[News] New Coup D'Etat Rumblings in Venezuela

[Anti-Imperialist News]

New Coup D'Etat Rumblings in Venezuela

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/print/3831

September 25th 2008, by Stephen Lendman
Since taking office in January 2001, the Bush administration targeted 
Hugo Chavez for removal. It tried and failed three previous times:

-- in April 2002 for two days; aborted by mass street protests and 
support from many in Venezuela's military, especially from its 
middle-ranking officer corp;

-- the 2002 - 2003 general strike and oil management lockout causing 
severe economic disruption; and

-- the August 2004 national recall referendum in which Chavez 
resoundingly prevailed with a 59% majority.

Other disruptions have occurred since and now may again be ongoing. 
US intervention is innovative and determined to regain control of 
Venezuela and its vast hydrocarbon resources, the largest by far in 
the hemisphere after Canada. Perhaps in the world, with the US 
Department of Energy's estimate of 1.36 trillion extra-heavy oil 
barrels included besides its proved 80 billion barrels of light sweet 
reserves, ranking it seventh overall behind the five largest Middle 
East producers and Canada.

Throughout most of his tenure and since the Bush administration took 
over, CIA and various misnamed US quasi-governmental agencies have 
been active in Venezuela. Ones like the National Endowment for 
Democracy (NED). The International Republican Institute (IRI) with 
John McCain as its chairman and its ties to extremist Republican 
party elements, and the US Agency for International Development 
(USAID). All are imperial instruments. Undemocratic and for rule by 
the power of money.

They fund opposition groups and coup supporters. Arrange (staged for 
media) anti-Chavez marches and street protests. Spend millions to 
subvert democracy to return the country to its past. Oligarchs who 
once controlled it. Washington and Big Oil that control them.

They plot assassination attempts, according to Chavez to remove him. 
To reverse Bolivarianism and its socially beneficial gains in health 
care, education, housing, feeding the hungry, lifting millions out of 
poverty, and enfranchising all Venezuelans in the country's 
participatory democracy. Strengthening it at the grassroots.

Recent Disturbing Events

On September 10, Venezolana de Television's (VTV) La Hojilla program 
disclosed a recording (from an undisclosed source) of a planned 
military coup against Chavez - by active and retired plotters. 
Participants named were Vice Admiral and National Guard Forces 
Inspector General Carlos Alberto Millan Millan. National Guard 
General Wilfredo Barroso Herrera, and retired Air Force General 
Eduardo Baez Torrealba (involved in the April 2002 aborted coup). 
Unknown is who else is behind this and how deep the suspected plot runs.

Conversations recorded were about "tak(ing) the Miraflores 
(presidential) Palace (government headquarters and) the TV 
installations....that is all effort towards where (Chavez) is. If 
he's in Miraflores, the effort goes toward there." Talk also was 
about seizing the "command headquarters (with) the troops inside" and 
about Maracay, Aragua state's Air Base Libertador where Venezuela's 
F-16s and other planes are based.

Baez Torrealba was heard saying: "We are divided into four 
zones....east, west, and two in the centre" and have an F-16 pilot. 
He mentions either attacking Chavez's plane or capturing it. Possibly 
the presidential palace the way the CIA engineered it in Chile for 
Augusto Pinochet against Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973 - 
with bombs, rockets and tank fire. Open warfare on Santiago's 
streets. Whether planned for Caracas is anyone's guess but it 
certainly is possible.

Chavez knows the history as well as past conspiracies against 
himself. He said on-air that his government "infiltrated the most 
radical and fascist movements (and have) known for a long time that 
they are looking for land and air rockets and sophisticated equipment 
to blow up the presidential plane" and that past plans were to bomb 
the Miraflores. He also knows that CIA is behind them and said if 
there's a coup, "the counter-coup would be overwhelming" - meaning a 
mass popular uprising to reverse it with military support, similar to 2002.

Chavez then confirmed the detentions of several suspected coop 
plotters and said others fled the country. He also expelled US 
ambassador, Patrick Duddy. Gave him 72 hours to leave, and recalled 
his Washington envoy, Bernardo Alvarez, in sympathy with Bolivia's 
Evo Morales. On September 10, he declared US ambassador, Philip 
Goldberg, persona non grata. Accused him of supporting eastern 
Bolivian fascist elements and working with them to plan a coup 
against his presidency.

