Please mention the Shaneen Allen case to Governor Christie, and implore him to take whatever action is necessary, up to and including a pardon.
Please mention the Shaneen Allen case to Governor Christie, and implore him to take whatever action is necessary, up to and including a pardon.
Remember the Eastern State Sport show that banned “assault rifles” from display at their gun show? Everyone got so bent out of shape, they cancelled it.
All of that meant that Harrisburg-area tourism groups and Farm Show complex organizers went shopping for a new host to a sporting show for the region. What do you know? NRA happens to host a smaller scale show just 70 miles down the road in Maryland right around the same time of year.
It was announced today that NRA has been selected as the vendor to run a much larger scale Great American Outdoor Show in Harrisburg during the traditional time of the Eastern Sport & Outdoor Show. Maryland, after pushing extreme gun legislation, now loses the economic impact of that show and Pennsylvania gets a new vendor for the sportsmen’s show that doesn’t hate hunters & shooters. To top it off, Reed forever loses the multi-million dollar show they once hosted. Anti-gunners lose and a pro-gun state wins.
Shadenfreude, you are so tasty.
• The Pennsylvania legislation — House Bill 521, introduced on Feb. 5 — would require a $1 million liability policy as a condition of being given a concealed carry permit. And it would allow police to roust any gun carrier at any time to produce proof of insurance — and not merely if you’re carrying on your person but, by extension, if you’re transporting it in your vehicle. Sans proof of insurance, the government would be allowed to confiscate your guns. Not only is this a Second Amendment nose-thumbing, it violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
And also Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
This bill wont go anywhere, it’s so egregiously unconstitutional, but the sponsors deserve special identification for public scorn.
They hold your rights in contempt.
Prime sponsor: Rep Ronald Waters (Democrat – Philly & Delaware Counties)
Co-sponsoers: Brownlee (D-Philadelphia), McCarter (D-Philly, Montco), Bishop (D-Philly), Schlosberg (D-Lehigh), Thomas (D-Philly), Brown (D-Philly), Cohen (D-Amazon.com), Roebuck (D-Philly), Kinsey (D-Philly), Briggs (D-Montco), Gainey (D-Allegheny), Kirkland (D-Delco), Sims (D-Philly), Sturla (D-Lancaster), Donatu
When trying to verify Joe Biden’s recent story that he was golfing within earshot of the Oct. 2, 2006, shooting at Nickel Mines, one thing is clear.
There are a lot of places to enjoy a round of golf in the region.
But whether the 70-year-old vice president was playing at any of the courses on the day of the one-room schoolhouse massacre still remains a mystery.
If he was in the area, he wasn’t at Moccasin Run Golf Club in Atglen.
Curt King, the owner of the club, said there is no record of Biden — then a U.S. senator — visiting the golf course that day.
“When someone of that stature comes to your business, you don’t forget something like that,” he said.
Moccasin Run, the closest club to the Nickel Mines community, is about six miles away.
King said he has combed through his club’s database, which records the name of every player who uses the course, to double-check the claim.
“We have no record of him being here that day, or that he has ever golfed here,” he said.
As for the scene at the course the day in question, King said it was just like every other day.
“There was no outing or special event,” he said. “Like most days, it was open to the public.”
Was he “literally, literally” there?
Or just the usual Joe?
These people are teaching your children.
In a horror story that must have shocked young children into lifelong nightmares, a Philadelphia fifth-grader made a gun out of paper last week and brought it into class. Thanks to the intrepid work of the officials at the school, though, crisis was averted – an administrator at D. Newlin Fell School inspected the little girl, Melody Valentin, in front of the class. This process, unsurprisingly, failed to turn up any heavy military ordinance. Nonetheless, Melody received a stern talking-to.
Philly teachers are no doubt on high alert after one of their substitutes let a child walk out of a school with an unknown women moments after the girl’s mother dropped her off.
If you can’t sell or display “assault rifles” (an invented non-sensicle term, btw) and high capacity magazines at sports and outdoors show, and now people are actively boycotting it, what do you have left?
Lee and Tiffany Lakosky, hosts of “The Crush” hunting and outdoor show, said they won’t attend next month’s event at the state Farm Show Complex because its organizers have banned the sale and display of assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
In a statement, Lee Lakosky said it was a “hard decision” for him and his wife to boycott the Harrisburg show, “but we can’t support a show that doesn’t completely support the Second Amendment.”
