Category Archives: Bill of Rights

US Justice Department corruption, Voter intimidation, New Black Panther case dismissal, Blagojevich trial, Citizen Wells open thread, July 2, 2010

US Justice Department corruption, Voter intimidation, New Black Panther case dismissal

I am watching the Rod Blagojevich trial unfold. I have been monitoring this since before the Tony Rezko trial ended. There were many disturbing signs well before the Blagojevich trial began. Many of us questioned Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department. Now we have J. Christian Adams and Bartle Bull speaking out, lending credence to our concerns. I have more thoughts on the Blagojevich trial that I will commit to words soon. 

Remain vigilant and keep reporting.

Wells.

Bartle Bull interview, Obama a hustler, Megyn Kelly, Fox News, I didn’t like Obama from the beginning

Bartle Bull interview, Obama a hustler, Megyn Kelly, Fox News

Bartle Bull, a lifelong Democrat and civil rights activist, was interviewwed by Megyn Kelly of Fox News today, July 1, 2010. Mr. Bull reacted to J Christian Adams resignation and statements about the US Justice Dept. dropping the lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party. Bartle Bull was also a witness to the voter intimidation by the Black Panthers in 2008. Mr. Bull had this to say about Obama.

“I didn’t like Obama from the beginning,
I thought he was a hustler
and I think he still is.”

Bartle James interview

J Christian Adams resignation, US Justice Dept. corrupt?, Biased?, Fox News coverage, Citizen Wells open thread, July 1, 2010

J Christian Adams resignation, US Justice Dept. corrupt?, Biased?, Fox News coverage

J. Christian Adams resigned recently as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department.

“The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”

From Citizen Wells yesterday

Fox News coverage yesterday

Fox News has more coverage of this story today.

Obama and US Justice Dept corruption, Obama agenda, Racial bias, New Black Panther Party case dismissed, USDOJ attorney J Christian Adams retires, Eric Holder

Obama and US Justice Dept corruption, Obama agenda, Racial bias, New Black Panther Party case dismissed

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”…2001 Barack Obama interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ

 

J. Christian Adams resigned recently as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department.

“On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter -intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”
“Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.
“The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ’s skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the “facts and law” did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let’s all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.

Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal – Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum – did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/25/inside-the-black-panther-case-anger-ignorance-and
What are the priorities of the US Justice Dept.?
Eric Holder recently addressed the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)

““The communities that we serve must see that the federal government is really committed to the impartial and aggressive enforcement of our nation’s laws, and these communities must know that we will do all that we can to enforce the law that protect our civil rights with the same vigor that we enforce the laws that protect our public safety.”

“Despite those comments, Holder dismissed default judgments that the Bush Justice Department had filed against Malik Shabazz and Jerry Jackson in January 2009.
 
The suit alleged that Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP), “managed, directed and endorsed” the incident, in which Jackson and a third defendant, Samir Shabazz, wore NBPP uniforms that included “black berets combat boots, bloused battle dress pants, rank insignia, (NBPP) insignia, and black jackets.”
 
Samir Shabazz also was accused by the Bush DOJ of having “brandished a deadly weapon,” described as a nightstick, and “pointed it at individuals” while the polls were open for voting in the presidential election.
 
Jackson accompanied Samir Shabazz throughout that activity, and both “made statements containing racial threats and racial insults” and made “menacing and intimidating gestures statements and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters.”
 
When the defendants did not respond to the complaint from the federal government, the Bush DOJ won default judgments against Jackson and Malik Shabazz, but Holder’s DOJ chose to dismiss them in May 2009.”
“Holder also assured ADC members attending the convention that hate crimes cases would be a priority of the Obama administration, and that it was working hard on a crime against Muslims in Florida.”
““Already, we have several investigations open under the new law, and I want you all to know that we are currently working with local law enforcement to investigate the recent pipe bomb attack on a Florida mosque.”
 
