Luke_Wilbur

The United States is a member of the Paris Club, an informal group of financial officials from 19 of the world's richest countries, which provides financial services such as debt restructuring, debt relief, and debt cancellation to indebted countries and their creditors. Debtors are often recommended by the International Monetary Fund after alternative solutions have failed. The following countries are permanent Paris Club members: AUSTRIA AUSTRALIA BELGIUM CANADA DENMARK FINLAND FRANCE GERMANY IRELAND ITALY JAPAN NETHERLANDS NORWAY RUSSIAN FEDERATION SPAIN SWEDEN SWITZERLAND UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/countries/co...EE=&INDICE_DET= Paris Club Creditors agreed to grant Iraq an additional tranche of debt reduction representing 20% of the initial stock upon completion of the last IMF Board review of three-years of implementation of standard IMF programmes. This debt treatment would reduce the total debt stock from 38.9 billion to 7.8 billion US dollars. The members of the Paris Club which participated in the reorganization of Iraq's debt were representatives of the governments of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

The 1981 Irish Hunger Strike was a campaign by Irish republican prisoners in Northern Ireland for the British government to grant them political status. It was a seminal event in modern Irish history. It radicalised nationalist politics, and was the midwife to Sinn Féin as a serious political force, which ultimately led to it overtaking the SDLP as the main nationalist party in Northern Ireland.

I think Iran calculated the timing of their action. The U.N. says it is purely automatic rotation by alphabetical order. But reality is that that this is five veto-wielding permanent UN Security Council members; United States, Britain, France, China and Russia. Germany seems to be the arbitrator of the 5+1 Group conference currently being held in Moscow. The European Union called for Iran to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, without pre-conditions, and bearing in mind the special coordinator’s report and the mandate for an ad-hoc committee contained therein. Here is a statement to the Conference on Disarmament by Manouchehr Mottaki, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I highlighted some key remarks worth discussing.

I hope the Democrats and Republicans do not. I think it would be bad for our country. We cannot have people lose faith in our leaders. That goes for both parties. The U.S. is a free and open society. We should welcome citizens from around the world who genuinely want to visit, study, and do business here. We should be dedicated to protecting their safety and keeping our doors open to them. The greatest import the United States has is creative minds.

It is my opinion that the problem does not lie on either the Democratic or Republican parties on most issues. Rather, the problem is that our political leaders are not passionate about leading and preserving the people's trust. It is my opinion that that both parties need to reform their principle platforms before meddling with an issue on which the country was founded. Right now the Republican National Committee (RNC) is failing its responsiblity for promoting presidential immigration goals. This is because the party members do not believe in an Executive branch which they have no control over. George Bush is not King George that dictates over the people. George Bush is the President that works for the people. Sometimes he clearly forgets that. Republicans must ask themselves whether George Bush is capable of still leading our country. The safe bet is to wait it out until after the elections. Maybe they can convince President Bush to offer to step down from office to benifit the party. I am sure if he did that Republicans would follow him on any battle. If Bush gets impeached. Then John McCain is the current people's choice. He is gained Americas thanks by receiving a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart, and a Distinguished Flying Cross. The Military respects him. Congress Respects him. Business respect him. Democrats respect him. Republicans believe that good government is based on the individual and family, that each persons ability, dignity, freedom and responsibility must be honored and recognized. Our basic freedom, the value that makes our country unique in the world is rooted in Free Enterprise and the basic right to Private Property. The role of Government is to preserve and defend our ability to live in a free, peaceful, and healthy society. Republicans reaffirm the words of our founding fathers as written in the Declaration of Independence: WE hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed. Our Republic was founded as one nation under God on principles clearly set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in our Constitution. Government must practice fiscal responsibility, while individual citizens should enjoy an atmosphere of free enterprise, with government regulation that nurtures our social and physical environment. Excessive taxation is a loss of personal freedom if it does not directly benefit the taxpayer. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn allows opportunity and wealth created in the private sector to give hope and relief to those ill-served by government, and gives families and communities the resources to confront wider social problems. Economic opportunity should include: Reducing taxes and fees on individuals. Reducing excessive regulation on businesses. Examining government regulations to ensure they reflect the intent of the law. Enhancing international trade. Establishing and growing secure, green based energy resources within our nation's borders. Promoting America's Labor Force and products made in the USA Permiting lmmigration within our welfare carrying capacity

I think oil is one facet, but it by no means is the whole story. By itself, Iranian's looking for fuel alternatives may not be alarming, but a new nuclear superpower that works against the interests of freedom, free trade, and glo­bal stability is now becoming a reality. Take the remarks by the newly electioned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad questioning the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map." Iran has threatened that if there is any U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide. Senate foreign relations committee chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) said Iran, as the world's fourth-largest supplier of oil, was "part of the energy picture" and urged President George W. Bush to play "cool" and seek direct negotiations. The Bush administration has taken a multilateral approach through the UN Security Council which has the power to impose sanctions against Tehran. Mr Lugar said it was too soon to press hard for sanctions aimed at halting Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program even as the Bush administration prepares to do so at a meeting in Moscow today. "I believe, for the moment, that we ought to cool this one. We need to make more headway diplomatically," Mr Lugar said. Oil has been driven to fresh highs while other commodity prices have hit 20-year records as dealers worry about the deteriorating political situation between the US and Iran. In New York, the stock markets were weak in early trading, the Dow dropping to 11089.66, the S&P to 1285.70 and the Nasdaq to 2312.25, as the oil worries overshadowed strong earnings figures from the likes of Citigroup. Leading Republican and Democratic senators have urged the Bush administration to engage Iran in full-scale talks, but in an interview with the Guardian Mr Khalilzad made it clear that the talks would be limited to Iraq. The US wanted Iran to halt aid to Iraq's sectarian militias, and stop smuggling al-Qaida fighters and weapons across the border, he said. Here is a recent satellite image of the Natanz site, one of Irans nuclear facilities.

