Pres appoints Sec Bolton Amb to U.N


PDA






bg
August 1, 2005, 01:43 PM
Looks like the Pres had enough monkeying around. >
http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/240103

If you enjoyed reading about "Pres appoints Sec Bolton Amb to U.N" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Marshall
August 1, 2005, 01:53 PM
Good, Kofi Annan is already kissing up. The UN is such a corrupt joke, bout time we have someone in there with some nads.

Side benefit, dems are pissed. :evil:

Yanus
August 1, 2005, 02:00 PM
You can bet the farm that Iran is taking notice of Bolton's appointment.....
It looksl like Bush the Younger is taking off the gloves. Any bets as to who bombs Iran first, us or Israel?..............

Yanus

dasmi
August 1, 2005, 02:06 PM
And the democrats are already screaming about it. Of course, they conveniently forget that Clinton made his fair share of recess appointments.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080100476_pf.html

roo_ster
August 1, 2005, 02:08 PM
Nearly the ideal man for the job.

shermacman
August 1, 2005, 02:17 PM
I have two problems here:
1) Bolton sounds like the right guy to fix the UN if the UN needed fixing. I don't think the UN needs to be fixed. I think it should be bulldozed. But since that won't happen I will support the President and Bolton.
2) Why didn't the Republicans demand a vote? Stomp the DemocRATs down, force a show down? Can someone who understands the Senate explain?

tulsamal
August 1, 2005, 02:23 PM
You can't have a vote if the other side is filibustering. It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture and stop the filibuster. The GOP didn't have the votes to do that. The Dems said they wouldn't filibuster IF the GOP gave them all the documents they wanted, answered all their questions and THEN then thought Bolton was a good choice.

This was probably the only way he was going to get in.

Gregg

Rebar
August 1, 2005, 03:20 PM
It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture and stop the filibuster.
The moral of the story - we need to get at least 60 republicans into the senate next election.

bakert
August 1, 2005, 03:22 PM
I don't really know much about Sec Bolton other than what I've seen in the news. Strange thing to me is that many of the ones screaming the loudest about his abuse to underlings are well known for treating their own aides and flunkies like S---!!

Henry Bowman
August 1, 2005, 03:34 PM
The moral of the story - we need to get at least 60 republicans into the senate next election. Not counting crybaby RINOs like Voinovich. :fire:

Fletchette
August 1, 2005, 03:39 PM
I found it amusing that, after months of searching and interrogation, all the Democrats could really say is that Bolton can at times be forceful, and that some people don't like him. That's it.

I am looking forward to Bolton ripping into the U.N. (and rightly so!). We definitely DO need someone that is blunt when dealing with the U.N.

P.S. Are there any IANSA reactions published? Bolton hates those guys... :D

Rebar
August 1, 2005, 03:39 PM
Not counting crybaby RINOs like Voinovich.
Indeed, him and the rest of the RINOs.

It might be that, with a solid majority, they won't grandstand like they've been doing, since it won't matter and they won't get the attention they crave.

Even so, I hope that they are defeated in the primaries by real republicans.

RevDisk
August 1, 2005, 04:16 PM
I extremely dislike the UN forces. I saw them firsthand almost every evil act imaginable, and was not allowed to do anything. Then again, I also didn't overexert myself when the UN forces were getting shelled, bombed or gunned down. It's a juristriction thing, yanno? :D

However, Bolton seems like a complete twit. Our diplomats need to be like the hungriest, amoral, vicious, sleazy lawyers. Yea, it's nice to know Bolton can blather on. But if we want something done right, can he pull it off? Nope.

His history of "twisting" intelligence information for his own ends is uh, disturbing. Means you can't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth. Trusting him to tell the truth is a bit unwise.


Plus, I might be mistaken, but is it legal for the President to assign ambassador without consent of Congress? If it is illegal for him to do so... Heh, well... Nice knowing we have a criminal in the White House who doesn't give a flip about the Constitution and US laws.


P.S. Are there any IANSA reactions published? Bolton hates those guys...

Isn't IANSA independent from the UN?