On September 20, another incident occurred, so far unexplained. In 
west Caracas, a grenade was thrown from a residential building, 
killing two and injuring 19 others. A 23-year old man was identified 
as the perpetrator, who then, it was claimed, jumped to his death 
from the building's eighth floor. No further information is available 
at this time but authorities are investigating.

Then around the same time in London, Samuel Moncada, Venezuela's UK 
ambassador, attended a fringe Labour Party meeting and expressed 
"fear(s) that the next few weeks will be very dangerous for us." He 
believes that the Bush administration may try to oust Chavez in its 
remaining months. Others in Venezuela also think something is going 
on to destabilize the country. Possibly a plot to assassinate their 
president and bring down his government.

Disturbing Latin American stirrings in the final Bush administration 
months along with all else on their plate and planned in the Middle 
East, Central Asia and elsewhere. Plus the November presidential and 
congressional elections and a hugely calamitous financial crisis 
commanding daily headlines and top-level meetings as first order of 
business because of its seriousness.

Nonetheless, the Bush administration expelled Venezuela's Washington 
ambassador after he'd been recalled following Chavez saying "When 
there is a new government in the United States, we'll send an 
ambassador." Given the campaign rhetoric by both US presidential 
candidates, he may have a change of heart. Both promise permanent 
wars. New fronts to wage them on, and an uncompromising pro-corporate 
agenda. Not good news for independent democrats like Chavez, 
especially ones in oil-rich countries like Venezuela.

Separately on September 12, the Bush administration went further with 
US Treasury officials announcing sanctions and the freezing of assets 
against Hugo Carvajal Barrios and Henry Rangel Silva, both Venezuelan 
intelligence chiefs. Also named was Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, the 
country's former Justice and Interior Minister. Serious and 
unwarranted accusations against high government officials for 
supporting drugs trafficking and supplying arms to Colombia's FARC-EP 
resistance.

On September 17, Washington also blacklisted Venezuela (for the 
fourth time) and Bolivia (for the first time) for not cooperating in 
the "war on drugs" and designated both countries and Burma as 
"hav(ing) failed demonstrably during the previous 12 months to adhere 
to their obligations under international counternarcotics 
agreements," in a statement released by the White House. The State 
Department listed 20 countries as illicit major drugs producers or 
transit sites.

It omitted what scholar/researcher Peter Dale Scott calls "Deep 
Events (or "deep politics" that governments try to suppress) and the 
CIA's Global Drug Connection" in his article by that title. The 
"complex geography or network of banks, financial agents of influence 
and the 'alternative' or 'shadow' CIA" and its possible involvement 
in major "deep events" like the Kennedy assassination and 9/11. A 
"global financial complex of hot money uniting prominent business, 
financial and government (elements) as well as underworld figures." 
An "indirect empire (between) CIA, organized crime, and their mutual 
interest in drug-trafficking."

For the enormous profits that CIA uses for its operations and helps 
it plot coups against countries like Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), 
Venezuela (2002) and maybe again in 2008 along with Bolivia and the 
current Iranian government. For state terrorism like Operation Condor 
(in Latin America in the 1970s). Iranian and Pakistani incursions 
currently. All its other nefarious activities, including 
"strengthening drug networks....in Laos, Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey, 
Columbia," Thailand and Afghanistan - the world's largest by far 
opium producer after Washington replaced the Taliban and allowed 
regional "warlords" to ramp up replantings.

Also its involvement in a possible plot against Chavez. At the least, 
the latest Bush administration efforts to tarnish and disrupt his 
democratic government with considerable media support for its 
accusations and much more.

The Corporate Media on the Attack

A New York Times September 18 Simon Romero article is headlined: 
"Alleging Coup Plot, Chavez Ousts US Envoy." In it he suggests the 
accuracy of a Human Rights Watch's (HRW) biased 2008 Venezuela report 
discussed below. That "into its 10th year (Chavez's) government has 
consolidated power by eliminating the independence of the judiciary, 
punish(ed) critical news organizations, and engag(ed) in wide-ranging 
acts of political discrimination against opponents." Leaving 
mentioned the Chavez government's views to suggest his own and HRW's.