A pipe bomb exploded during evening prayers at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida on May 10. No one was injured inside the Jacksonville mosque, but police and the FBI are investigating it as a possible hate crime.
 
“This case is a top concern for the FBI,” Holder said.”

Read more:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/67171 
 

 

Fox News coverage

Disclose Act, June 24, 2010, Nancy Pelosi will schedule a vote, Pro gun organizations, Harry Reid, NRA exempt

Disclose Act, June 24, 2010, Nancy Pelosi will schedule a vote

I just received this from Dudley Brown of the National Association for Gun Rights.

“Reports are that Nancy Pelosi will schedule a vote tomorrow (Thursday, June 24) on the DISCLOSE Act, so you must act now to protect your gun rights.

Disclose would silence almost every pro-gun organization in America… Except the NRA.  In fact, the DISCLOSE Act was dead in the water until the NRA cut a deal to exempt itself (and a few big liberal groups like AARP and probably MoveOn.org) last week.

Please contact your Congressman right away and again Thursday at (202) 224-3121 or by email.

The goal of this draconian legislation is to make pro-freedom groups – like the National Association for Gun Rights – shut their mouths.   And without politicians who are held accountable, there’s almost no way to defend our gun rights.

As of early last week, this bill had a dicey future, but Pelosi, Reid and Schumer agreed to exempt the NRA (who is no longer opposing this bill because of their special deal).  That backroom deal made the bill much more likely to pass (which is, of course, why Dem leadership exempted the NRA).

In fact, Capitol insiders say Harry Reid may be the driving force for this exemption. Reid is in a very tough re-election race in Nevada, but the NRA has all but endorsed him (see the latest NRA magazine, with many flattering pictures of Reid).  If he’s held accountable for his bad votes on the gun issue, he will almost certainly lose – which is why he’d like to silence all of the pro-gun groups except the one that’s supporting him.   But that’s another story for another time.

You must act today to defeat this fiasco.

Your actions have stalled this bill, and made Democrat leadership delay the vote (in an attempt to avoid the maelstrom of conservative activists who have loudly voiced their opposition to this bill).

But now they’re emboldened by the calm in the storm.

We can’t let that happen.

You must call your Member of Congress today.

Yes, the NRA’s sell-out on this issue is epic.  But it seems they’re going to defend their deal until the bitter end.   It should not be forgotten, but we must put the heat on members of Congress.

Call your member of Congress today at (202) 224-3121 and/or send him/her an e-mail and tell him/her to oppose the DISCLOSE Act, regardless of the deal.

Also tell them that you will consider a vote for disclose as a vote against your gun rights (it is – what will we use to defend our gun rights with, if we don’t have the first amendment right to free speech?).

Call or e-mail their offices today, and send this to everyone you know.

Thank you for your activism,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director”

US Constitution, Ratified June 21, 1788, New Hampshire ratified, Congress shall never disarm any citizen, New Hampshire ratification made Constitution official

US Constitution, Ratified June 21, 1788, New Hampshire ratified

“Live Free or Die” …official motto of New Hampshire

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America….US Constitution

New Hampshire ratified the US Constitution on June 21, 1788, thus making the Constitution official.

“Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire, June 21, 1788. New Hampshire was the ninth state to do so, and with its ratification, the Constitution was officially in effect. New Hampshire’s ratification message included several suggested changes to the Constitution, including one which would said “Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.” The following text is taken from the Library of Congress’s copy of Elliot’s Debates.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_nh.html

From the National Archives.

“Ratification

By January 9, 1788, five states of the nine necessary for ratification had approved the Constitution–Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut. But the eventual outcome remained uncertain in pivotal states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. On February 6, withFederalists agreeing to recommend a list of amendments amounting to a bill of rights, Massachusetts ratified by a vote of 187 to 168. The revolutionary leader, John Hancock, elected to preside over the Massachusetts ratifying convention but unable to make up his mind on the Constitution, took to his bed with a convenient case of gout. Later seduced by the Federalists with visions of the vice presidency and possibly the presidency, Hancock, whom Madison noted as “an idolater of popularity,” suddenly experienced a miraculous cure and delivered a critical block of votes. Although Massachusetts was now safely in the Federalist column, the recommendation of a bill of rights was a significant victory for the anti-Federalists. Six of the remaining states later appended similar recommendations.