Car Knocker
August 1, 2005, 04:25 PM
Rev,

Clinton appointed a couple of recess ambassadors and I don't recall Teddy complaining.

HankB
August 1, 2005, 04:31 PM
From what I've read, Bolton's biggest problem is that he has too much regard for the U.N.

swampsniper
August 1, 2005, 04:38 PM
http://www.iansa.org/

They may claim independence, but I doubt it.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 1, 2005, 04:44 PM
Here is what I like about Bolton - his statement to the UN on July 9, 2001:

We do not support measures that would constrain legal trade and legal manufacturing of small arms and light weapons. The vast majority of arms transfers in the world are routine and not problematic. Each member state of the United Nations has the right to manufacture and export arms for purposes of national defense. Diversions of the legal arms trade that become "illicit" are best dealt with through effective export controls. To label all manufacturing and trade as "part of the problem" is inaccurate and counterproductive. Accordingly, we would ask that language in Section II, paragraph 4 be changed to establish the principle of legitimacy of the legal trade, manufacturing and possession of small arms and light weapons, and acknowledge countries that already have in place adequate laws, regulations and procedures over the manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and possession of small arms and light weapons.

We do not support the promotion of international advocacy activity by international or non-governmental organizations, particularly when those political or policy views advocated are not consistent with the views of all member states. What individual governments do in this regard is for them to decide, but we do not regard the international governmental support of particular political viewpoints to be consistent with democratic principles. Accordingly, the provisions of the draft Program that contemplate such activity should be modified or eliminated.

We do not support measures that prohibit civilian possession of small arms. This is outside the mandate for this Conference set forth in UNGA Resolution 54/54V. We agree with the recommendation of the 1999 UN Panel of Governmental Experts that laws and procedures governing the possession of small arms by civilians are properly left to individual member states. The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures abrogating the Constitutional right to bear arms. We request that Section II, para 20, which refers to restrictions on the civilian possession of arms to be eliminated from the Program of Action, and that other provisions which purport to require national regulation of the lawful possession of firearms such as Section II, paras 7 and 10 be modified to confine their reach to illicit international activities.

We do not support measures limiting trade in SA/LW solely to governments. This proposal, we believe, is both conceptually and practically flawed. It is so broad that in the absence of a clear definition of small arms and light weapons, it could be construed as outlawing legitimate international trade in all firearms. Violent non-state groups at whom this proposal is presumably aimed are unlikely to obtain arms through authorized channels. Many of them continue to receive arms despite being subject to legally-binding UNSC embargoes. Perhaps most important, this proposal would preclude assistance to an oppressed non-state group defending itself from a genocidal government. Distinctions between governments and non-governments are irrelevant in determining responsible and irresponsible end-users of arms.

The United States also will not support a mandatory Review Conference, as outlined in Section IV, which serves only to institutionalize and bureaucratize this process. We would prefer that meetings to review progress on the implementation of the Program of Action be decided by member states as needed, responding not to an arbitrary timetable, but specific problems faced in addressing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. Neither will we, at this time, commit to begin negotiations and reach agreement on any legally binding instruments, the feasibility and necessity of which may be in question and in need of review over time.

MarkDido
August 1, 2005, 05:05 PM
Plus, I might be mistaken, but is it legal for the President to assign ambassador without consent of Congress? If it is illegal for him to do so... Heh, well... Nice knowing we have a criminal in the White House who doesn't give a flip about the Constitution and US laws.

No, no Rev! Clinton is no longer in office!

308win
August 1, 2005, 06:14 PM
That the UN is disfunctional is beyond debate - unless you happen to be some fifth rate politician from a third world country whose only claim to relevancy is that your country sits on valuable natural resources. I also don't understand how our interests are served by subjecting ourselves to the political whims of the UN Security Council. I don't believe that Bolton - or anyone else for that matter - can effect any substantive change that makes the UN relevent to American interests. My vote is pull out and spend the money, time and energy on something that furthers our national interest. Just my .02.

Jake
August 1, 2005, 06:30 PM
The recess appointment thing happens alot. The media and opposing party usually don't make such a fuss of it. But since this is Pres. Bush we're talking about, and since the Dems seem to really dislike Bolton, there will alot of screaming and crying about it.