Here is some thoughts from an SEO professional on DCpages. Hopefully this will help you with your web site.

I know that Dogpile.com, WebCrawler.com, and MetaCrawler.com as well as the online directory sites InfoSpace.com and Switchboard.com are owned by one company. InfoSpace also powers private-label search, along with online yellow and white pages, for a variety of Web sites. I removed my toolbar and found frazoo stays on. I just want to know who owns Frazoo?

Welcome to InfoSpace, Inc.'s ("InfoSpace") Downloadable Toolbar! This Membership and License Agreement ("Agreement") describes the terms and conditions that govern your use of the Downloadable Toolbar service and software (collectively, the "Downloadable Toolbar") and any InfoSpace and third-party content and software accessible through or with the Downloadable Toolbar Web Site. BY INSTALLING OR USING THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR, THE INDIVIDUAL LICENSING THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR ("MEMBER" OR "YOU") CONSENTS TO BE BOUND BY THIS AGREEMENT AND ALL APPLICABLE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES WHICH MAY BE UPDATED FROM TIME TO TIME AND POSTED ON THE INFOSPACE WEB SITE LOCATED AT http://www.infospace.com/home/ OR ANY SUCCESSOR TO IT ("DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR WEB SITE"). ALL SUCH POLICIES AND GUIDELINES ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE FOREGOING, DO NOT REGISTER FOR, INSTALL, OR USE THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR. IF YOU HAVE ALREADY REGISTERED OR INSTALLED THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR, IMMEDIATELY TERMINATE YOUR USE OF THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR. 1. Acceptance of Participation Terms The Downloadable Toolbar is provided to you under the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any policies or guidelines applicable to the Downloadable Toolbar that may be posted by InfoSpace on the Downloadable Toolbar Web Site from time to time. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, any new features or software that augment or enhance the current version of the Downloadable Toolbar, including, without limitation, upgrades, fixes or enhancements, shall be subject to this Agreement. 2. License a. InfoSpace grants to Member a limited, revocable, non-exclusive and non-transferable license to reproduce and use solely for personal purposes the executable code version of the Downloadable Toolbar software. This license does not entitle Member to receive from InfoSpace any hard-copy documentation, technical support, telephone assistance, or enhancements or updates to the Downloadable Toolbar. b. Except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Agreement, Member may not: (i) modify or create any derivative works of the Downloadable Toolbar or any documentation furnished in connection with it; (ii) decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code for any of the Downloadable Toolbar (except to the extent applicable laws specifically prohibit such restriction); (iii) redistribute, encumber, sell, rent, lease, sublicense, or otherwise transfer rights to any of the Downloadable Toolbar; (iv) remove or alter any trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notices, legends, symbols or labels in the Downloadable Toolbar; or (v) agree with anyone to do any of the foregoing. 3. Member Responsibilities Member shall: a. Represent only himself or herself on the Downloadable Toolbar, and no other persons, living, dead, or imagined. The Downloadable Toolbar may only be used by natural persons (i.e., individuals) who are at least 18 years of age and on their own behalf and not by or on behalf of any entity unless explicitly permitted by InfoSpace in writing. b. Provide true, accurate, current and complete information to InfoSpace, including, but not limited to, information required for registration to use the Downloadable Toolbar, and maintain and promptly update such information to keep it accurate, current and complete. c. Provide all equipment necessary to access the World Wide Web and pay any service fees associated with such access. d. Maintain the security of Member's personal information, including, without limitation, account and login information, passwords and financial information. e. Not use the Downloadable Toolbar to: - Publish or distribute any defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent or unlawful material or information; - Defame, abuse, harass, threaten or violate the legal rights of others; - Send unsolicited e-mail; - Engage in any commercial purpose, including, but not limited to, advertising or offering to sell any goods or services; - Upload files that contain viruses, corrupted files, or any other similar software or programs that may damage the operation of another's computer; - Upload files that contain software or other material protected by intellectual property laws (or by rights of privacy) unless Member owns or controls the rights thereto or has received all necessary consent; - Delete or modify any author attributions, legal notices or other proprietary designations or labels in any file that is uploaded; - Falsify the origin or source of software or other material contained in a file that is uploaded; - Download any file that Member knows, or reasonably should know, cannot be legally distributed via the Downloadable Toolbar; - Reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell, distribute, publish or exploit for any commercial purpose the software, products or services provided by the Downloadable Toolbar or InfoSpace or obtained from the Downloadable Toolbar Web Site without obtaining the express, prior written consent of InfoSpace (this restriction includes any attempt to incorporate any information from the Downloadable Toolbar into any other directory, product, or service); or - Collect or store personal data about others. 4. Termination In its sole discretion, InfoSpace may terminate this Agreement and all or any of the rights granted hereunder or prohibit or suspend access to the Downloadable Toolbar by Member at any time, without prior notice or liability to Member. Termination or suspension may occur, without limitation, if: (a) Member's use of the Downloadable Toolbar violates this Agreement or any applicable policy or guideline, is potentially illegal or harmful to InfoSpace or any other party, or could subject InfoSpace to liability or additional expense; ( providing all, or any of, the Downloadable Toolbar becomes technically or commercially unfeasible; or © Member fails to pay any charges due to InfoSpace or any of its affiliates or partners. Member may terminate this Agreement at any time by ceasing all use of the Downloadable Toolbar and deleting all copies of it in Member's possession or control. The following sections will survive termination of this Agreement: Section 9 (Site Links and Content); Section 11 (Proprietary Rights); Section 12 (Disclaimer of Warranties); Section 13 (Limitation of Liability); Section 14 (Indemnification); Section 15 (Export); and Section 18 (General). 