Women for President

[dazzleman]

Nancy Pelosi!!  

and

Barbara Lee!!!

wtf

You don't have to curse man.

I suppose you are so uninformed that you do not recognize the name of the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, the whip, Nancy Pelosi.  But it's ok, I will clue you in - she is only the MOST powerful woman in Congress.  There is a reason why everyone voted for her.  We got the bucks out here.

The other one is my Congresswoman, a hero - the only person in the House or Senate to vote against this unjust and unnecessary war which was started under false pretenses. (!)

Get informed dude.

Neither one of those two stands a chance of being elected outside their current districts.

As for Barbara Lee, I guess you're suggesting that the Sept. 11 attacks were "false pretenses."  Maybe President Bush or the Israelis engineered the attacks?  You seem to be pushing one of those wacko conspiracy theories.

[The Duke]

Nancy Pelosi!!  

and

Barbara Lee!!!

wtf

You don't have to curse man.

I suppose you are so uninformed that you do not recognize the name of the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, the whip, Nancy Pelosi.  But it's ok, I will clue you in - she is only the MOST powerful woman in Congress.  There is a reason why everyone voted for her.  We got the bucks out here.

The other one is my Congresswoman, a hero - the only person in the House or Senate to vote against this unjust and unnecessary war which was started under false pretenses. (!)

Get informed dude.

Actually I know who both of these people are.  That's why I said wtf.  As in wtf are you thinking.

I reiterate,

WTF

[Bunnybrit]

I am only a brit but I quite liked the themes Carol Moseley Braun send during het attempt at the nomination, she might get a place in the dem cabinet if Kerry wins in November.
But from the Republicans from what I have seen Kay Bailey Hutchinson looks impressive- she might make a good running mate for the Republicans in 2008 if Bush gets beaten later this year.

[Horus]

Snowe would be a good choice, she's pro-choice, pro civil-unions, a moderate to liberal Republican. She'd make a fine president.

As for Lee and Pelosi, they'd never win.

Clinton I would of course support but she wouldn't have a chance in hell either.

[dazzleman]

I am only a brit but I quite liked the themes Carol Moseley Braun send during het attempt at the nomination, she might get a place in the dem cabinet if Kerry wins in November.
But from the Republicans from what I have seen Kay Bailey Hutchinson looks impressive- she might make a good running mate for the Republicans in 2008 if Bush gets beaten later this year.

I liked some of the themes that Carol Moseley Braun put forward during her campaign, but I didn't like her specific proposals, which I thought were designed to appeal to simpletons, or to reflect her own lack of understanding of major issues.

Others have mentioned Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and I think she would be worth taking a look at.  She's a Republican from a macho state, which would make a lot of people who might have reservations about voting for a woman seriously consider her in a way they would never consider a woman like Hillary, who's a liberal Democrat representing a liberal state that is unpopular among middle Americans.

I hope that Hillary doesn't stand a chance, but I fear that under the right circumstances she could win.  That would be a catastrophic occurrence in my opinion, given her views on issues as well as the level of personal ruthlessness, and lack of principle, that she has exhibited.

[© tweed]

 She's a Republican from a macho state, which would make a lot of people who might have reservations about voting for a woman seriously consider her in a way they would never consider a woman like Hillary, who's a liberal Democrat representing a liberal state that is unpopular among middle Americans.

I don't fully grasp what you are trying to say here.

KBH: Conservative Republican from Conservative state.
HRC: Liberal Democrat from Liberal State.

And who's unpopular among middle americans?  Hillary is polarizing, and most people either love her or hate her (I'm in the middle actually).  But in the last Gallup poll, she had a 56% personal favorability rating, the highest that it has been since she was first lady.

[freedomburns]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose that you are suggesting that Iraq had anything to do with Sept. 11, which every sensible person knows is just plain not true.  Even the bipartisan commission's joint inquiry/cover up says this.  Without question there was no involvement from Iraq.  

I stand by my statement, which is shared by the majority of Americans.  The war in Iraq was promoted using false claims.  Maybe if the Republicans search Sandy Berger's socks they will find some weapons of mass destruction.

Laughing over here!

You are a total dupe if you still believe anything Cheney or Bush say regarding threats to this country.  Collin Powell himself said in March 2001 that the sanctions had reduced Saddam's army to being no threat to anyone, not even his neighbors!

Your claim is baseless, wrong and 900 Americans have died for this lie.


Also, Hillary stands a very good chance of being elected President in eight years, despite being a polarizing figure.  She has far and away the best chance of any female.  And it is way past time we had a woman for President in this country.  So many other countries are far ahead of us here.  Even Pakistan.