When the New Hampshire convention was adjourned by Federalists who sensed imminent defeat and when Rhode Island on March 24 turned down the Constitution in a popular referendum by an overwhelming vote of 10 to 1, Federalist leaders were apprehensive. Looking ahead to the Maryland convention, Madison wrote to Washington, “The difference between even a postponement and adoption in Maryland may . . . possibly give a fatal advantage to that which opposes the constitution.” Madison had little reason to worry. The final vote on April 28 63 for, 11 against. In Baltimore, a huge parade celebrating the Federalist victory rolled. through the downtown streets, highlighted by a 15-foot float called “Ship Federalist.” The symbolically seaworthy craft was later launched in the waters off Baltimore and sailed down the Potomac to Mount Vernon.

On July 2, 1788, the Confederation Congress, meeting in New York, received word that a reconvened New Hampshire ratifying convention had approved the Constitution. With South Carolina’s acceptance of the Constitution in May, New Hampshire thus became the ninth state to ratify. The Congress appointed a committee “for putting the said Constitution into operation.”

In the next 2 months, thanks largely to the efforts of Madison and Hamilton in their own states, Virginia and New York both ratified while adding their own amendments. The margin for the Federalists in both states, however, was extremely close. Hamilton figured that the majority of the people in New York actually opposed the Constitution, and it is probable that a majority of people in the entire country opposed it. Only the promise of amendments had ensured a Federalist victory.”

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html

More on the US Constitution:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

Harry Brown, Gun control, England, Criminals and totalitarian leaders always have guns, Open Thread, June 19, 2010

Harry Brown, Gun control, England, Criminals and totalitarian leaders

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”… Thomas Paine

 

First of all, I would like to thank my English ancestors for leaving England in the early 1700’s.

I watched the new movie “Harry Brown” last night. It stars one of my favorite actors, Michael Caine. As most of you know, guns are forbidden in England, unless, of course, you are a criminal. If you have any friends or acquaintances who are anti gun or inclined to follow our current totalitarian government down the path to slaughter, encourage them to see this movie.

DISCLOSE ACT, HR 5175, Friday vote, June 18, 2010, First Amendment Rights, Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act

I received the following in an email a few minutes ago with a request to “PLEASE email, fax, call and otherwise reach out to your House member to vote NO on this legislation.”

 “DISCLOSE ACT (HR 5175) is set for vote FRIDAY AM!!!”

The DISCLOSE Act
June 16, 2010
 
On the Citizens United decision: “This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom.  Today’s decision reaffirms that the Bill of Rights was written for every American and it will amplify the voice of average citizens who want their voices heard.”
 
– Wayne LaPierre, National Rifle Association, January 21, 2010
 
“The proposals in the ‘DISCLOSE Act’ (Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections) amount to nothing more than political posturing…This bill would create another bureaucratic layer of political speech regulation, which would punish small business owners and grassroots groups who lack the resources to comply with such onerous provisions.”
 
– Bradley Smith, Center for Competitive Politics Chairman and Former FEC Commissioner, 2000-2005
 
 
On April 29, 2010, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act.  The bill is a direct response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – a First Amendment victory in which the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year.  Simply put, the DISCLOSE Act will limit the political speech that was protected and encouraged by Citizens United. 
 
The DISCLOSE Act was marked up on Thursday, May 20, 2010, and may come to the floor later this week after rumors that the Democrats have reached an agreement with certain key groups.  This is not meant to be an extensive analysis – which will be provided in the Legislative Bulletin once the bill comes to the floor – but rather to highlight some of the most egregious provisions of the bill.
 