5. Security Member agrees to immediately notify InfoSpace of any unauthorized use of Member's account or any other breach of security known to Member. InfoSpace reserves the right to send e-mail to Member for the purpose of informing him or her of changes or additions to the Downloadable Toolbar or of any InfoSpace related products and services. 6. Modifications to the Downloadable Toolbar InfoSpace reserves the right to modify or discontinue the Downloadable Toolbar at any time in its sole discretion without notice to Member, and InfoSpace shall not be liable to Member or any third party for exercising such right. 7. Enforcement InfoSpace may investigate any reported violation of this Agreement, its policies and guidelines or any complaints and take any action that it deems appropriate under the circumstance to protect its systems, facilities, members and/or third parties. InfoSpace's actions may include, but are not limited to, issuing warnings, suspension or termination of the Downloadable Toolbar, and/or removal of or disabling access to content hosted on InfoSpace's systems. InfoSpace reserves the right and has absolute discretion to remove or disable access, screen or edit any content that violates these provisions or is otherwise objectionable. InfoSpace also reserves the right to report any activity that it suspects violates any law or regulation to appropriate law enforcement officials, regulators, or other appropriate third parties. 8. Changes to Fees and Service InfoSpace reserves the right to charge fees at any time for access to, or use of, the Downloadable Toolbar. If InfoSpace so elects, it shall notify Member via e-mail or such other means as InfoSpace may elect and shall post notices in other appropriate locations on the Downloadable Toolbar Web Site. 9. Site Content and Links a. The Downloadable Toolbar may contain links and pointers to Internet sites maintained by third parties. InfoSpace does not operate or control in any respect any information, products or services on such third-party sites. Third party links and pointers are included solely for the convenience of users, and do not constitute any endorsement by InfoSpace and/or its suppliers. Member assumes sole responsibility for use of third party links and pointers and any products, services, content or other materials obtained on or through any such sites. b. InfoSpace does not control the content posted via the Downloadable Toolbar by third parties and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such content or make any representations or warranties about it. Member understands that by using the Downloadable Toolbar he or she may be exposed to content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will InfoSpace be liable in any way for any such content, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any content, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any such content posted, e-mailed or otherwise transmitted via the Downloadable Toolbar. c. Content provided by InfoSpace carries relevant copyright notices and attributions. InfoSpace will not be held liable for any of this information, nor any harm it might cause, nor for its accuracy or inaccuracy. d. Member acknowledges that InfoSpace neither endorses the contents of any Member communications nor assumes the responsibility for any threatening, libelous, obscene, harassing or offensive material contained therein, any infringement of third party intellectual property rights arising therefrom or any crime facilitated thereby. e. Member shall remain solely liable for any and all content that he or she uploads or transmits over InfoSpace's systems or equipment ("Member Content"). f. Subject to the terms of InfoSpace's then-current privacy policy, you grant InfoSpace a royalty- free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adopt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display the Member Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it into other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed. 10. Software a. Any software (other than the actual Downloadable Toolbar software) that is made available for download from the Downloadable Toolbar Web Site ("Software") is the copyrighted work of InfoSpace and/or its suppliers. Use of the Software is governed by the end user license agreement ("EULA"), if any, that accompanies or is included with the Software, except that the actual Downloadable Toolbar software shall be governed by the terms of this Agreement. End users shall not install or use any Software that is accompanied by or includes a EULA, unless the end user first agrees to the EULA. b. For any Software not accompanied by a EULA, InfoSpace hereby grants to Member a personal, limited, revocable, non-exclusive, and nontransferable license to use the Software to the same extent, and subject to the same terms and conditions, that Member can use the Downloadable Toolbar software as set forth in this Agreement. 11. Proprietary Rights. Title, ownership rights, and intellectual property rights in the Downloadable Toolbar shall remain in InfoSpace and/or its suppliers. Member acknowledges such rights and will not take any action to jeopardize, limit or interfere in any manner with InfoSpace's or its suppliers' ownership of such rights. The Downloadable Toolbar is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and by international treaties. Title and related rights in the content accessed through the Downloadable Toolbar is the property of the applicable content owner and is protected by applicable law. The license granted under this Agreement gives Member no rights to such content. 12. Disclaimer of Warranties a. INFOSPACE PROVIDES THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL CONTENT, SOFTWARE, AND MATERIALS ACCESSIBLE BY OR THROUGH THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR) TO MEMBER "AS IS," WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NONINFRINGEMENT; ANY WARRANTY THAT INFORMATION OBTAINED THROUGH THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR IS ACCURATE OR RELIABLE; ANY WARRANTY THAT THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR WILL MEET MEMBER'S REQUIREMENTS OR THAT ACCESS TO, OR USE OF, THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE OR ERROR-FREE. THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR REMAINS WITH MEMBER. b. Member understands and agrees that any material and/or data downloaded or otherwise obtained through the use of the Downloadable Toolbar is done at Member's own discretion and risk and that Member will be solely responsible for any damage to Member's computer system or loss of data that results from the download of such material and/or data. c. InfoSpace makes no warranty regarding any goods or services purchased or obtained through the Downloadable Toolbar or any transactions entered into through the Downloadable Toolbar. d. No advice or information, whether oral or written, obtained by Member from InfoSpace or any of its employees, agents or affiliates or through the Downloadable Toolbar shall create any warranty not expressly made herein. e. InfoSpace assumes no responsibility for the deletion or failure to store messages or other Member information. 