[qwerty]

The other one is my Congresswoman, a hero - the only person in the House or Senate to vote against this unjust and unnecessary war which was started under false pretenses. (!)

No she wasn't. Do your research.

[freedomburns]

Yes she was.  I am talking about this vote:
Washington -- Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland stood alone last September, casting the only "no" vote when the House gave President Bush backing for the war against terrorists. But now several of her Bay Area Democratic colleagues say they'll join her stance if Bush seeks a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

"Barbara Lee had it right," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, a 15-term congressman who voted with the president last September. "I'm sorry I voted for the resolution."

Stark will get a chance to express that feeling on the floor of the House because the White House said again Tuesday that it planned to seek a congressional resolution supporting the president's tough line toward Iraq, although Bush hasn't yet said exactly how he intends to bring down Saddam Hussein.

Many Democrats say they don't want a vote before November, fearing that Bush wants to turn Iraq into a campaign issue, but Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Tuesday he expected a vote well before the election.

Stark, who voted against the 1991 resolution that authorized Bush's father to use military force to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait, said the current president had twisted last September's resolution beyond its intent to find the perpetrators of the terror attacks.

"Something has to change," Stark added. "You've got some dots to connect to show that Iraq poses an imminent danger to us."

In 1991, the House voted 250-183 to back the elder Bush in the Persian Gulf War. Seven of the nine members in the Bay Area's House delegation at the time, all but one of them Democrats, voted against the measure.

The views of the current 11-member local delegation again show the Bay Area marches to a different drummer. Observers expect both houses of Congress to back Bush on Iraq.

Polls in California and nationally also show that a majority of Americans would support military action to oust Hussein, although they want Bush to form an international coalition to support an attack and would like to see U.N. action first.

South Bay first-term Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, said he needed to see much more convincing evidence that Hussein plans an attack against America before he would vote for military action. "I wouldn't vote to support it without more debate," he said.

Honda said he would reconsider if Bush presented clear evidence, much as President John F. Kennedy did in 1962 when he showed that the Soviet Union was placing nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba. "That's the same expectation that members of Congress have today," he said.

Lee said that she viewed a potential war with Iraq as an unprecedented action in U.S. history.

On the next vote regarding war 132 reps joined her in opposing it.

freedomburns

More on this:
Further north, in Berkeley, Lee has become a heroine of the newly revived antiwar movement. Earlier this week, more than 1,000 people responded to a summons by KPFA-FM, a community radio station, to attend an impromptu rally against U.S. military action, just as they did during the Vietnam days. “Every time we mentioned Barbara’s name, people cheered,” says Barbara Lubin, a peace activist who runs an organization that provides aid to children in Iraq and other countries affected by United Nations sanctions. “She’s a hero, as far as I’m concerned.” Lubin’s group has already raised money for a full-page ad in The New York Times next week, congratulating Lee for her lonely vote. Lee says she’s gratified by all the support, but more concerned that people understand the reasons for her dissent—”to make sure we don’t allow the cycle of violence to spin out of control.”

[freedomburns]

History is proving her right.  Wait for it.  She voted against it because she saw the future and did not want the cycle of violece to spiral out of hand.  Like it is.  900 dead for no good reason.

[qwerty]

History is proving her right.  Wait for it.  She voted against it because she saw the future and did not want the cycle of violece to spiral out of hand.  Like it is.  900 dead for no good reason.

That vote concerned Afghanistan. It had nothing to do with Iraq.

[The Duke]

Burns is one twisted cat.  To oppose the war in Afghainstan is a delusional an dangerous thing to believe.

[freedomburns]

Dudes! You are missing the point.  She could tell that the Congress was totally relinquishing it's role as the checker and balancer of the Executive by passing a resolution like this one.  This resolution granted way too much power to the President.  It was far too open ended and did not specify where or what.  It was not limited to Afghanistan, per the wording.  History proved her right here, too, as billions of the money that was allocated for Afghanistan was siphoned off illegally by the Bush Administration and funneled (illegally, against the direction of Congress) to prepare for war in Iraq.  Meanwhile Bush was saying that he had not made a decision on whether or not to attack Iraq.  Yeah right!  Big lie.