Do it in spite of its tainted state. An example is how it 
"condemn(es) human rights abuses in Colombia." Not the repressive 
government. The most fascist in the region, but the FARC-EP and ELN 
resistance against it. More on HRW below.

A Miami Herald op-ed piece is headlined: "Expulsions Underscore 
Chavez's Intolerance for Dissent" and states that expelling "two 
respected human rights monitors from Venezuela is the latest evidence 
that President Hugo Chavez is determined to muzzle dissenting 
views....Mr. Chavez never misses an opportunity to rail against the 
United States, but his real enemies are those who dare to take issue 
with his politics. His anti-democratic agenda has restricted 
legitimate political activity by his opponents for years, and his 
arbitrary behavior is getting worse." The most far right US elements 
couldn't say it better or be more of a mirror opposite the facts.

A Los Angeles Times August 9 editorial accused Chavez of a "power 
grab (and) attack(ing) democracy." The Washinton Post calls him a 
Venezuelan caudillo or strongman. So does the Wall Street Journal 
repeatedly. Reckless commentaries accuse him of rigging elections. 
Excluding his most formidable opponents. Violating Venezuelan law, 
and now engaging in drugs trafficking, terrorism, and delivering a 
suitcase with $800,000 in slush money to Argentina's Cristina 
Kirchner for her 2007 presidential campaign. The Inter-American 
Dialogue's Peter Hakim has "no doubt" this latter charge (playing out 
in a Miami courtroom) is politically motivated and "is coming from 
the US government." So are all the others.

The Journal's Mary O'Grady wages constant war against Chavez, and her 
latest September 15 op-ed refers to his "Russian Dalliance." His 
holding joint exercises with Moscow's "flotilla." Russia "evoking 
memories of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis by playing war games with 
another would-be Latin strongman." Chavez "only too happy to be 
used." Suggesting he and Evo Morales are communists and all the 
negatives that implies. That Chavez is a "dictator." That his 
"economy (is) in shambles" when, in fact, it's had 19 consecutive 
impressive quarters of growth and grew at 7.1% in the second quarter 
- compared to America's unprecedented economic crisis and 
contraction. That Chavez is so worried about a "serious challenge to 
(his) chavismo (that he) trotted out the Uncle Sam boogeyman, called 
in the Russians, and (sent) Washington's ambassador packing."

Human Rights Watch on the Attack

Too often, Human Rights Watch (HRW) fails to practice its stated 
mandate - that it is "dedicated to protecting the human rights of 
people around the world....stand(ing) with victims and 
activists....upholding political freedom (and) bring(ing) offenders 
to justice." Instead it functions the way James Petras characterizes 
similar NGOs as the "executing agents of US imperialism."

Its support for the oppressed is dubious at best. Tainted at worst, 
and its latest September 18 Venezuela report is disturbing, biased, 
and inaccurate. It's not dissimilar to how it covers the Israeli - 
Palestinian conflict. Distorting it to downplay Israeli violence. 
Playing up to the Israeli Lobby, and operating more by a political 
agenda than as a credible human rights organization. Clearly with its 
funding sources in mind that must be placated and never offended. HRW 
does it skillfully.

 From its 1978 beginnings as the US Helsinki Watch Committee (or 
Helsinki Watch), HRW advanced America's interests as a propaganda 
instrument against Soviet Russia. Despite occasional good work, too 
often it's "serv(ed) as a virtual public relations arm of the (US) 
foreign policy establishment," according to Edward Herman, David 
Peterson and George Szamuely in their 2007 report titled: "Human 
Rights Watch in Service to the War Party."

Exhibits A and B: against Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam at a 
time "the United States and Britain were clearly planning an assault 
on Iraq with a 'shock and awe' bombing campaign and ground invasion 
in violation of the UN Charter." HRW ignored the impending onslaught. 
The "supreme international crime," and focused on Saddam's much 
lesser ones. A "valuable public relations gift to US and British 
leaders" instead of denouncing them.