Partisan ploy to get Democrats elected to Congress.  The bill, “coincidentally” sponsored by the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in charge of electing Democrats to Congress, re-writes campaign finance laws in favor of Democrats right before elections.  It was crafted behind closed doors with no input from Republican members of the House Administration Committee.  The bill was designed by Democrats to silence their political opponents.
 
Creates a special, narrow carve-out for specific organizations intended to sway votes toward passage of the bill.  The National Rifle Association (NRA), the Humane Society, and possibly a very small number of other groups, are reportedly covered in a last minute deal that creates an exemption from the financial disclosure requirements in the bill.  This carve out does nothing to protect the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans who want to engage in the political process but will instead be deterred by this bill. As stated in a Wall Street Journal editorial this morning, “Creating a special exception for the NRA, and thereby assuring the Democrats ‘good grades’ on Second Amendment rights, eases the way for the bill to be passed. A failing grade on First Amendment rights is somebody else’s problem.”  The exemption is intended to make it easier for a bad bill to get the votes it needs to pass.
 
Favors unions over corporations.  Current law already bans foreign nationals from contributing to elections. See the RSC Policy Paper on Citizens United for more details. DISCLOSE makes current law much more restrictive and bans independent expenditures on activity by American corporations with 20% or more foreign ownership.  However, similar restrictions are not included for unions with foreign members or non-citizen members.  As eight former Federal Election Commissioners stated in a recent Wall Street Journal article, “… Disclose does not ban foreign speech but speech by American citizen shareholders of U.S. companies that have some element of foreign ownership, even when those foreigners have no control over the decisions made by the Americans who run the company.”  Additionally, the new threshold for reporting ($600 in donations for independent expenditures) will have little effect on unions whose members’ annual dues average much lower than $600.  This would preclude unions from having to report.  The bill also prohibits independent expenditures or disbursing funds for electioneering communications by anyone with a government contract greater than $7 million.  (Originally, the threshold was $50,000, which was changed in mark-up.)  This does not apply to unions in collective bargaining agreements with the government.
 
Threatens organizations with lawsuits for non-compliance.  The bill becomes effective 30 days after enactment, giving the Federal Election Commission no time to craft regulations relating to the implementation of the bill, which will certainly be complicated, and not to mention expensive, to execute.  Organizations would have to operate without any guidance from the FEC and risk possible lawsuits.
 
Onerous disclosure and reporting requirements will deter citizen engagement.  The bill includes requirements that every incorporated entity engaged in independent campaign activity must list all donors of $600 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).  The bill also requires CEOs of organizations to appear in the ads, and state their name and their organization two times.  Additionally, the top five funders of the organization must be listed in the ad (and top two for radio), and if there is a top “significant” funder, he or she must identify himself or herself, his or her title,  and state the name of the organization three times in the ad. These tedious and onerous requirements will have the effect of deterring organizations from getting involved in elections (and potentially take up most of the ad time). 
 
 
Citizens United was a triumph in defense of the First Amendment right to free speech and a reaffirmation of the rights of businesses, unions, and citizens’ associations to engage in political communications.  The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite, and the business community knows it.  This bill is an attack on the ability of non-party organizations to engage in the political realm during an election year. 
 
RSC Staff Contact: Natalie Farr, natalie.farr@mail.house.gov, (202) 226-0718

FTC increase funding of PBS, PBS left wing statements, How to Speak Tea Bag, Open thread, June 13, 2010

FTC increase funding of PBS, PBS left wing statements, How to Speak Tea Bag
“The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”…. Louis D. Brandeis

