WMD found in Colorado

[S. Sampson]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/25/nuns.missilesilo.ap/index.html

President "Bush has said weapons of mass destruction are horrible
and I agree," she said. "We haven't found any in Iraq, but we sure have
lot of them here."

[Ed Rasimus]

"S. Sampson" > wrote:

>http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/25/nuns.missilesilo.ap/index.html
>
>President "Bush has said weapons of mass destruction are horrible
>and I agree," she said. "We haven't found any in Iraq, but we sure have
>lot of them here."
>
The good sisters have been convicted and now sentenced. They knew what
they were doing was illegal and they went ahead with pre-meditation.
They've been doing it for years.

Somehow, they seem to ignore the years of the Cold War threat and the
resulting success of nuclear deterrence in defeating the Soviets and
leading to the demise of Communism. I'm sure the good sisters are
convinced as well that Sadaam was simply misunderstood and all those
bodies found in the mass graves in Irag died of the sniffles and were
buried together for social purposes.

I've got no sympathy. In fact, I'd like to turn the key on the foolish
old ladies.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[S. Sampson]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> I've got no sympathy. In fact, I'd like to turn the key on the foolish
> old ladies.

Those "ladies" have never paid taxes in their life. Now they want to get
free room and board so they can read their Bible and get 3 meals a day.

I would take them to a hard-labor prison and make them do manual labor.
Maybe build/paint fences around missile silos :-)

[Ed Rasimus]

"S. Sampson" > wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>>
>> I've got no sympathy. In fact, I'd like to turn the key on the foolish
>> old ladies.
>
>Those "ladies" have never paid taxes in their life. Now they want to get
>free room and board so they can read their Bible and get 3 meals a day.
>
>I would take them to a hard-labor prison and make them do manual labor.
>Maybe build/paint fences around missile silos :-)
>
I knew right away that I liked you.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[BUFDRVR]

>I've got no sympathy. In fact, I'd like to turn the key on the foolish
>old ladies.

Same women and a guy (who was called a priest in the media) tried their blood
and hammer thing on a BUFF at the Andrews AFB Open House back in '99. The crew
member who alerted the SP's probably saved one of the women some agonizing pain
as she was beating on the external fuel tank "drain valve" (not really a rain
valve as such, but a rubber plug that can, and has, dumped fuel on unsuspecting
airshow particpants before) while standing under it.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[John Keeney]

BUFDRVR > wrote in message
...
> >I've got no sympathy. In fact, I'd like to turn the key on the foolish
> >old ladies.
>
> Same women and a guy (who was called a priest in the media) tried their
blood
> and hammer thing on a BUFF at the Andrews AFB Open House back in '99. The
crew
> member who alerted the SP's probably saved one of the women some agonizing
pain
> as she was beating on the external fuel tank "drain valve" (not really a
rain
> valve as such, but a rubber plug that can, and has, dumped fuel on
unsuspecting
> airshow particpants before) while standing under it.

You know what they say, "no good deed goes unpunished."

[José Herculano]

> Same women and a guy (who was called a priest in the media) tried their
blood
> and hammer thing on a BUFF at the Andrews AFB Open House back in '99. The
crew

Well, at least while they were at it they were not indulging in their other,
very much in the news lately, "hobby". =)
_____________
José Herculano

[Glenn P.]

> The good sisters have been convicted and now sentenced. They knew what
> they were doing was illegal and they went ahead with pre-meditation.
> They've been doing it for years.

The very point of of these protests IS to be arrested and sentenced.
The actual act of attacking military objects is symbolic, as they know
they couldn't, by these measly activities, change the role bombs and
airplanes play in the world today. The fact that they're engaging in a
debate that they know they can't win (in the courts or in general public
opinion) demonstrates the strength of their beliefs, whether others
agree with them or not. I think the beliefs are kooky, but their
actions in support of their beliefs are well thought through.

> Somehow, they seem to ignore the years of the Cold War threat and the
> resulting success of nuclear deterrence in defeating the Soviets and
> leading to the demise of Communism.