Some talk show I was listening to on the way home listed the number of recess appointments by previous Presidents. I don't recall the exact numbers but it was something along the lines of -

Clinton - 180 +\-
Bush #1 - 90 +\-
Reagan - 275 +\-

LawDog
August 1, 2005, 06:56 PM
Plus, I might be mistaken, but is it legal for the President to assign ambassador without consent of Congress? If it is illegal for him to do so... Heh, well... Nice knowing we have a criminal in the White House who doesn't give a flip about the Constitution and US laws.

Constitution of the United States, Article II, section 2: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

According to the Constitutional Research Service: Ronald Reagan: 240 recess appointments, 116 of which were full-time positions,
George H.W. Bush: 77, 18 being full-time,
William Jefferson Clinton: 140 recess appointments, 95 were full-time postions
George W. Bush: 110, 66 full-time, (to date)

Just as an interesting fact, Theodore Roosevelt once made recess appointments during a period in which the Senate had adjourned for less than one day.

LawDog

Waitone
August 1, 2005, 07:31 PM
However, Bolton seems like a complete twit. Our diplomats need to be like the hungriest, amoral, vicious, sleazy lawyers. Yea, it's nice to know Bolton can blather on. But if we want something done right, can he pull it off? Nope. One of the many attackes against Bolton was that he was rude to his staff and that he ****gasp**** yelled at a subordinate. That was one of the charges disqualifying him to be the UN guy.

Fact of the matter is Bolton is one hardnosed guy who will go after the UN hammer and tong. I welcome anyone who speaks plainly, clearly, unmistakably and with force and, BTW eats glass and drags his knuckles into conference rooms. I hope Bush through Bolton makes it clear to the UN that in a world where the US's emphasis is creation of "democracy" around the world, the UN is on probation. I hope Bolton tells the UN to shape up or the US will pull support and sponsor the development of a world body in which the necessary qualification for admission will be a functioning republic form of government (didn't say democracy since it will never exist in captivity).

I think Bolton will be great entertainment.

jefnvk
August 1, 2005, 08:12 PM
Had they given him a vote, they wouldn't have to complain.

Guy B. Meredith
August 1, 2005, 09:14 PM
Hmmm... The last time I had a good feeling about our relation to the UN was when Jean Kilpatrick's subordiante Lichtenstein told the UN that if they didn't like the US as a host they were welcome to pack up and leave and the US would wave them off at the dock and bid them a fond farewell.

Standing Wolf
August 1, 2005, 09:43 PM
I don't think the UN needs to be fixed. I think it should be bulldozed.

If that's a motion, please consider it seconded.

It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture and stop the filibuster.
The moral of the story - we need to get at least 60 republicans into the senate next election.

If there were 75 Republicans in the Senate, they'd still screech and hide under their beds whenever the lowliest representative of the Democratic (sic) party whispered the word "filibuster." 60 Libertarians might get the job done. 60 Republicans are just 60 representatives of the Democratic (sic) party in political drag.

Cosmoline
August 1, 2005, 09:49 PM
Plus, I might be mistaken, but is it legal for the President to assign ambassador without consent of Congress? If it is illegal for him to do so... Heh, well... Nice knowing we have a criminal in the White House who doesn't give a flip about the Constitution and US laws.

You are very much mistaken. The power to appoint ambassadors during breaks in Congress' schedule is in fact written into the Constitution itself:

Art.II, Section 2, Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

ctdonath
August 1, 2005, 10:25 PM
Congress has had MONTHS to make a decision on Bolton. They've had their chance - and the Constitution says "advise and consent", not "authorize", and specifies conditions where business continues when Congress is absent. Having blown their opportunity, they're stuck.

Payback's a ... .

Fletchette
August 1, 2005, 10:54 PM
I don't believe that Bolton - or anyone else for that matter - can effect any substantive change that makes the UN relevent to American interests.

It is politically too expensive to simply pull out of the U.N. at this time. However, if we send in Bolton, he will raise **** over everything that the U.N. is used to getting away with. I predict that the U.S.'s relationship with the U.N. is going to get "worse". Then we will pull the plug.