13. Limitation of Liability INFOSPACE'S LIABILITY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO DIRECT, OBJECTIVELY MEASURABLE DAMAGES. INFOSPACE WILL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT OR SPECULATIVE DAMAGES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, AND SPECIAL DAMAGES) INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF USE, INJURY TO REPUTATION, BUSINESS INTERRUPTIONS, AND LOSS OF PROFITS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER INFOSPACE HAD ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH DAMAGES. INFOSPACE'S TOTAL LIABILITY TO MEMBER FOR ANY CLAIM ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR OR THIS AGREEMENT, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHER BASIS, SHALL NOT EXCEED $1,000. 14. Indemnification Member hereby releases, holds harmless, and indemnifies InfoSpace and its affiliates (and their respective employees, directors and representatives) against any and all claims, actions, proceedings, suits, liabilities, damages, settlements, penalties, fines, costs or expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation expenses), arising out of or relating to (a) the violation or breach of any term, condition, representation or warranty of this Agreement by Member; ( Member's use of the Downloadable Toolbar; or © Member's violation, alleged violation, or misappropriation of any intellectual property right (including, without limitation, trademark, copyright, patent, trade secrets) or nonproprietary right of a third party (including, without limitation, defamation, libel, violation of privacy or publicity). 15. Export Member agrees to comply with all laws, rules and regulations now existing or hereafter enacted regarding the transmission/export of technical data applicable to Member's use of the Downloadable Toolbar, including the United States Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 16. Modifications InfoSpace reserves the right to change or modify any of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement or any applicable policy or guideline, at any time and in its sole discretion. Any changes or modifications will be effective upon posting on the Downloadable Toolbar Web Site and may be posted without notice to Member. Member is responsible for regularly checking the Downloadable Toolbar Web Site for any changes or modifications. IF ANY SUCH CHANGE OR MODIFICATION IS UNACCEPTABLE TO MEMBER, HIS OR HER ONLY RECOURSE IS TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT. CONTINUED USE OF THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR BY MEMBER FOLLOWING INFOSPACE'S POSTING OF ANY SUCH CHANGE OR MODIFICATION WILL CONSTITUTE ACCEPTANCE OF THE MODIFICATION OR CHANGE BY MEMBER. 17. Privacy InfoSpace's current privacy policy for the Downloadable Toolbar is posted on the InfoSpace Downloadable Toolbar Web Site at http://www.infospace.com/home/tbar/privacy.htm. The Downloadable Toolbar uses search results from dogpile.com, and its current privacy policy is posted at http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/help/privacy.htm. These privacy policies may be revised at any time in InfoSpace's sole discretion. MEMBER SHOULD CAREFULLY READ THESE PRIVACY POLICIES AND PERIODICALLY REVIEW THEM FOR ANY CHANGES OR UPDATES. BY USING THE DOWNLOADABLE TOOLBAR MEMBER AGREES TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE POSTED VERSIONS OF THE PRIVACY POLICIES, WHICH ARE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE HEREIN. 18. General a. The Agreement comprises the entire agreement between Member and InfoSpace regarding the Downloadable Toolbar, and supersedes all prior agreements between the parties regarding the Downloadable Toolbar. b. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Washington without reference to its choice of law rules to the contrary. Member hereby irrevocably consents to personal jurisdiction and venue in the state and federal courts located in King County, Washington with respect to any actions, claims or proceedings arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, and agrees not to commence or prosecute any such action, claim or proceeding other than in the aforementioned courts. c. Member shall at all times comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding the use of the Downloadable Toolbar. Member shall indemnify and save InfoSpace harmless from his or her failure to so comply. Member agrees that InfoSpace shall not have to perform any obligations set forth in this Agreement if such performance would violate any present or future law, regulation or policy of any applicable government. d. InfoSpace is not the agent, fiduciary, trustee or other representative of Member. Nothing expressed or mentioned in or implied from this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to give to any person other than the parties hereto any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or in respect to this Agreement. e. Should any term or provision hereof be deemed invalid, void or unenforceable either in its entirety or in a particular application, the remainder of this Agreement shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect and, if the subject term or provision is deemed to be invalid, void or unenforceable only with respect to a particular application, such term or provision shall remain in full force and effect with respect to all other applications. Further, if any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the parties nevertheless agree that the court should endeavor to give effect to the parties' intentions as reflected in the provision and the other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. f. Member agrees regardless of any statute or law to the contrary that any claim or cause of action arising out of or relating to use of the Downloadable Toolbar or this Agreement must be filed within one (1) year after such claim of action arose or be forever barred. g. InfoSpace's failure to enforce the strict performance of any provision of this Agreement will not constitute a waiver of InfoSpace's right to subsequently enforce such provision or any other provisions of this Agreement. h. Member may not assign this Agreement, by operation of law or otherwise, without InfoSpace's prior written consent. InfoSpace may assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement without Member's consent. Subject to that restriction, this Agreement will be binding on, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable against the parties and their respective successors and assigns. i. Any notice you make to InfoSpace must be made by either e-mail or regular mail and will be effective only upon receipt. 19. Copyrights and Copyright Agents InfoSpace respects the intellectual property of others, and asks its Members to do the same. If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, please provide InfoSpace's Copyright Agent the following information: a. an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright interest; b. a description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed; c. a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the site; d. your address, telephone number, and e-mail address; e. a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; f. a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf. InfoSpace's Copyright Agent for Notice of claims of copyright infringement can be reached as follows: By mail: Legal Department, InfoSpace 601 108th Ave. NE, Suite 1200, Bellevue, WA 98004