Yeah, they do ignore some very valid points, but I think you're missing
one too. If you look at various plans for military expansion over the
last several decades, attempts are repeatedly made to "regularize"
nukes; to make having, testing, and using them become so common that
nobody questions it. Why hasn't this happened? I think it's in great
part because of nuns, and hippies, and other groups which virtually
nobody agrees with. They form one distant end of a spectrum of opinions
which, when taken together, form public opinion as a whole. Public
opinion, and how our military and political figures work and deal with
it, form our national image, and influences the strategic picture of the
entire world. Their dissent defines us to a small degree, and I welcome
it in the face of pervasive public apathy.

> I'm sure the good sisters are
> convinced as well that Sadaam was simply misunderstood and all those
> bodies found in the mass graves in Irag died of the sniffles and were
> buried together for social purposes.

Mmm hmm.

> I've got no sympathy. In fact, I'd like to turn the key on the foolish
> old ladies.

I certainly have no problem with them being locked up, but I'm glad
there are people who are willing to look stupid to demonstrate their
beliefs. I'm also glad there are people like you to fly the jets and
write the books, but that's another topic.


Glenn

[Stephen Harding]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> >Yeah, they do ignore some very valid points, but I think you're missing
> >one too. If you look at various plans for military expansion over the
> >last several decades, attempts are repeatedly made to "regularize"
> >nukes; to make having, testing, and using them become so common that
> >nobody questions it.
>
> Not to wave paper, but as someone with a degree in International
> Relations (education coupled with operational experience lends a
> modicum of credibility), I've never heard of "regularizing" nukes. The
> nuclear club has been, so far, quite exclusive. The non-proliferation
> of nukes has been the goal of club members for the entire period. More
> members is destabilizing. Your basic statement as a premise for
> further discussion is flawed.

Although it's a risky premise, I wonder if possession of nuclear weapons
(by a state as opposed to private whackos) forces a degree of care in
decision making that might not otherwise be there? Would the world be a
more peaceful place if *everyone* had nukes???

I still think the only reason WWIII never happened is because of the
possession of these weapons. I don't think there has ever been a period
in recorded history where two rival camps, armed to the teeth, with no
common ground or reason to get along, in intense competition with each
other over the entire world, never actually went to war against one
another.

Yes Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan and a host of coup locations and alliances
represented a de facto war, but never really directly. Really unusual I'd
say, and due certainly to the fact that both understood all too well what
MAD meant!

Would that sort of "responsibility" be instilled in Pakistan and India now
that they are club members? Would it show up in N. Korea if the South goes
nuke too? Would nuclear weaponry restrain Iraq and Iran?

Don't really know, and the fact that all "terrible weapons" of the world
have eventually been used and become "accepted" in their use doesn't bode
well for the idea that universal nuclear club membership might be a good
thing for the world.

It's a little bit on the whacky side of my normal thinking process, but
I've been wondering about this quite a bit with the WMD talk in Iraq, and
the NK and Iran development programs, and India and Pakistan "on the brink"
a while ago. Does one dare think that everyone having a nuke would make
for a safer world (assuming a clear policy of MAD)???


SMH

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:16:09 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>
>We've got a First Amendment right in this country to protest policy,
>but it involves discussion, presentation of alternatives, concensus
>building, compromise and political process. It doesn't support
>law-breaking, regardless of the morality of your cause.

Isn't there a law on the books that permits a citizen to act in
opposition to his government if said government is engaging in immoral
activity as the Nazi's did?


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Kirk Stant]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message

> Not to wave paper, but as someone with a degree in International
> Relations (education coupled with operational experience lends a
> modicum of credibility), I've never heard of "regularizing" nukes.

Hey, we have something else in common: a degree in International
Relations! Actually, mine is in International Affairs, which I got at
the Zoo in 74. I chose it because it sounded like it was a degree in
chasing women all over the world - dead solid perfect for a future
fighter-gator!