That's my hope, however. :)

Xori Ruscuv
August 1, 2005, 11:35 PM
60 Libertarians might get the job done. 60 Republicans are just 60 representatives of the Democratic (sic) party in political drag.
http://forums.1911forum.com/images/smilies/biglaugh.gif http://forums.1911forum.com/images/smilies/rock.gif

308win
August 1, 2005, 11:37 PM
It is politically too expensive to simply pull out of the U.N. at this time.
Were it another administration I would agree with you; however, this administration hasn't seemed too concerned with world opinion in the past. On the other hand, if this administration ultimately comes to the conclusion that something needs to be done about Iran, it will need all of the farvorable world opinion it can get unless we decide to go it alone.

Flyboy
August 1, 2005, 11:52 PM
You can't have a vote if the other side is filibustering.
True. Unfortunately, the Republicans don't have the testicular fortitude to actually make the Democrats filibuster.

308win
August 2, 2005, 12:16 AM
True. Unfortunately, the Republican's don't have the testicular fortitude to actually make the Democrats filibuster.
The people calling the shots for Dubya aren't stupid and they can count so my guess would be that they were certain they couldn't get the 60 votes needed for cloture and might not have had the 51 needed for ratification of his nomination if the filibuster didn't materialize- at least not without airing their soiled laundry.

dpesec
August 2, 2005, 12:19 AM
He didn't care as long as there was free booze ;)

dpesec
August 2, 2005, 12:21 AM
as long as it was like the old days, the senator had to continue to talk non-stop, no restroom breaks, sleep breaks, etc. Never happen

jefnvk
August 2, 2005, 12:48 AM
60 Libertarians might get the job done. 60 Republicans are just 60 representatives of the Democratic (sic) party in political drag.

Until the Libretarians get big enough to have 60 senators, in which case tehy will probably become just as bad as the other two.

Flyboy
August 2, 2005, 03:15 AM
at least not without airing their soiled laundry
Methinks we might be on to the real problem here...

fallingblock
August 2, 2005, 04:06 AM
Knowing what the I.A.N.S.A. types are like (Rebecca Peters comes to mind)
we can certainly use someone like Bolton at the U.N. to oppose their agenda.

John doesn't merely stand up to them,

he knocks down their card houses too! :D

DRZinn
August 2, 2005, 10:08 AM
You can't have a vote if the other side is filibustering.The thing is, they aren't filibustering. They just state that they have "questions" and that acts like a fiulibuster because the Republicans don't have the testicular fortitude to make them actually filibuster. If they had to actually filibuster, it would be over and Bolton would be confirmed in a week.

The greatest failing of the Republican party is that now that they have the Presidency and both houses of Congress they have acomplished virtually nothing.

Edit: Great minds think alike - I posted this without even seeing Flyboy's post above.

emc
August 2, 2005, 11:04 AM
I'm glad to hear that some of you like DocZinn and FlyBoy have pointed out that the Dems have only THREATENED filibuster. The Republicans have never actually gotten the necessary spine transplant to say "Go ahead! We'll see what you're made of! We'll sit here, and just wait you out." How likely it is that Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy would have the endurance to go for 12 to 24 hours of nonstop talk, on his feet? Unfortunately, I think that part of this is also due to some of the Republicans valuing their own personal comfort and convenience more than breaking the back of the filibuster threat by forcing the issue and then running the Dems into the ground. :fire:

FWIW, one man's opinion.......

emc

Magnum Mike
August 2, 2005, 11:23 AM
With the Liberal Democrats and their ways of being obstructionists in just about everything that's good for the country, I'm not surprised about President Bush's decision to bypass the Senate and appoint John Bolton during recess. It's under-handed, but so what? Everyone talks about reform at the U.N. and if Democrats had their way in appointing a U.N. Ambassador, U.N. reform wouldn't have gotten anywhere beyond just talk and rhetoric.

In my opinion the U.N. is about as worthless as a leather jacket in Phoenix in the middle of July, and having Bolton as our abassador is the first step to reform the U.N.