When the Pentagon-led NATO countries bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, HRW 
attacked the victim and absolved the aggressor. It supported regime 
change "either through (Milosevic's) indictment or a US war (for) the 
same outcome." It blamed him for the conflict America began and waged 
throughout the 1990s with its NATO allies. It ignored Washington's 
imperial aim to dismantle Yugoslavia. Its outrageous war crimes in 
doing it, and instead cited Serbia's "vicious wars in Bosnia, Croatia 
and Kosovo." It demanded responsible Serbs be held to account before 
the kangaroo International Criminal Tribunal for the Former 
Yugoslavia (ICTW). Run by made-in-Washington rules to avoid any 
prosecution of its own role.

It showed HRW's commitment to human rights is hollow and 
hypercritical. Its analysis opposite of the truth. Its disdain for 
the rule of law, and its judgment fully supportive of its funding 
sources. Organizations like:

-- the Ford Foundation;

-- the Rockefeller Foundation;

-- the Carnegie Corporation of New York; and

-- Time Warner.

Individuals like:

-- Edgar Bronfman, Jr., corporate CEO and member of one of Canada's 
most wealthy and influential Jewish families;

-- Katherine Graham (now deceased) of the Washington Post Corporation 
with her son and current chairman, Donald Graham, likely continuing 
her support;

-- and George Soros who was active in founding HRW jointly with the 
US State Department.

Some of its Americas Advisory Board members are also closely linked 
to the National Endowment of Democracy (NED) and its anti-democratic 
agenda. Figures like George Soros and Robert Pastor, Jimmy Carter's 
Latin American National Security Advisor and Senior Fellow at the 
Carter Center on Latin America and the Caribbean.

HRW failed to denounce CIA's 2002 coup attempt against Chavez or the 
2004 one against Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The thousands of 
Lavalas supporters murdered in its aftermath. The continuing daily 
human rights abuses committed by so-called UN Peacekeepers, police 
and other security forces. The unconscionable human misery in the 
coup's aftermath.

It said nothing about Venezuelan dominant media's advance knowledge 
about and support for the 2002 coup. The air time they gave plotters. 
Their virulent propaganda and calls for people to take to the streets 
"for freedom and democracy" by ousting Chavez. Their suppressing all 
pro-government reports and opinions. Their falsely reporting that 
Chavez resigned when, in fact, he was forcibly removed and was being 
held against his will. They knew because they were briefed in advance 
and were part of the scheme.

When hundreds of thousands of Chavez supporters were on the streets 
demanding his reinstatement, they ignored them and aired old movies 
and cartoons. Even when the coup was aborted, they maintained strict 
censorship in a further act of defiance. Yet, when Chavez refused to 
renew RCTV's VHF license (a mere slap on the wrist for an act of 
sedition), HRW vehemently complained and denounced the act as 
censorship. It continues to criticize Chavez, most noticeably in its 
230 page 2008 report titled, "A Decade Under Chavez: Political 
Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela."

The report is unfairly one-sided and biased by criticizing the 
"government's willful disregard for the institutional guarantees and 
fundamental rights that make democratic participation possible." In 
response, the government expelled two HRW employees - America's 
Director, Jose Miguel Vivanco, and his Deputy, Daniel Wilkinson. A 
Foreign Relations Ministry press release stated: Vivanco and 
Wilkerson "have done violence to the constitution (and) assaulted 
(Venezuela's) institutions (by) meddling illegally in (its) internal affairs."

The statement added that HRW is linked to America's "unacceptable 
strategy of aggression" and expelling them was done to defend "the 
people against aggressions by international factors." Not accidently 
was the report released two months before Venezuela's November 23 
regional and local elections for governors and mayors. HRW did the 
same thing previously to sway voters away from Chavez candidates and 
issues and toward ones embracing a pro-Washington agenda. In October 
2007, ahead of the December constitutional reform referendum, it 
criticized the measures and warned about the loss of freedoms if the 
vote was positive. Its latest report also comes at a time of 
increased tension between Washington and Caracas ahead of elections 
in both countries.

The Washington-based Venezuela Information Office (VIO) released an 
analysis of HRW's report titled: "The Truth Suffers in Human Rights 
Watch on Venezuela." It's summarized below and can be read in full 
along with other current Venezuela information on: rethinkvenezuela.org.