BFrank, You are quite right. And violating members have been blocked according to the guidelines. What is Hands in DC all about? Truthseeker, I apologize if I did not communicate clearly. I expect to know nothing more than what people post on these boards. I appreciate people taking the time to post informative articles and opinions on what is going on in our community. I also want to remind people that children do read these boards as well.

There are important issues that need to be solved in the District. But, it seems no one really wants to discuss them. The reality is that people are more interested in someone's character or beliefs than what he/she is planning to do to help improve the community. I challenge everyone that is participating in this forum to put aside their differences and post issues that will help our citizens here locally. Human is one member that does that all the time. We may not agree on every issue, but I respect the relevance of the topics posted by this member. Maybe we can all work together on a project. My friends and I were talking about spending a few hours to clean a portion of the Potomac River. If you would like to participate or have a better idea just let everyone here know. Just think about it.

Human, I really think that you are right. Here is a factoid. Did you know that since 2000, there has been a free flow of people across the US-Canada border with over 200 million crossings by US and Canadian citizens each year. Since the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement of 1988, businessmen and professionals from both countries have been able to cross on a daily basis without visas. In year 2000, President Vicente Fox of Mexico advocated the idea of free flow of people across the US-Mexico border as a second phase of NAFTA, which would be completed in ten years. In May 2005, President Fox stated in a new interview, "There is no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States". A new report from the San Diego Association of Governments says the time trucks spent waiting at the Otay Mesa and Tecate border crossings last year cost the local binational economy $6 billion in lost business and more than 51,000 jobs. My worry is that a more rigid U.S. immigration policy and Mexico's declining economy will propell Andrés Manuel López Obrador into the presidency and Mexico's free trade economic model will change to become a more protectionist reform policy. If this happens Mexico's economy will surely sink and America's economy will suffer like it did in 1995. I remember the Peso was not worth the ink and paper it was made with. The truth is that if America does not want to fall below Asia, we need think about stimulating the economies of our friends in Mexico, Central, and South America.

Please think about families and kids reading these boards.