As far as nukes, isn't it funny how everybody thinks the military is
just itching to use nukes? I know I sure as hell wasn't! Took all
the fun out of dropping bombs. Not manly at all. LGBs and GBU-15s are
the only way to go.

Not that some countries wouldn't be improved by a B-61 or three...

Kirk
F-4 WSO (ret)

[Glenn P.]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> The acts of non-violent protest are, indeed, well thought through. The
> philosophy of non-violence that leads to these acts is not. One would
> have to ignore all of history to live comfortably in the belief that
> pacifism, unilateral disarmament, etc is going to lead to peace. It
> only leads to Auschwitz. Get on the train and work will make you
> free...

No. It is simply untrue to state that the philosophy of non-violence
only leads to Auschwitz. I KNOW you (meaning you, Ed, not necessarily
everyone who reads this) know of very famous examples of non-violent
protest leading to very positive societal change, and I won't insult
either of us by listing various instances. Of course the military
policies of our government has made us safer in many ways, and of course
these nuns are kooky, but if you don't see that you're ignoring some
logical steps in your arguments, I have to think that there's more
motivating your position than you've admitted.

> Not to wave paper, [Ed then waves his papers], I've never heard of
> "regularizing" nukes.
> . . . .
> Your basic statement as a premise for
> further discussion is flawed.

This is my fault, as I didn't explain that I meant regularizing within
the U.S. military/political structures only. That is, more hawkish (not
a term I like, really) leaders have repeatedly advocated building and
using nukes in a wider range of applications. These plans, when they
become public, lead to silly protests by nuns and such, and also a
fairly strong backlash from the general populace. I guess I was trying
to point out that without the silly protests, the public's discomfort
might be easier to spin or simply ignore.

> Apathy is a two-edged sword. It can signify ignorance, but it can also
> indicate substantial satisfaction with existing policy.

Obviously you disagree, but I think this makes my point rather well.
Most people are apathetic about virtually all military decisions. When
some groups--obviously the most passionate and thus quite outside the
mainstream--start protesting actions of the U.S. military, it brings out
feelings in common people that hadn't existed before, simply because
they hadn't considered the issue. That these nuns are controversial is
a sign to me that people WERE substantially satisfied, but when they
thought about the issue further, they realized that they have mixed
feelings about the issue. I would guess that causing people to discuss
this issue in the way we are now would be considered a success by these
nuns.

> I'm appalled that society still overlooks the damage caused by such
> acute ignorance as that of the nuns.

Overlooks how? They were caught and arrested. Most people heard the
story at some point. There was no big backlash against punishing them.
What is appalling you here?

> To apologize for their behavior
> in cutting fences, hammering on weapons, defacing government property,
> obstructing military members in the conduct of their duties, etc, on
> the grounds that they are legitimate protesters and not law-breakers
> is ludicrous.

Who's apologizing? They did what they did because they knew it was
wrong. They made a judgement which you obviously disagree with, but
again I think you're missing some of your own motivation. Who claimed
they weren't law-breakers? I don't understand why you would say that.
They ARE legitimate protesters (as we all are), even if this protest was
not legitimate legally.

> We've got a First Amendment right in this country to protest policy,
> but it involves discussion, presentation of alternatives, concensus
> building, compromise and political process.

No, it doesn't. Those things are usually included in debates by
default, but First Amendment protections exist even with activities that
are solo and completely one-sided. I don't have to have this discussion
with you for my opinions to be protected; I decided to start typing my
feelings this time, but many times I don't. What I say, and what I
believe, are protected either way.

> It doesn't support
> law-breaking, regardless of the morality of your cause.

I agree that the Constitution doesn't protect illegal actions, but that
doesn't mean that all illegal actions are consequently morally wrong.
I'm not arguing that they should have Constitutional protection for
their actions. I'm arguing that their illegal actions are (at least in
their eyes) the better moral choice than doing nothing.

> They should have been maxed.

I agree.


Glenn

[Glenn P.]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> But there is no "law on the books" that would authorize citizens to
> act illegally--that would be anarchy. And, it certainly wouldn't allow
> for each citizen independently to make the judgement of what is
> "immoral".