She knows the history of this country.  She knows how the Gulf of Tonkin was totally fabricated to get us deeper into Vietnam.  And the two people who had the foresight to vote against it are total heroes in my eyes, too, because they stood in the way of the war machine and went against temporary, popular, emotional reactions.  The deaths of 53,000 American service men could have been prevented by a Congress full of Barbara Lees.  She was afraid of the same kind of thing happening in the future because the wording of the resolution foretold it.  And what do you know?  She was right.  900 dead for no good reason.  Argue with that you warmongers.  It is exactly people like you who would allow us to get into another unjust war that would kill another 53,000 of our soldiers for no worthy reason.  It is exactly people like John Kerry who stopped it last time.  She is doing her best this time.

You guys might as well live in a dictatorship for all the critical thinking and skepticism you mount.  Let them spoon feed you more lies and you keep telling them how yummy it tastes.  Not me boy.  Bush is a war criminal who should be brought up on charges for lying to Congress.  The answer to every question should not be 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.  Think, dammit.  Stick to the subject, offer facts, and don’t be a parrot or a childish name caller.

No one is offering me any serious rebuttal on this forum because everything I am saying is correct and irrefutable.  You guys are totally grasping at straws.



The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  -Thomas Jefferson

freedomburns

I will joust with you all when I get time later this week.  Work starts soon…

[freedomburns]

For the record, the only proper thing to do after 9/11 was go after the perpetrators with a focused, determined effort.  We did not do that.  There is no order in Afghanistan outside Kabul.  The Taliban control most of it still.  We have not found UBL.  We have only 11,000 troops there and this was never a serious effort like it should have been!  I don't think the Reps or Dems want UBL found because he will spill too many beans about how they both contributed to creating that Frankenstein monster.

The war in Iraq is a war for profit and we (you) were hoodwinked into it.  Stop bleating like a sheep and do some research.

[The Duke]

FB,

Do you realize how deluded you are?

At one point you say the wording was broad enough to allow Bush to redirect money all over the place, and thus Lee voted against it.

Then, you turn around and say that any allocation of monies to Iraq is illegal.

Congratulations, you just contradicted yourself!

[KEmperor]

I would choose Rice out of all of these.  But I don't think a woman can be elected president anyway.

[Manahan]

I like Condi for President.  She is tough, capable and smart enough to know what she doesn't know.

[freedomburns]

FB,

Do you realize how deluded you are?

At one point you say the wording was broad enough to allow Bush to redirect money all over the place, and thus Lee voted against it.

Then, you turn around and say that any allocation of monies to Iraq is illegal.

Congratulations, you just contradicted yourself!

Still grasping at straws JF.  If this is the best you can do to refute all of my points I am woefully underwhelmed.  

Everything I said is correct and irrefutable.  At least by you...  

freedomburns

[The Duke]

FB,

Do you realize how deluded you are?

At one point you say the wording was broad enough to allow Bush to redirect money all over the place, and thus Lee voted against it.

Then, you turn around and say that any allocation of monies to Iraq is illegal.

Congratulations, you just contradicted yourself!

Still grasping at straws JF.  If this is the best you can do to refute all of my points I am woefully underwhelmed.  

Everything I said is correct and irrefutable.  At least by you...  

freedomburns

Looks like you're the new Alfie.  Let's dance.

I suppose that you are suggesting that Iraq had anything to do with Sept. 11, which every sensible person knows is just plain not true.  Even the bipartisan commission's joint inquiry/cover up says this.  Without question there was no involvement from Iraq.  

I will post this yet again.  A conversation between Lee Hamilton and Tom keane, the 9/11 Commission Chairmen, and Chris Matthews:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.  

THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN:  Well, that's what our staff has found.  Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years.  They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there.  But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that.  

MATTHEWS:  Mr. Hamilton, so many polls have been taken that shows the American people, almost three-quarters of the people, believe there was a connection.  How do we rectify that?  Is your commission going to clarify that to the extent that people won't still be singing country music that says “remember how you felt?”

LEE HAMILTON, 9/11 COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN: All we can do is state as clearly as we can what the evidence is that we have found.  We have found no operational collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with regard to attacks on the United States.  That conclusion is a very firm one that we have reached.  

[/b]What the governor referred to is also true.  There are all kinds of ties.  There are all kinds of connections.  And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein lieutenants.[/b]

What did the commission find again?

I have also created a nice highlight reel of articles that discuss Al Qaeda links to Iraq.  We have articles from respected journalists and government officials.  Enjoy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.spiritoftruth.org/post_005.htm
http://radiobergen.org/terrorism/iraq.htm
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/834.html
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/iraqS.htm
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=446
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003213
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/746675/posts
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2001/joctober/16_wtc.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/527157/posts
http://vikingphoenix.com/public/rongstad/military/terrorism/atta_iraq_intel_1.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/866766/posts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=95001389
http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/521246/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/524670/posts
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml
http://propagandamatrix.com/bust_and_boom.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/col/20021215edkelly15p2.asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29949
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-10-02-us-iraq-alqaeda_x.htm

And now, the obligatory Salman Pak aerial pic.