From the FTC document
“POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT
THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM”
“The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 created and provided funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which oversees both the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).”
“According to CPB, “the fundamental purpose of public service media is to provide programs and services that inform, enlighten and enrich the public… CPB invests in programs and services that are educational, innovative, locally relevant and reflect America’s common values and cultural diversity.””
“Various commentators agree that CPB funding needs to be increased,90 and many believe that NPR and PBS stations need to build and maintain strong newsrooms at the state and local levels.91 NPR announced in October 2009 that it would launch a new journalism project to develop in-depth, local coverage on topics critical to communities and the nation. The project is being funded with $2 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1 million from the Knight Foundation. One speaker suggested that with additional federal funding, this initiative could be expanded.92 The president and CEO of NPR explained that this project will “beef up local online content at the station level” and will be done in “partnership with other public media players [and] new not-for-profits.””

http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf
From Citizen Wells January 5, 2010
“NPR Shows Everyone How to Speak ‘Tea Bag’… with OUR Money”
“But what happens when the so-called “humor” crosses the line? It’s one thing to make fun of someone, but trying to discredit an entire movement of frustrated Americans and doing it with taxpayer money is something entirely different. How much longer are we going to continue to fund left-wing propaganda with OUR money? Just look at the NPR web site for their latest “humor” directed at the hundreds of thousands of “Tea Party” activists across the country.
Prominently displayed on the National Public Radio (NPR) web site is a new cartoon titled, “Learn To Speak Tea Bag.” Of course, Tea Party activists don’t ever use the term “tea bag,” a phrase that refers to a sexual act and which has been used by the media to demean the entire tea party movement.”

Read more

Publisher’s Warning Label, US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Wilder Publications, US Constitution Hall of Shame

Publisher’s Warning Label, US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Wilder Publications

I hope and pray that what’s left of our free market economy remedies this sick situation.

The latest inductee into the US Constitution Hall of Shame

From Canada Free Press June 10, 2010.

“Publisher’s Warning Label: That Constitution and Declaration is No Longer Valid Thinking”

“A Virginia-based publisher has decided that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and other founding books are likely offensive and they want their readers to understand that these old documents are no longer valid ways of thinking. And so the publisher, Wilder Publications, has put a warning label on its reprints of America’s founding documents and books to shield American’s delicate sensibilities.
The warning label reads, “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”

The warning labels appear on copies of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, as well as other founding books and documents the company reprints.

FoxNews was not able to elicit a comment from Wilder Publications and the webpage of the company seems to feature a lot of self-published type stuff, so big time it is not.

But, looking at the New Agie stuff the company prints, I’d say that we are dealing with a bunch of left-wingers that really do find America’s founding documents unacceptable. It is also pretty plain that they do not have the first grasp of what those very founding ideas mean or why they are so amazing.”

“If you wish to contact Wilder Publications:

A & D Publishing
PO Box 3005
Radford, VA 24143-3005
http://www.wilderpublications.com

Wilder Publications also has a few listings of its founding documents on Amazon.com. You might enjoy reading the comments excoriating this company for its decision to add the warning label. You may even feel disposed to add you own to the mix, too.”

Read more:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24102

Here are some Amazon links:
http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Declaration-Independence-Confederation-ebook/product-reviews/B00154ZIXO/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
 

http://www.amazon.com/CONSTITUTION-AMENDMENTS-DECLARATION-INDEPENDENCE-CONFEDERATION/product-reviews/1441419500/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
 

A review on Amazon:

“As a 28 Year Veteran of the U.S. Navy I am totally offended and repulsed by Wilder Publications “Warning Lable/Advisory”. If they ave a problem with these Important and Historical Documents WHY BOTHER TO PUBLISH THEM!!!!! Having found out about their attitude towards these Documents, I WILL NEVER KNOWINGLY BY ANYTHING FROM THIS COMPANY!!!!! I am VERY disappointed Amazon is carrying their products!!!! I will NEVER recommend anything this company produces!!!! I would have rated this but your rating doesn’t go into the MINUS territory!!!! Sincerely, W.F. LYNES, ATCS (U.S.N. Retired)”

Thanks to commenter Philo-Publius.