Every citizen does make morality judgements, and they don't need a law
to "allow" it. I do agree with you point about legalizing illegality.

> With regard to the issue in question, the pacifist nuns were certainly
> not acting against an abusive or oppressive government

They clearly were, though they weren't the ones being abused or
oppressed. I find them acting for those without voices to be the main
point in their favor.

, nor were they
> acting as representatives of a majority of the population which had
> elected their representatives and given them authority for the
> execution of the national defense against a serious threat.

Not all action has to be representing others. Certainly not all action
needs to represent a majority of a population. C'mon now Ed, you think
ALL minority positions lack legitimacy? What about historical change in
opinions? They happen constantly; many things now commonly accepted
started out as odd ideas in one person or small group.


Glenn

[Ed Rasimus]

"Glenn P." > wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> But there is no "law on the books" that would authorize citizens to
>> act illegally--that would be anarchy. And, it certainly wouldn't allow
>> for each citizen independently to make the judgement of what is
>> "immoral".
>
>Every citizen does make morality judgements, and they don't need a law
>to "allow" it. I do agree with you point about legalizing illegality.

I'm glad you see the conflict. Authorizing illegal behavior whenever
someone sees a moral conflict (in their individual view) would wreak
havoc. It's very much the situation in which we have the pro-lifer
assassinating the abortion doctor.
>
>> With regard to the issue in question, the pacifist nuns were certainly
>> not acting against an abusive or oppressive government
>
>They clearly were, though they weren't the ones being abused or
>oppressed. I find them acting for those without voices to be the main
>point in their favor.

Who are "those without voices"? Who authorized the sisters to act on
behalf of someone else? I don't think you've got a very compelling
argument with that.
>
>, nor were they
>> acting as representatives of a majority of the population which had
>> elected their representatives and given them authority for the
>> execution of the national defense against a serious threat.
>
>Not all action has to be representing others. Certainly not all action
>needs to represent a majority of a population. C'mon now Ed, you think
>ALL minority positions lack legitimacy? What about historical change in
>opinions? They happen constantly; many things now commonly accepted
>started out as odd ideas in one person or small group.

Whoa, you've made a giant leap here. We aren't talking about the
legitimacy of a minority position, we are talking about violation of
the law, possibly even reckless endangerment (see BUFDRVR's earlier
post about the fool pounding on the drain valve of a B-52 external
fuel tank.)

As I initially stated, the right to express minority opinion,
influence public policy and to attempt to convince other's of your
correctness is implicit in the First Amendment. Speak your piece, but
don't cut fences to security installations and pound on nuclear
weapons with your moral indignation.

Policy gets made in this country through a process. Sometimes civil
disobedience has been an effective tool--one need only look at the
Freedom Marches and sit-ins of the civil rights movement to see the
evidence. But, when Blacks sat in at lunch counters, they didn't break
the windows to get in, spill blood on the counter and attempt to break
the dishes. There's a difference in the methodology.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[S. Sampson]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote
>
> Isn't there a law on the books that permits a citizen to act in
> opposition to his government if said government is engaging in immoral
> activity as the Nazi's did?

Yes. The law is called a rifle. Oswald used that law to change
the government in 1963.

[Pete]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote

>
> Although it's a risky premise, I wonder if possession of nuclear weapons
> (by a state as opposed to private whackos) forces a degree of care in
> decision making that might not otherwise be there? Would the world be a
> more peaceful place if *everyone* had nukes???

Don't think so. There's been at least a few nutters, given the chance, who
might have. Quadaffi, maybe...Idi Amin, among others.
Plus there is the question of control, and government stabiliy. With
insufficient controls....a private whacko *may* get control of a nuke. Or a
hostile takeover of an unpopular leader. Then who is in control? For a
time...no one.

Would the Red Army Faction have used a nuke? Probably. Those fools with the
gas in the subway in Japan? Probably. Arafat in the early days? Maybe.