Here are some main points I took from Patrick Fitzgerald's response to I. Lewis Libby's motion to obtain more government information. From Libby's account it appears that: 1. January 24, 2003 classifed report about Wilson’s trip is created for White House 2. Colin Powell may have shared information about Ms. Wilson with journalists while in Africa. 3. The White House needed to rebut Mr. Wilson’s statements about his trip and his conclusions 4. In June 2003, the Vice President disclosed Mrs. Wilson to Libby 5. In July 6, 2003 the Vice Presidents office viewed Mr. Wilson as a threat to the jusitification for war in Iraq. 6. President Bush authorized Libby to disclose the NIE to the media. 7. July 8, 2003 Libby was authorized to talk to Judith Miller about National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 8. Mr. Armitage may be the source for Novak's Article. 9. July 10 or 11, 2003 Karl Rove and Libby discuss Robert Novak’s story about Wilson 10. July 12, 2003, Libby was directed by the Vice President to speak about NIE and Wilson to media 11. July 12, Libby discusses Ms. Wilson’s employment with Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller 12. July 18, 2003 NIE is formerly declassified. 13. September 29, 2003, White House Press Secretary McClellan states President and VP know nothing. 14. October 4, 2003, McClellan states that Libby, Rove, and Elliot Abrams know nothing. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as “Scooter Libby” CR. NO 05-394 Against the backdrop of the limited charges in this indictment – that defendant lied to the grand jury and the Federal Bureau of Investigation about his acquisition and disclosures to the media of information concerning Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the Central Intelligence Agency – defendant’s latest discovery requests fail this test. The central issue at trial will be whether defendant lied when he testified that he was not aware that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA prior to his purported conversation with Tim Russert about Mr. Wilson’s wife on or about July 10, 2003. Mr. Grossman’s testimony is specifically relevant to show that defendant was told of Ms. Wilson’s employment and possible role in planning Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger in early June 2003. The anticipated testimony of the government’s CIA witnesses, Craig Schmall, a CIA briefer, and Robert Grenier, a former senior CIA official, and the testimony of the government’s sole White House witness, Ari Fleischer, will focus on conversations with defendant regarding Ms. Wilson which took place in June and early July 2003. Defendant argues that “Mr. Armitage or another State Department official was in fact the primary source for Mr. Novak’s article, Mr. Grossman’s testimony may be colored by either by his personal relationship with Mr. Armitage or his concern for the institutional interests of the State Department.” Nor has defendant established how “any notes from the September 2003 meeting in the Situation Room at which Colin Powell is reported to have said that (1) everyone knows that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that ( it was Mr. Wilson’s wife who suggested that the CIA send her husband on a mission to Niger.” Additionally, defendant asserts that he plans to question Secretary Powell concerning media reports regarding a document containing information regarding Ms. Wilson sent to Secretary Powell on Air Force One while Secretary Powell and others were en route to Africa between July 7 and July 12, 2003, and regarding the possibility that other government officials may have shared information about Ms. Wilson with journalists while in Africa. Defendant claims that Karl Rove will be a “key witness” in the trial, in that he will testify concerning a conversation with defendant on July 10 or 11, 2003 regarding Robert Novak’s intent to print a story regarding Ms. Wilson’s employment at the CIA, and that Stephen Hadley may “offer important testimony about discussions within the Administration concerning the need to rebut Mr. Wilson’s statements about his trip and his conclusions,” as well as “discussions about the need to declassify and disseminate the NIE” and George Tenet’s public statements regarding the “sixteen words.” The trial in this case necessarily will focus on whether or not defendant committed perjury. While defendant may prefer put the conduct of others on trial, he is not entitled to do so. Nor is defendant entitled to discovery so that he may examine witnesses at trial regarding their conduct and the conduct of others that is not germane to the issue of whether defendant lied and obstructed justice. Defendant claims that, in order to put the alleged events in context, and specifically to establish that Ms. Wilson played a “peripheral” rather than an important role in the controversy concerning the “sixteen words." All documents reflecting discussions within the government of whether to release a public statement during the week of July 7, 2003 regarding the inclusion of the “sixteen words” in the 2003 State of the Union Address, including all drafts of the July 11, 2003 statement issued by Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet. Though he might wish otherwise, this trial is not about the conduct or state of mind of persons other than defendant. Indeed, the state of mind of other individuals is of negligible value in determining whether defendant lied to the FBI and grand jury. In reality, it does not matter whether Ms. Wilson’s role was thought to be important or peripheral by anyone other than defendant and the discrete number of persons with and for whom he worked. In June 2003, when discussing Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger, the Vice President advised defendant that Ambassador Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division. The evidence will show that the July 6, 2003, Op Ed by Mr. Wilson was viewed in the Office of Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq. At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, defendant’s immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson’s trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife. And, in considering “context,” there was press reporting that the Vice President had dispatched Mr. Wilson on the trip (which in fact was not accurate). Disclosing the belief that Mr. Wilson’s wife sent him on the Niger trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion that the Vice President had done so, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson’s credibility if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism. Defendant’s participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller – getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval – were unique in his recollection. Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person’s state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engage in by the Vice President. Likewise, documents from other agencies that defendant never saw will not provide context for defendant’s grand jury testimony regarding these events. One of the key conversations that will be proved at trial took place between defendant and reporter Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel on the morning of July 8, 2003. Defendant testified in the grand jury that he and Miller did not discuss the CIA employment of Ambassador Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, on that occasion, and that he could not have done so because he had forgotten by that time that he had learned about Ms. Wilson’s employment a month earlier from the Vice President. Defendant further testified that when he spoke with reporter Tim Russert the following day, Russert informed him that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, and defendant was “taken aback.” Defendant testified that he thought that the information was new to him, and that he made sure not to confirm the information to Russert. Defendant thereafter testified that he repeated what he learned from Russert to other reporters (including Cooper and Miller) on July 12, taking care to caution those reporters that he did not know if the information were true or even if Ambassador Wilson even had a wife. As to the meeting on July 8, defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was “pretty definitive” against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was “very important” for the key judgments of the NIE to come out. Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document. Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE’s key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure” uranium. Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be disclosed. Defendant testified that one of the reasons why he met with Miller at a hotel was the fact that he was sharing this information with Miller exclusively. In fact, on July 8, defendant spoke with Miller about Mr. Wilson after requesting that attribution of his remarks be changed to “former Hill staffer.” Defendant discussed with Miller the contents of a then classified CIA report which defendant characterized to Miller as having been written by Wilson. Defendant advised Miller that Wilson had reported that he had learned that in 1999 an Iraqi delegation visited Niger and sought to expand commercial relations, which was understood to be a reference to a desire to obtain uranium. Later during the discussion about Wilson and the NIE, defendant advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Defendant understood that the Vice President specifically selected him to talk to the press about the NIE and Mr. Wilson on July 12, 2003, in place of then-Assistant to the President for Public Affairs, Cathie Martin, the usual press contact person from OVP. This is relevant to show the importance that defendant and his boss placed on the conversation concerning which he later testified. During his conversations with the press that day, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Thus, there is no way to present the relevant events concerning defendant’s discussions with reporters about Ms. Wilson without discussing defendant’s role in disseminating the key judgments of the NIE in those same conversations. According to defendant, at the time of his conversations with Miller and Cooper, he understood that only three people – the President, the Vice President and defendant – knew that the key judgments of the NIE had been declassified. Defendant testified in the grand jury that