Outdoor sporting gear retailing giant Cabela’s Inc. and other smaller firms also have announced they won’t participate in next month’s show because of the ban by its organizers.
Strangely enough the largest outdoors show in the Northeast didn’t have a problem with those sales last year. Suddenly they found Jesus?
Long oppressed by their strongman leader, the rebels finally had their day. With immense military and political help from the West, they first toppled the regime, and later, the dictator himself. At long last, “freedom” was theirs, although as we have come to know, one person’s freedom is another’s hell.
And how did the rebels show their appreciation to their liberators? By showering them not with roses, but roadside bombs, bullets and vitriol. Their message? “Thanks — now get out.”
So it was in Iraq, and so it will be in Libya.
Amazingly, Western leaders either don’t read history, or, more likely, do so and arrogantly think they can avoid the same mistakes.
The objective of the US and NATO was to remove Gaddafi. Well, mission accomplished. But once again, the age-old adage applies: Be careful what you wish for…you might just get it. And get it they did, but now what? How much more blood and treasure will be expended to maintain a presence in a country that was a) stable, b) a Muslim “ally” of the West, and therefore c) didn’t need an occupying Western presence?
Sadly, too much.
There was no question why the U.S. became involved in Libya. It wasn’t about stopping a dictator or civilian deaths. And it’s wasn’t about democracy and freedom. It was because Libya produces a lot of oil. Period.
Need proof? Among numerous examples, just look at Syria. They continue to massacre their citizens and foment terrorism, but their petroleum production is but a fraction of what Libya pumps out annually. Case closed.
So America once again did much of the heavy lifting, giving its imprimatur for the airstrikes which led to the rebels taking down Gaddafi.
But it seems that we have forgotten one small thing. Those rebels — who brutally and gleefully executed Gaddafi in full view of cameras, and are now “running” the country — are the same folks who comprised the largest fighting force outside of Iraq to engage the United States military in that country.
That bears repeating.
We just backed the very same people who have been shooting at us for the past eight years. A naïve question, to be sure, but did anyone in charge actually bother to think about this before participating in the regime change of a sovereign nation?
The rebels, who are no longer rebels but now governmental “leaders,” have tasted power. They are getting used to carrying out the law —their law — on the spot, administering justice as they see fit. To think that they are just going to lay down their weapons (which we provided) and obey orders from a civilian politician is a fairy tale. Just look at the recent revelation that upwards of 20,000 portable surface-to-air missiles, each capable of downing a jetliner, are missing and feared to be in unfriendly hands. What a shock.
The result will be chaos and armed factions roaming the country. And when they are pressed further, look for car bombs and oil pipelines to start exploding.
Kind of like…Iraq.
But the West can’t have that, so by its own admission, it will be sending in ground troops. And as history shows, that is never a short-term proposition.
Of course, since European countries are broke and wholly incapable of sustaining any military operation, the United States will inevitably be drawn further into the Libyan quagmire.
In the hope of not repeating past mistakes, there are two lessons that should be heeded by what will hopefully be a new Administration next year:
1) Credibility is everything. Nowhere is a nation’s word more important than on the world stage. If a country that prides itself on being of high moral character lies and betrays, it’s credibility is shot. Period. It’s a lesson the United States still hasn’t learned.
For example, America urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein at the conclusion of Gulf War I, pledging support to help them overthrow the dictator. But the U.S. reneged on that promise, leading to the needless slaughter of many. Because of our credibility gap, we were forced to expend enormous effort to convince the Kurds to join the coalition in the Gulf War II.
Fast forward to the present, and it is apparent that lesson has gone unheeded, as the Libyan debacle clearly illustrates.
Moammar Gaddafi was never an angel, not in the beginning of his forty-year reign, nor at the end. But he showed himself to be a leader with whom the West could effectively work, even if his transformation was rooted in self-preservation.
In no uncertain terms, Gaddafi was told to shape up or face the consequences. To his credit, he did, and then some. He admitted complicity in the Pan Am 103 bombing and paid reparations, dismantled his WMD/nuclear program, and stopped harboring terrorists. As a result of his positive actions, Gaddafi’s nation was removed the Terrorism List by the George W. Bush Administration, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stating Libya was rewarded for its “renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the U.S.” in the war on terror.