Given enough of them in various hands, and a few *will* leak out to those
who would use them. On purpose or by accident.

Pete

[Walt BJ]

I want to point out that the USAF, as well as the other services, does
not take anything about nuclear weapons lightly. Having sat alert with
the blasted things and later been responsible for a base full of them
I can assure you that everybody with any responsibility for them is
deadly serious (in every sense of the word) in matters concerning
their security. When an intrusion alert is sounded the responding
force has no idea as to whether the cause is a fox, some Taliban types
after a nuke or in this case three irresponsible women with not the
foggiest idea what they were actually getting into.
You-all can discuss as to whether we need nukes, they were right or
wrong, or whatever, but please don't screw around with nuke security -
it's a losing game. The security forces ARE authorized to shoot, as
was I, while on alert.

Walt BJ

[Walt BJ]

"Glenn P." > >
SNIP:
> No. It is simply untrue to state that the philosophy of non-violence
> only leads to Auschwitz.
SNIP:
What the philosophy of non-violence leads to is someone else defending
the non-violent against the aggressor. I call this an abdication of
personal responsibility.
Walt BJ

[S. Sampson]

"Walt BJ" > wrote
> I want to point out that the USAF, as well as the other services, does
> not take anything about nuclear weapons lightly. Having sat alert with
> the blasted things and later been responsible for a base full of them
> I can assure you that everybody with any responsibility for them is
> deadly serious (in every sense of the word) in matters concerning
> their security. When an intrusion alert is sounded the responding
> force has no idea as to whether the cause is a fox, some Taliban types
> after a nuke or in this case three irresponsible women with not the
> foggiest idea what they were actually getting into.
> You-all can discuss as to whether we need nukes, they were right or
> wrong, or whatever, but please don't screw around with nuke security -
> it's a losing game. The security forces ARE authorized to shoot, as
> was I, while on alert.

I happened to drive a bread-box van down the taxi-way one day at
Ramstein, when I came up to a taxi-way and decided to take a
short cut. After driving through the line of really cool looking F-4's
I got to the gate-house, and the AP asked me if I had driven in from
the flight-line. Yea, I decided to take a short cut! He asked me to
step out of the van and put my hands on the hood and spread my
legs as far as I could. He then went back in the gate-house and
waited about 2 minutes, when a whole ****ing squadron of base
security types with guns bigger than I'd ever seen before surrounded
me, and had me take off my flight suit as they began to inventory my
possessions into plastic bags, and when complete took me to a steel
holding cell where my commander came and got me out! I asked him
what the *hell* that was about, and it wasn't until then that I realized
they were the nuclear alert F-4's! ****, what a bird brain...

[Dale]

In article >, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:


> I'm glad you see the conflict. Authorizing illegal behavior whenever
> someone sees a moral conflict (in their individual view) would wreak
> havoc. It's very much the situation in which we have the pro-lifer
> assassinating the abortion doctor.

The State of Alaska several years back had a new law go on the books that it was
okay for a person to resist an unlawful arrest.

I was a cop at the time..did 20 years. Almost without fail each person I
arrested felt I was making an "unlawful arrest". My uniform cleaning bills went
up quite a bit. <G> The law didn't last long.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[David Lentz]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

<snip>

> >Isn't there a law on the books that permits a citizen to act in
> >opposition to his government if said government is engaging in immoral
> >activity as the Nazi's did?
>
> I don't think there is. What you describe is revolution. It's the
> extension of the (correct) political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and
> John Locke. First that the power and authority of a government comes
> from consent of the governed. When a government abuses that power,
> then it is the right of the people to withdraw their consent and
> overthrow the government.

Surely there must be a right of revolution. The United States
was established by such a right, and it wAs declared in the
Declaration of Independence.

I consider the right of revolution to an extra constitutional
right. It exists outside the Constitution. One can not both
rebel against the Constitution while claiming to be protected by
the Constitution. Rebellion against the United States is a
military action and not a judicial one.