he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials – including Cabinet level officials – were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE, the report about Wilson’s trip and another classified document dated January 24, 2003. Given that, there is no reasonable possibility that the requested documents from agencies outside the Office of Vice President will shed any light on, or provide any “context” for, what defendant knew, thought and did at the time of his critical conversations. Defendant fails to mention, however, that he consciously decided not to make Mr. Hadley aware of the fact that defendant himself had already been disseminating the NIE by leaking it to reporters while Mr. Hadley sought to get it formally declassified. There is no reason to root around in the files of the NSC or CIA or State Department given that no one at any of those three agencies was aware of any declassification of the NIE prior to July 18, 2003. Defendant’s request for discovery to show an absence of motive to lie or conceal his conduct overlooks the fact that even the materials defendant appended to his motion show that in early October 2003 (when defendant first gave his story) there would be great embarrassment to the administration if it became publicly known that defendant had participated in disseminating information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment, and defendant would have had every reason to assume he would be fired if his true actions became known. Then National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleeza Rice publicly stated that she knew “nothing of any such White House effort to reveal any of this, and it would certainly not be the way the president would expect his White House to operate.” On September 29, 2003, the Washington Post reported that “two White House officials leaked the information to selected journalists to discredit Wilson.” (Washington Post, “Bush Aides Say They’ll Cooperate With Probe Into Intelligence Leak,” by Mike Allen, September 29, 2003). Also on September 29, 2003, White House Press Secretary McClellan stated that: There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration . . . I've made it clear that there's been nothing, absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office as well. When I'm talking about the White House, I'm talking about the Vice President's office as well. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030929-7.html During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment, defendant implored White House officials to have a public statement issued exonerating him. When his initial efforts met with no success, defendant sought the assistance of the Vice President in having his name cleared. Though defendant knew that another White House official had spoken to Novak in advance of Novak’s column and that official had learned in advance that Novak would be publishing information about Wilson’s wife, defendant did not disclose that fact to other White House officials (including the Vice President) but instead prepared a handwritten statement of what he wished White House Press Secretary McClellan would say to exonerate him: People have made too much of the difference in How I described Karl and Libby I’ve talked to Libby. I said it was ridiculous about Karl And it is ridiculous about Libby. Libby was not the source of the Novak story. And he did not leak classified information. As a result of defendant’s request, on October 4, 2003, White House Press Secretary McClellan stated that he had spoken to Mr. Libby (as well as Mr. Rove and Elliot Abrams) and “those individuals assured me that they were not involved in this.” Thus, as defendant approached his first FBI interview he knew that the White House had publicly staked its credibility on there being no White House involvement in the leaking of information about Ms. Wilson and that, at defendant’s specific request through the Vice President, the White House had publicly proclaimed that defendant was “not involved in this.” The President had vowed to fire anyone involved in leaking classified information. In that context, defendant proceeded to tell the FBI that he had merely passed information from one reporter (Russert) to other reporters while disclaiming any knowledge of whether the information he passed was true, and certainly unaware that he knew this classified information from government channels. Once that die was cast, defendant repeated the story in a subsequent interview and during two grand jury appearances. The government respectfully requests that the Court reconsider the ruling that OVP is “closely aligned” with the prosecution,11 and further asks that the Court find that the White House Office (also known as the Office of the President), the NSC, and the State Department are also not aligned with the prosecution.12 The pledge of cooperation with the investigation made by White House Counsel’s office in September 2003 does not and cannot dictate any alignment with the prosecution. A precedent holding that a pledge of cooperation dictates alignment for discovery purposes creates a serious disincentive for agencies to cooperate fully with Department of Justice investigations because such cooperation would potentially subject the agency to wide-ranging discovery requests by defendants and the need to litigate questions of privilege concerning agency documents and information. A finding of alignment based on that rationale would be unprecedented. 12For clarity, it is important to note the distinctions between the various government entities. The defendant describes the White House as including “the Executive Office of the President, the NSC and the OVP.” (Memo. at 18.) That is incorrect. The Executive Office of the President is the umbrella entity within which there are many additional components, such as the White House Office, the OVP, and the NSC, among others. Moreover, although the Department of Justice sought documents from various government entities by letter request in the initial stages of the investigation, as soon as Special Counsel became involved in January 2004, all documents were obtained through grand jury subpoenas. To the extent there was a steady flow of documents produced, that flow of documents was in response to a steady flow of subpoenas. A precedent holding that compliance with subpoenas aligns an agency with the prosecution creates a perverse incentive for an agency to attempt to quash any and all subpoenas it receives, or to otherwise avoid full compliance with grand jury subpoenas lest its cooperation deem it as part of the prosecution team with concomitant discovery obligations. Although OVP provided documents in response to subpoenas issued to it, it has not acted on the prosecution’s behalf in this investigation and is not closely connected to the prosecution. The same is true for the White House Office, the NSC, and the State Department – they provided documents in response to subpoenas, but they have not acted on the prosecution’s behalf and are not closely connected to the prosecution. Thus in the government’s view, neither the OVP, the White House Office, the NSC, nor the State Department are aligned with the prosecution, and documents in the physical possession of those entities are not within the government’s possession, custody or control. In the event that the Court declines to reconsider its prior ruling regarding OVP’s alignment with the prosecution, the government asks that the Court find that the White House Office, the NSC and the State Department are differently situated than OVP in terms of alignment. One distinction is that OVP was defendant’s primary employer, and, as a result, defendant likely had or could have had access to a large majority of, if not the entirety of, the OVP documents, including those that were ultimately produced by OVP to the prosecution. That is not the case with documents from other governmental agencies. Moreover, other than the fact that the White House, the NSC, and the State Department provided documents to the prosecution, defendant has offered no explanation in his brief as to why those entities should be considered aligned with the prosecution. Applying these principles to Rule 16, the Court should conclude that the prosecution does not have custody or control over material in the possession of the White House Office. It is a near impossibility that subordinate DOJ officers would have custody or control over material in the possession of the White House Office, which houses the President’s closest staff. The considerable potential for disrupting and complicating this litigation, as well as ongoing government functions, is a reason for this Court to exercise caution in finding alignment and in expanding discovery substantially beyond what is required by Rule 16, Jencks, and the Constitution. First, most of defendant’s requests implicate extensive classified information, while others raise issues of executive privilege. Many are so broadly drawn as to require production of large amounts of irrelevant material, and to require the disclosure of sensitive information about third parties who are not government witnesses and who could not provide information exculpatory of defendant. Second, virtually all of the information sought by defendant involves sensitive governmental policy deliberations at the highest levels of government. In such a context, this Court should be reluctant to order discovery beyond that which is reasonably related to the preparation of the defense to the charges in the indictment. Finally, as discussed above, the degree to which subpoenaed government entities complied with, rather than contested, subpoenas issued by independent investigators made it possible to conduct this investigation in very sensitive circumstances. Disclosure of materials well beyond that which is required under the Rules and necessary to the preparation of a defense may chill the willingness of future presidents and high-ranking government officials to assist criminal investigations of conduct by staff members holding sensitive positions. The government submits that these weighty considerations directly contradict defendant’s assertion that providing the documents defendant requests from the other agencies would pose no “significant burden.” (Memo. at 18.) Indeed, quite the opposite is true. PATRICK J. FITZGERALD Special Counsel Office of the United States Attorney Northern District of Illinois 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 353-5300 DC_CR._NO_05_394_Bush_Leak.pdf