VIO is blunt and accurate in calling HRW down on its blatantly biased 
account. Not surprising given its history as explained above. It 
exaggerates and lies about human rights deficiencies, and at the same 
time, ignores Venezuela's impressive social and other advances under 
Chavez. Unparalled in the country's history. Nothing comparable in 
America where human rights and social gains are vanishing under both 
parties. Along with democracy that's pure fantasy. Facts that HRW is 
loath to point out nor would it dare at the risk of offending its 
funding sources.

VIO deconstructs the HRW report by stating "myths," and "facts".

HRW myth: political discrimination defines the Chavez presidency.

VIO fact: HRW mischaracterizes Chavez's condemnation of the aborted 
2002 coup as "political discrimination" against the plotters. An 
absurdity on its face, but not to HRW.

HRW: Chavez disdains the separation of powers and an independent judiciary.

VIO: Chavez inherited a government for the rich. Mass poverty, and 
(according to an earlier HRW report) a judiciary plagued by 
"influence-peddling, political interference, and, above all, 
corruption....In terms of public credibility, the system was 
bankrupt." Since 1999, Chavez made great strides in cleaning it up. 
He still has a long way to go, but he's heading in the right direction.

HRW: Chavez "shifted....the mass media in the government's favor."

VIO: In print and electronically, Venezuela's corporate media are 
dominant. The five leading private TV channels control 90% of the 
market and most viewers. They operate freely with no government 
censorship. Are unrestrained in their one-sided anti-goverment 
reporting, including "calling for the overthrow of elected leaders" 
as they did in 2002. All major newspapers are corporate-owned. TVes 
(Venezuela's first public broadcaster) and TeleSur (the regional, 
multi-nation supported operation) reach much smaller audiences.

HRW: Chavez "has sought to remake the country's labor movement in 
ways that violate basic principles of freedom of movement."

VIO: In fact, Chavez is actively pro-labor. Supports unions and 
collective bargaining on equal terms with management. In 2003, 
pro-government workers founded the National Workers Union (UNT). 
Chavez is responsive to its rights and equitable demands.

HRW: Chavez has been "aggressively adversarial....to local rights 
advocates and civil society organizations."

VIO: Chavez is responsive to local leaders. Promotes the creation of 
community councils to address their own needs and find solutions free 
from federal government control and influence. The idea is democracy 
at the grassroots, and it works.

VIO concludes that HRW systematically mischaracterizes the Chavez 
government. Wrongly accuses it of political discrimination and 
targeting opponents. The truth is mirror opposite even to the extent 
of pardoning coup plotters and promoting open dialogue.

In addition, Venezuela has a vibrant and improving participatory 
democracy, anchored at the grassroots. Each government branch 
provides "strong checks and balances" against the others. The nation 
is a free and open society. The Bolivarian Constitution respects and 
guarantees human and labor rights for all Venezuelans equally. Social 
ones also, including healthcare, education, food, housing, jobs, 
security and more.

In its biased and inaccurate account, HRW reports none of this and 
all other impressive achievements under Chavez. Doing so would offend 
its corporate and other backers. They want Chavez ousted. 
Bolivarianism ended, and Venezuela returned to its past. HRW is an 
imperial agent. On board to make it happen.

Targeting Latin American Democracy

Subversion in Venezuela and possible civil war in Bolivia threaten 
Latin America's democracy. Fascists never rest and now control five 
of Bolivia's richest states, according to long-time regional expert, 
James Petras. They "forcefully oust(ed) all national officials, 
murder(ed), injur(ed) and assaulted leaders, activists and voters who 
have backed the (Morales) national government - with total impunity."

Why so? Because, in nearly three years in office, Evo Morales tried 
to bargain with the far right. Be conciliatory and compromising. Back 
down from even "the mildest social reforms." Favor business over 
progressive social change in spite of winning a nearly 70% majority 
in an August 10 recall election. Allowed the opposition to be 
"aggressive(ly) violent." Seize power in Santa Cruz, Pando, Beni, 
Tarija and Chuquisaca. Rule by thuggery and intimidation. Head the 
country toward fascism. Erase the few social reforms achieved in the 
past three years. Hand the country back to oligarchs and their 
Washington bosses.