The second step is to get rid of Annan.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 2, 2005, 11:48 AM
Emc -- How likely it is that Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy would have the endurance to go for 12 to 24 hours of nonstop talk, on his feet? I would love to have a tape of that... Teddy hasn't had an original thought since he was born, and since he has pickled his brain, It would be most entertaining.

The Repubs are catering to the Socialist Mainstream Media, with their pussyfooting. They still are afraid that they will get slammed. They should figure out that the SMSM is done, and even if they slam the Repubs, not many people are listening.

They should slam these leftists like Fat Teddy. Make them come on TV. Let the people hear their speeches.

JohnBT
August 2, 2005, 02:40 PM
re: John Bolton, or Johnny as I knew him...

I just discovered, thanks to my dad's good guesstimation and my research, that we grew up on the same block in southwest Baltimore. He was a year ahead of me in school and then earned a scholarship to a McDonough Military. Yep, verified the parents' and sister's names, his dad was a fireman, everything fits. Small world.

He was smart, very smart, even back then.

John

Rebar
August 2, 2005, 03:33 PM
60 Libertarians might get the job done. 60 Republicans are just 60 representatives of the Democratic (sic) party in political drag.
A rediculous statement.

First off, to think that there will ever be ONE libertarian senator, never mind 60, is the height of delusional thinking. After 30 YEARS, the libertarians never got a STATE senator elected, and only a tiny handful of state reps. The libertarians have wasted their opportunity to be a real alternative for America, mostly through sheer incompetence.

And to equate the republicans to the democrats, is just plain dumb. The national republicans have just pushed through a tremedous bill for gun owners, in the face of vicious democratic opposition. On the state level, the republicans have drastically increased the RKBA, again with the democrats fighting tooth and nail against them.

Simply put, there might not be the degree of difference you might like, but to say there is no difference is laughably ignorant.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 2, 2005, 04:37 PM
Rebar +1

I'd vote Libertarian if they had some decent candidates. It never will happen.

They don't know who they are.

The Republicans are the only choice. The Demogogs are run by socialist leftists of the worst order. Gun grabbing, high taxing, vote buying (with my money) socialist statists.

johnster999
August 2, 2005, 04:50 PM
Bolton is a message from Bush to the UN. A message long overdue.

Some question Bolton's credibility and fitness for the job. How credible and fit are the brother-in-laws and cousins of dictators that populate the UN? He'll do fine.

999

Walt Sherrill
August 2, 2005, 05:27 PM
I, personally, would have preferred a "stealth" ambassador appointed to the UN -- somebody who had similar attitudes as Bolton about the quality of the UN leadership, but who was much less confrontational and obnoxious about it. Jean Kirkpatrick was such an ambassador some time back, and I'm sure there are others of her calibre and intellect still floating around and willing to serve.

Folks who are constantly spoiling for a fight seldom get anything but fights -- as came out in Bolton's appointment debates. And it wasn't just Democrats who were unsure of Bolton -- a significant number of Republicans were concerned, too. While only a few spoke out, there's little question that many more were uneasy. That's clearly why the White House never forced a vote.

As a part-time student of political science, I've come to realize that one of the most important powers of the president is his "reputation for power." Ronald Reagan had a reputation for power that exceeded reality, but because it existed, his power to get things done often matched his reputation.

Bush viewed his reelection as a mandate, and immediately set out to use some of that "political capital." It may have been a mandate, or it may have been a refutation of his opponent. There is a difference.

Nowadays, however, it looks like Bush's political capital has been overdrawn. His "reputation for power," has been dwindling of late -- with even the Senate Majority leader going his own way with regard to Stem-Cell Research funding. His popularity in the polls continues to degrade, and more and more members of Congress feel free to free-lance.

I'd argue that putting Bolton forward in the first place was a blunder; Bush's people should have done a better job of testing the water so that Bush wasn't faced with a "failure" at time when his general level of success has been so low.

Bush and his team seem to understand how to read and lead the general public, but have been seemingly maladroit at dealing with Congress.

