

If Dear Leader Kim Jong Un ordered you [tater] to turn onto the railroad track, you would!

In defense of tater; he is a self-professed teat sucker living on the good grace of American taxpayers; he would lay down with any government that provided him free shelter, clothing and food.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-11-21   21:36:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Deckard (#11)

I expect that a real general would walk out of the room.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-22   18:16:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Gatlin (#10)

If the order comes from the commander in chief and it is authenticated by the secretary of defense, it is a LEGAL ORDER.

Maybe.

It is putatively legal under the laws of the United States.

But that's not the end of the discussion if it happens. If the American nuclear attack is in violation of international law and constitutes a war crime, merely complying with the lawful (within the US system) order does not protect the war criminal from being tried and executed for the crime against international law and the law of war.

Also, the President and the SecDef could be mad, or could be treasonous. So complying with their order would not be lawful even if it appeared to be lawful when issued.

Of course, under such a circumstance, the US government would not prosecute the military people who obeyed what they thought to be a lawful order, but the individuals might be tried and convicted by international tribunals.

After all, the fact that what the Nazi prison guards was doing was completely lawful under the laws of Germany at the time does not save them from trial and execution under international law.

Essentially, if you launch nuclear weapons, you had better win, and you had better not get too comfortable about foreign travel afterwards.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-25   16:18:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

If the order comes from the commander in chief and it is authenticated by the secretary of defense, it is a LEGAL ORDER.

Maybe.

It is putatively legal under the laws of the United States.

There is no “maybe” about it and there is nothing “putatively” legal about an order if it comes from the Commander in Chief, is authenticated by the Secretary of Defense and is not “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal. It is not “commonly accepted, supposed, assumed to exist or to have existed [putatively].” It is “emphatically” accepted as a legal order if it comes from the Commander in Chief, is authenticated by the Secretary of Defense and is not “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal.
Also, the President and the SecDef could be mad, or could be treasonous. So complying with their order would be lawful if it appeared to be lawful when issued and was not “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal.
If you check, you will find that under international and U.S. law, the order must be “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal, not just debatable or of arguable legality. What this means is that the person ordered to launch or to plan the launch must know that the order did not come from the President, was not authenticated by the Secretary of Defense and was “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal in order not to comply with it.
After all, the fact that what the Nazi prison guards was doing was completely lawful under the laws of Germany at the time does not save them from trial and execution under international law.
I will take exception to that characterization. Those laws issued to prison guards who were convicted for war crimes were “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal even though there were “lawful” under the laws of Germany at the time. That is why they were convicted and that is why there were not saved from trial and were executed under international law.
If the American nuclear attack is in violation of international law and constitutes a war crime, merely complying with the lawful (within the US system) order does not protect the war criminal from being tried and executed for the crime against international law and the law of war.
Again I cite that Under international and U.S. law, the order must be “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal, not just of debatable or arguable legality.
But that's not the end of the discussion if it happens.
Ah, but this the end of the discussion for me here because this thread is about General Hyten saying he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike and this thread is not about international law or what constitutes a war crime.

I have no desire to go into that discussion and If you want to discuss violation of international law and what constitutes a war crime….that probably should be the subject for new thread.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-11-25   21:05:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Gatlin, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#19)

hondo68  posted on  2017-11-25   21:43:55 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

You sound like a liberal regularly. Now you're a globalist too.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-11-26   8:24:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)

You sound like a liberal regularly. Now you're a globalist too.

If Hillary were elected, and appointed a crony, and went berserk and she and the SecDef ordered a nuclear strike on Israel, the argument made here is that the American generals and servicemembers who received the order MUST launch, because the order they have received is legal.

If you want to call me a globalist for stating that if the President and SecDef go crazy and follow the letter of the law to order a launch, that this order is LEGAL and MUST (and SHOULD) be followed by the American military - thereby committing a massive crime against humanity - well, I frankly would not be suprised if you did so at all.

You will judge the case on the party and political motivations of the players. Flip the circumstances and you should be able to see the problem with that.

I certainly do.

As far as me being a globalist, of course I'm a globalist, indeed a universalist: I'm a Catholic. Catholics are the Mark 1 Mod 1 globalists since the Apostles spoke all of the languages of all of those present at the first Pentecost.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-26   21:52:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

I called you a globalist because you think we have to consult or obey the antichrist UN.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-11-27   7:01:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: A K A Stone (#23)

I called you a globalist because you think we have to consult or obey the antichrist UN.

The UN? No. The universal law of God? Absolutely yes.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-27   10:26:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com