I recall a group called ROT (Republic of Texas). They were
holding up in some building. When they sent out a lawyer rather
than an ambassador, I deemed them common criminals and not
revolutionaries.

David

David

[Ed Rasimus]

David Lentz > wrote:

>
>Surely there must be a right of revolution. The United States
>was established by such a right, and it wAs declared in the
>Declaration of Independence.
>
>David

Absolutely, see my previous reference to Hobbes (power to govern comes
from consent of the governed) and Locke (consent can be withdrawn) and
then, by extension to Jefferson.

But, the original comment was "a law on the books" to allow people to
interpret morality to authorize acting illegally. That's a long way
from revolution.

Great editorial in this AM's Denver Post by Mike Rosen. Unfortunately
doesn't appear to be available online.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[S. Sampson]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> I don't know when you were at Ramstein, but it's been a very long time
> since Ramstein had Victor. (I was there at USAFE Hq from '78-'81 and
> Victor was no longer a Ramstein mission--except when hosting Crested
> Cap deployment from the 49th at Holloman.)

My last TDY there, was during the Poland Crisis (Dec 80 - Apr 81),
and it was the tab-vee area on what I remember as the SE side of the base.

> A Victor Alert area was always double-fenced chain-link and razor
> wirer with corner guard towers and double-gate walk through access
> points. You didn't just take a wrong turn on a taxiway and drive
> through a Victor area. You may have been in the aircraft Tab-Vees,
> which were a "restricted" area, but nowhere near the security of nuke
> alert. Even if you had been in the alert area (which was Zulu or air
> defense) you would have had to pass through a security access point
> and couldn't have just driven through.

No, that certainly doesn't describe the area. They just looked like your
every-day alert stuff.

> There's no doubt that you got "jacked up" but it's a lot tougher to
> get in among nuke loaded aircraft than your story implies.

I suspect I was told they were nukes, so I wouldn't complain about the
new duties I had. You may have heard about our Colonel who tried to
give a bottle of whiskey to the alert ramp guards on Christmas of 80...
He went to the same steel cell :-) So, I no longer felt lonely about being
the "arrested one" on base.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Lentz" > wrote in message
...
>
> I do not see how.
>

Well, I don't see a return to Constitutional government without a rebellion,
so I guess it's gone forever.

[S. Sampson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> "David Lentz" > wrote
> >
> > I do not see how.
>
> Well, I don't see a return to Constitutional government without a rebellion,
> so I guess it's gone forever.

We (the people) keep re-electing the same people, year after year, and
then complain that they are the worst ****s imaginable.

We could change the leadership of this country in six years if we had a
plan. What we have now is an un-auditable free-for-all, with no tax
limits, and a world-wide cash hand-out. Neither of the two parties in
power have even one candidate who is useful.

When the F-22 and star wars become the B-1 piece of **** we know they
will, and we don't have a pot to **** in, then only then, will we gain a few
more seats in the Congress.

What we need is a party for the people, which will have a national audit
as their first goal, and a defense budget that is a quarter of what it is now.
We have no world threat that requires the F-22 (or whatever they are
calling it this year, e.g., AF-22, etc), or even anything more capable than
an F-16, or F-18.

We need to cut the budget by 6 Trillion in six years.

We can do that with the Republic we have.

[N.S.]

Stephen Harding > wrote:

> Although it's a risky premise, I wonder if possession of nuclear weapons
> (by a state as opposed to private whackos) forces a degree of care in
> decision making that might not otherwise be there? Would the world be a
> more peaceful place if *everyone* had nukes???

There is a serious danger in trusting nuclear-armed countries
to be careful: the possibility of accidental nuclear war.

In 1983 a worldwide nuclear war was narrowly averted by a
perceptive, quick-thinking Soviet military officer, Stanislav
Petrov. (Afterward, ironically, instead of being honored and
praised for his actions, he found his life nearly ruined.)
It's a disturbing story, not widely known:

http://www.brightstarsound.com

It seems we were very lucky that day. But what does the future
hold?


N.S.