Threaten to take the model to Venezuela. End the region's most 
impressive participatory democracy. Its social gains, and a leader 
who's committed to improving them. Stand up against the same dark 
forces targeting Bolivia. Refuses to surrender the way Morales has 
done. Share power with the fascist right. Give in to their demands. 
Back their neoliberal agenda. Betray the people who elected him 
overwhelmingly. And face the possibility of what Michel Chossudovsky 
calls the "Kosovo Option."

Break up Bolivia by the Yugoslav model. Use extreme violence to do 
it. It made Kosovo an independent state. Planning the same scheme for 
Bolivia's resource-rich states. Perhaps the same fate for Venezuela 
and extinguishing all Latin American democracy.

A very disquieting option. Unthinkable but possible under the current 
US administration and which ever new one succeeds it. More 
conceivable given a shaky world economy and how that distracts away 
from politics. Even the most destructive kind. Allowing democracy to 
be lost without even noticing.

Unlikely? Who back in summer 2007 imagined the kind of financial 
crisis that emerged. A potential economic armageddon. An 
unprecedented situation with no rules around to address. The 
possibility that nothing can stop a meltdown. And if it happens that 
democracy may go with it.

Preventing a similar Latin America outcome is crucial. Confronting 
the region's dark forces to stop them. Understanding, as Petras 
states, that "you cannot 'make deals' with fascists." You don't 
defeat them "through elections and concessions to their big 
property-owning paymasters." You confront them head on. Forcefully. 
Expose and denounce them. Ally with a democratic constituency and 
beat down their threat that's real, menacing and must be stopped or 
its heading everywhere. Maybe sooner than anyone imagines.

Some hopeful signs, however, are present, and maybe more will follow. 
In mid-September, nine South American presidents held a crisis summit 
in Santiago, Chile and expressed "their full and firm support for the 
constitutional government of President Evo Morales (and) reject(ed) 
and will not recognize any situation that attempts a civil coup (or) 
rupture of (Bolivia's) territorial integrity." Let's hope they mean 
what they say and will back their words with resoluteness. Except for 
Chavez away on foreign tour, they met again on September 24 at the UN 
in New York to continue discussions.

In addition, on September 17, the National Coalition for Change 
(CONALCAM indigenous, campesino and urban movements) signed a pact 
with the Bolivian Workers Central (COB) to "defend the unity of the 
homeland that is being threatened by a civil coup lead by terrorists 
and fascists" directed out of Washington.

Events are fast-moving. They affect Venezuela and the region, and 
Roger Burbach, Director of the Center for the Study of the Americas 
(CENSA), reports that 20,000 miners, peasants and coca growers 
marched on Santa Cruz. The "bastion of the right wing rebellion" 
against Morales. He calls it a "popular upheaval" sweeping the 
country. But it's too soon to predict an outcome, and much to worry 
about given Morales' weak-kneed approach and reluctance to be as 
resolute as his supporters. Burbach calls it "restraint." For Petras, 
it's capitulation, surrender, and a doomed strategy.

But not if mass protests can help it with Joel Guarachi, head of the 
National Confederation of Peasant Workers, saying 600,000 protesters 
are located throughout the 16 Santa Cruz provinces alone. Venezuelans 
share a common interest and may react the same way if Bolivarianism 
and their president are threatened.

Let's hope so. With a few months left in office, the Bush 
administration may be unleashing its last hurrah in Latin America. A 
"hail Mary" effort to reclaim the region. Remove its weak democracies 
in countries like Bolivia and strong ones in Venezuela. And do it in 
the face of overwhelming domestic problems at home and lost wars 
abroad. Will it work? Not if Bolivians and Venezuelans have anything 
to say about it, and they're saying plenty. Stay tuned.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on 
Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached 
<mailto:lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net>lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The 
Global Research News Hour on Republic Broadcasting.org Mondays from 
11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with 
distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Links:
[1] mailto:lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net
Printed: September 25th 2008, http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3831
License: Published under a Creative Commons license (by-nc-nd). See 
creativecommons.org for more information.




Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20080925/1e303716/attachment.htm>