Here is a video of the Democrats strategy for 2008. Republicans take note. http://www.flowgo.com/index.cfm?action=vie...6660&scid=10177

For the most part I am for the Immigration Reform Act, but I have a problem with sections 701 and 707. Given the current high workloads faced by America’s federal courts, it is all too likely that many immigrants’ appeals would never receive serious review from a judge and would be dismissed without any judicial consideration of their merits. Section 701 would direct all immigration appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, greatly increasing the workload of that court. The Federal Circuit has no experience with immigration, civil rights or related constitutional claims. That court currently hears only cases concerning patents, trademarks and veterans’ benefits. Section 707 of the bill would create a new barrier to judicial review of immigration appeals by instituting one-judge pre-screening of cases that get to the federal circuit court level. Under this provision, if the judge does not act on a case within 60 days, the case gets dismissed. If the judge does find the case meritorious, that judge would then issue a "certificate of reviewability" that allows the case to be heard by a three-judge panel.

I think it was interesting what Senator Barack Obama joked about the Democratic Party at the Gridiron Club roast President Bush and Cheney, also attend the roast, had a good belly laugh at that statement.

There is real humor in this. Persistency is a fool's best asset.

I wonder why the UN would make such a statement? ********************************************* South Korea said Wednesday it has set up a task force to seek the release of a South Korean fishing vessel that was captured by pirates off the coast of Somalia. The 628 Dongwon was seized Tuesday afternoon by eight armed assailants, who approached in two speed boats firing guns, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. All 25 crew members being held captive were confirmed safe, Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon told reporters. The captain and some of the crew members have been allowed to call company headquarters and their families in South Korea, he said. The crew includes eight South Koreans, nine Indonesians, five Vietnamese and three Chinese, according to the ministry. “We are still trying to figure out the identity of the kidnap group and they have yet to suggest conditions for negotiations,” Ban said. “We are devoting all possible efforts for (the crew’s) safe return.” South Korea has sent letters to the governments of Somalia and neighboring Kenya, Djibouti and Ethiopia asking for their cooperation in facilitating the crew’s release, Ban said. On Tuesday, two other South Korean fishing vessels in the area called for help, and nearby U.S. and Dutch naval ships tried to intervene, but gave up when the seized ship entered Somali territorial waters, the ministry said. Cmdr. Jeff Breslau, spokesman for the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet in Bahrain, said when the South Korean vessel turned toward Somali waters, the U.S. and Dutch ships tried to intercept it and fired warning shots in its direction. Members of the South Korean crew were seen on the deck with guns pointed at them, so the effort was broken off, he added. The seized ship is now at a port in northeastern Somalia, according to South Korea’s Foreign Ministry. http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1667286.php

I downloaded Dogpile browser pluggin on Windows Internet Explorer. I wanted to see if it would save time doing my research. It now appears that when my browser cannot find a website address (404 error) the browser gets pointed to Frazoo. Here is an example. When I type dm4uwear.com this what I get: http://plugin.secureservicepack.com:7777/S....dmg4uwear.com/ I found a removal tool for the Adaware. Manual removal: Uninstaller available at http://plugin.secureservicepack.com/iepluginuninstall.exe The Uninstaller does not work. Registered through: GoDaddy.com (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: SECURESERVICEPACK.COM Created on: 27-Jan-05 Expires on: 27-Jan-07 Last Updated on: 16-Nov-05 Administrative Contact: Private, Registration SECURESERVICEPACK.COM@domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 I then looked up domainsbyprox.com If you need to speak to a live person, call: (480) 624-2599. We're here 24 hrs a day - every day! I contacted domainsbyprox.com. This is spinoff of Goddaddy.com. The technical support at godaddy.com told me that the owner of SecureServicePack.com does not wish to be contacted. But he gave me an email to contact them. customerservice@secureservicepack.com

I am currently looking for a nice tree for my small backyard that will have year-round appeal. I have been recommended the following: Cherry Tree, Lilac, Serviceberry, flowering crabapple, fringe tree, redbud, and Japanes maples. I live here in the District. I also have a puppy German Shepard that like to dig and devour everything. Any suggestions would be helpful.

This is the message I have got from the Google Community Bigdaddy switch over happened: Bigdaddy did have have a big ranking change on our web site. I will have to ask Mr. Cutts about this. For those of you who do not know Googles definition of canonicalization: Google is also currently requesting site mapping for large web sites. But once again this is not a panacea that will get your pages crawled. Google is now penalizing any web sites that sell static advertisement links to other web sites.

That is an event I would like to go. What is the price to attend? How do I get there?

Hey Human, Thanks for posting a really good web site. Check out my new Spring flower photos. I think you will like them. http://dcpages.com/gallery/view_album.php?...e-in-Washington I went looking for planting ideas. Luke

The Bush administration agreed to talk to Iranian officials about the future of Iraq after a nearly three-decade break in diplomatic ties between the two countries. These talks to could open a valuable channel of communication between the two governments. President Bush should look at this like President Nixon did when he traveled to Beijing, China in 1972. At the conclusion of his trip, the United States and the People's Republic of China Governments issued the Shanghai Communiqué, a statement of their foreign policy views. The statement enabled the U.S. and China to temporarily set aside the "crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations" - Taiwan - and to open trade and other contacts. President Bush and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hold the keys to the success or failure of this initiative. They can either help or hinder the future of Iraq. A favorable outcome would make both leaders look like winners to their people and brings soldiers back home to loved ones.