I stand by my statement, which is shared by the majority of Americans.  The war in Iraq was promoted using false claims.  Maybe if the Republicans search Sandy Berger's socks they will find some weapons of mass destruction.

Laughing over here!

Actually, here is a list of all WMD finds so far:

December 4, 2002--12artillery shells--Mustard gas--UNMOVIC inspectors
January 11, 2004--36artillery shells--Mustard gas--Danish soldiers
May 2, 2004--1 IED/artillery shell--Mustard gas--US soldiers
May 17, 2004--1 IED/artillery shell--Sarin gas--US soldiers
June 2, 2004--17artillery rockets--Sarin gas--Polish soldiers
June 2, 2004--2 mortar rounds--Mustard gas--Polish soldiers

Maybe if you just keep laughing, you'll get your federal matching funds.

You are a total dupe if you still believe anything Cheney or Bush say regarding threats to this country.  Collin Powell himself said in March 2001 that the sanctions had reduced Saddam's army to being no threat to anyone, not even his neighbors!

Your claim is baseless, wrong and 900 Americans have died for this lie.

What were his exact words, though?  Here is something from his congressional testimony on 15 May, 2001:

"The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago… So we have to continue to view this regime with the greatest suspicion, attribute to them the most negative motives, which is quite well-deserved with this particular regime… When we came into office on the 20th of January, the whole sanctions regime was collapsing in front of our eyes. Nations were bailing out on it.

Also, Hillary stands a very good chance of being elected President in eight years, despite being a polarizing figure.  She has far and away the best chance of any female.  And it is way past time we had a woman for President in this country.  So many other countries are far ahead of us here.  Even Pakistan.

Pakistan is our model now?  I should have expected you to praise the election of a woman who coddled the Taliban.

For the record, the only proper thing to do after 9/11 was go after the perpetrators with a focused, determined effort.  We did not do that.  There is no order in Afghanistan outside Kabul.  The Taliban control most of it still.  We have not found UBL.  We have only 11,000 troops there and this was never a serious effort like it should have been!  I don't think the Reps or Dems want UBL found because he will spill too many beans about how they both contributed to creating that Frankenstein monster.

The war in Iraq is a war for profit and we (you) were hoodwinked into it.  Stop bleating like a sheep and do some research.

We did go after the perpetrators.  We have captured or killed the majority of Al Qaeda's senior leadership and taken away their main state sponsor.  And most of Afghanistan is not controlled by the Taliban, but by independent warlords.  Most of these warlords aided the US effort in late 2001 and pose no threat to the US or its government in Kabul.  They may not pay attention to the writ of Karzai, but there is no need to engage in a broad campaign against harmless but corrupt entities.  There is a reason there are only 11,000 US troops there.  We only need 11,000 US troops there.  Things are rather quiet, so why have a larger than necessary footprint.

The war in Iraq is a war for profit, eh?  And I was just hoodwinked into it.  On 9/11 I wanted to go after Iraq and every other state sponsor of terrorism.  I even beat Paul Wolfowitz to the punch.  No hoodwinking here, just a true believer.

Don't pretend we don't all know whats next.

[freedomburns]

Touche!  But damn, you have too much free time on your hands.  Wouldn't you rather be a shill for our side?  We could use a good propagandist.  Let's dance then mofo.  Have at.  En garde.  I pick up your gauntlet heathen.

I would have to spend hours poking holes in your arguments, and I will get around to it, and it won't be difficult.  You will get your proper serving too, in good time.  Gimme half a sec to find some similar disreputable partisan sources to match yours so we can duke it out like a couple of truly mendacious warriors.

I am very happy to FINALLY have found someone around here with some cajones.  Excellent post my man!!

FreedomBurns

[The Duke]

It didn't take long at all. This is all stuff I compiled from my old posts from the last time I won this debate with someone.

The Telegraph & USA Today are disreputable and partisan?

[freedomburns]

Well, I am admittedly very new to this.  I will give it my best shot, but it will take a while.  And yes, both of those sources are highly suspect in my humble opinion.

freedomburns

[freedomburns]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's take your irrational arguments one at a time.  This will still take a while...