(Most of our past presidents have made it a practice to consult with the opposition, to test the waters, and to ask for feedback; even if it was simply a ploy, the "game" seemed to mollify the opposition and made them more pliable. Bush has more often taken an "in your face" approach. That seems to backfire as often as it succeeds; he apparently seldom consults with the opposition -- even though that was one of his stated goals for his first term. Reagan, on the other hand, seemed to develop real friendships with some of his opponents -- and that can pay off, big time when the going gets tough.)

Some here feel Bush "won" the battle with a recess appointment, but I think it was a very shallow win, and it just points to his weaknesses. With a strong majority in the Senate, he should NEVER have needed to make a recess appointment; it just made his lack of control obvious. In fact, the Bolton appointment may have HELPED the Democrats rather than hurt them.

You are all, of course, free to disagree, but things are seldom as they seem in American politics.

denfoote
August 2, 2005, 05:43 PM
His first official act should be to give notice that the UN has 24 hours to vacate the premises and leave American territory!!!

JohnBT
August 2, 2005, 06:06 PM
It's easier to keep an eye on 'em in NY, isn't it?

John

bg
August 2, 2005, 06:16 PM
His first official act should be to give notice that the UN has 24 hours to vacate the premises and leave American territory!!!
and take that twisted wheel gun with em !

tulsamal
August 3, 2005, 02:20 AM
Thoughtful post Walt!

With a strong majority in the Senate, he should NEVER have needed to make a recess appointment; it just made his lack of control obvious.

Exactly. 55 GOP Senators. You don't have enough pull as President to get five Democrats to side with you on cloture? Even some of the Republicans were jumping ship. It is possible that he wouldn't have been approved if they had gone to a vote. Now that would have been a slap to the head!

And Walt also wrote:

Bush and his team seem to understand how to read and lead the general public, but have been seemingly maladroit at dealing with Congress.

(Most of our past presidents have made it a practice to consult with the opposition, to test the waters, and to ask for feedback; even if it was simply a ploy, the "game" seemed to mollify the opposition and made them more pliable. Bush has more often taken an "in your face" approach. That seems to backfire as often as it succeeds; he apparently seldom consults with the opposition -- even though that was one of his stated goals for his first term. Reagan, on the other hand, seemed to develop real friendships with some of his opponents -- and that can pay off, big time when the going gets tough.)

Amen. Bush and the Republicans won convincingly but they can't seem to really pull together to set an agenda and pass legislation. We finally got an energy bill but that was just because the price of gasoline got so high! Otherwise it would STILL be a non-starter. Bush put a lot of his credibility on the line over Social Security reform. But did anything get passed or even seriously discussed and voted on in Congress? Not yet. I actually thought he showed a lot of guts to TRY to get people to talk about reforming SS but he didn't seem to quite know how to build some kind of consensus. It doesn't do any good to be "right" about the solution if you can't get anything passed!

I worry that the GOP is wasting their chance. Perhaps not surprising when you consider we are a coalition party. How are libertarians and the deeply religious supposed to agree about a lot of social policies? I _would_ like to see SS reformed in many ways. I _would_ like to see school vouchers and public school reform. I would like to see a new generation of atomic power plants being designed and built. I don't give a damn about abortion or prayer in school or even burning the flag.

I just want to see national leaders approach problems with reasoning and intelligence and with the overall ideology that Jefferson was right. It really is true "That government is best which governs the least." I don't need my government to be my nanny or my Big Brother. I just want them to do the basics in a respectful and economical way.

Gregg

c_yeager
August 3, 2005, 04:57 AM
The moral of the story - we need to get at least 60 republicans into the senate next election.

I agree in principle, but i my head is filled with images of the Patriot Act Part III (with new and improved thoght-crime legislation), and my kids being force fed creationism.

I guess i dont actually agree in principle.

iapetus
August 4, 2005, 09:16 AM
RevDisk
I extremely dislike the UN forces. I saw them firsthand almost every evil act imaginable, and was not allowed to do anything. Then again, I also didn't overexert myself when the UN forces were getting shelled, bombed or gunned down. It's a juristriction thing, yanno?


When/where was this? Which UN forces were they (what nationality?) What were they doing? (And what were you doing there?)

If you enjoyed reading about "Pres appoints Sec Bolton Amb to U.N" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!