What I said is by no means a contradiction.  The only contradiction involved is in your fallacious thinking.  You fail to realize that it is possible for the President and his administration to break the law, which they did by redirecting money to Iraq that was allocated by Congress SPECIFICALLY for Afghanistan and the war on terror.  I never said the wording was broad enough to allow the President to break the law.   If there was a Democratic controlled Congress AND they had any balls, they would hold the Bush administration's feet to the fire on this and then start impeachment proceedings.  

This is what should have happened when Reagan illegally diverted monies gained from illegally selling arms to Iran to free the hostages, and then even MORE illegally funneling the money to the Contras in Nicaragua, specifically against the Borland Amendment passed by Congress.  Reagan wasn't impeached because it was the last year of his second term and he was on his way out anyway, and because they took pity on the doddering old Alzheimers victim.  Nixon also did something illegal, only he had the good grace to resign over it rather than be impeached.  

I do not understand your logic.  Redirecting Afghanistan/terrorism money to Iraq is illegal.  Bush broke the law.  WHERE is the contradiction that you claim to have found?

My source for this information is (ahem) BOB WOODWARD (ahem).

Here is the CBS News link to the story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

President Bush redirected funds (700 million dollars according to Woodward)
SPECIFICALLY allocated by Congress for the war in Afghanistan. He secretly diverted them to the war in Iraq, building military airfields in Kuwait among other things, before Congress actually approved the Iraq war. This is a direct violation of the Constitution, which states that Congress allocates where the money is spent AND whether or not we go to war, not the Executive branch of government. Any violation, especially willful, of the Constitution by the President is grounds for impeachment.

Chalk one up for FreedomBurns!  Woot!  Woot!  OOOOh, hear that sizzle?  That is your a** getting burned JF!  Who's your daddy?  Who's your daddy?  That's right!  FREEDOMBURNS in the HIZZOUUUSE!!!

freedomburns

[The Duke]

I guess I have to explain it again.

You said:

A- Lee was right to vote against the Afghan war because it did not have a narrow enough definition over where the money could go.  It could even be sent to, say, Iraq.

and

B- The sending of money to Iraq is illegal.

These two things are contradictory.  As in, only one of them can be true.

[freedomburns]

Way to misquote someone dude.  This is what I ACTUALLY said. (Thank god for text.)

You are missing the point.  She could tell that the Congress was totally relinquishing it's role as the checker and balancer of the Executive by passing a resolution like this one.  This resolution granted way too much power to the President.  It was far too open ended and did not specify where or what.  It was not limited to Afghanistan, per the wording.  History proved her right here, too, as billions of the money that was allocated for Afghanistan was siphoned off illegally by the Bush Administration and funneled (illegally, against the direction of Congress) to prepare for war in Iraq.  Meanwhile Bush was saying that he had not made a decision on whether or not to attack Iraq.  Yeah right!  Big lie.

  There is no contradiction.  I am right.  Bush broke both the spirit and the letter of the law that Congress passed and Lee had the foresight to know that he would.  The amendment did not allow for money to be spent on non-terrorism related activities, like Iraq.  Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, called it "deeply irresponsible of the White House to secretly reprogram funds allocated by Congress."  

I'm sorry that I do not see the same contradiction that you do. Let's just leave that for now.  We will also leave the fact that your point about the wording of my statement totally ignores Bush's illegal acts.  I will move on to the next one if you don't mind.  This could take all night going back and forth.  My position in a nutshell, the resolution did allow unprecedented flexibility for Bush to allocate monies to fight terrorism, but it did not allow for the monies to be spent on a secretive build up to war in Iraq, so Bush broke the law and deserves impeachment.

I respectfully accept that you think I have contradicted myself.  I think we are splitting hairs and this argument will be indicative of every other point we will go over.  You see things your way.  I see them mine.  I don't believe their hype, and to me Bush is a war criminal for ignoring the Constitution.

You said:

I guess I have to explain it again.

You said:

A- Lee was right to vote against the Afghan war because it did not have a narrow enough definition over where the money could go.  It could even be sent to, say, Iraq.

and

B- The sending of money to Iraq is illegal.

These two things are contradictory.  As in, only one of them can be true.

The crucial sentence here is "It could even be sent to, say, Iraq."

Wrong.  It could not be Iraq because the war in Iraq was obviously not part of the war on terror (which is what this money was ear-marked for) and Saddam had nothing to do with crashing planes into our buildings.  <--CRUCIAL POINT

You drank the Kool-Aid, and you believe them when they say EVERYTHING is related to terrorism, so be very, very afraid and accept their flimsy evidence as an excuse to assuage your pangs of guilt over what the whole world and 55% of Americans already acknowledge to be as an unjust war for profit.  

Next point.

freedomburns