And yet, despite U.S. assurances to Libya that the two nations would be conditional allies, that “excellent cooperation” wasn’t good enough. America broke its word by helping to eliminate a leader who had done everything the United States had asked of him. With that kind of “credibility,” is it any wonder why many leaders have chosen a path at odds with America? Venezuelan General Hugo Chavez comes to mind.
This results in needless roadblocks in diplomatic, political and economic negotiations around the world. The damage from one thoughtless decision can take years to repair, with Libya the latest example.
2) It is time for energy independence. Despite the inherent common sense of energy independence, both from economic and security perspectives, it remains a policy neither Party chooses to advance. Sure, the rhetoric is there, but that is where it ends.
Rather than tap into the largest natural gas deposits in the world (the Marcellus and Utica Shales), the vast oil reserves in Alaska, the Bakken Formation in North Dakota, the reserves under the Rockies that may be the largest on the planet, and drill offshore, the politicians continue the disastrous policy of relying on petroleum from hostile nations.
Put another way, if Libya, and the entire Middle East for that matter, wasn’t sitting on huge reserves, America wouldn’t give it a second thought, with the exception of its security guarantee to Israel.
But because neither Party will pursue energy independence in a meaningful manner, job creation suffers, inflation rises, and America’s fighting forces remain in the crosshairs.
So once again, America is involved in yet another conflict with no clear objectives, which will only create more uncertainty in world markets that are already on the verge of collapse.
Common sense is such that America should stop playing policeman to the world, become energy independent, put the interests of its citizens before the people of other nations, and, above all, keep its word.
Don’t hold your breath. As Voltaire said, “Common sense is not so common.”
Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com
Murders are up, but Philly PD’s website states they are down — because they’re comparing this year’s killings to those from 2007!
If the CEO of a Wall Street firm announced that revenues were up 22 percent, he would be lauded for his leadership and undoubtedly receive a hefty raise.
By contrast, if it was revealed that the CEO was playing games with the books and basing his figures not on a year-to-date comparison from the prior year, but from four years ago, he would probably be shown the door.
But that’s precisely the situation with Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, the city’s highest-paid employee. The argument can be made that Commissioner Ramsey is deliberately misleading the public on the city’s murder rate.
A visit to the Philadelphia Police website Crime Stats page (http://phillypolice.com/about/crime-statistics) verifies what we already know: shootings, violence and murder are out of control throughout the city. As of this writing, there have been 259 murders since January 1, as one can plainly see from the highlighted 2011 figure on the webpage. Beside that is a number with a down arrow. Currently, it’s 18 percent, but last week it stood at 22. It purports to represent the percentage that murders have decreased.
And therein lies the problem. A big one.
Murders aren’t down 18 or 22 percent. As a matter of fact, they’re up. Comparing year-to-date statistics, they’ve increased ten from last year, a whopping 24 from 2009 (a ten percent jump), and eight from 2008.
But Chief Ramsey has decided to hide these numbers and instead compare today’s murder rate with that of 2007, the high-water mark for killings. That’s like the Phillies claiming a playoff victory because they beat the Cardinals half a decade ago.
It’s interesting to note that Ramsey was hired at the end of 2007, which perhaps explains why he is using that blood-soaked year as his benchmark— all the easier to pass the buck and make himself look better.
Maybe the Chief, and Mayor Nutter, who hired him and remains his boss, missed their callings. They seem better suited for Wall Street firms that rely on misleading investors (in this case, the citizens) for their own personal gain (re-election, job security and bloated pensions).
So residents get the screws two ways: they walk away with a false sense of security, mistakenly believing that murders are down. And when they realize the truth — that their leaders are deliberately misleading them — they feel betrayed.
Unlike the Wall Street CEO, Nutter and Ramsey get away scott-free. And like some robber baron execs, they each make a pile of money, courtesy of a duped public, with little accountability and oversight.
In fact, Chief Ramsey is rolling in it, to the tune of $255,000/year.
You may recall that earlier this year, the Commissioner was actively courted for the top police job in his hometown of Chicago. Despite pleas that he stay, it was almost a done deal, but for one small sticking point: his $400,000 per year total compensation asking price, according to press reports. You know it’s greedy when even a liberal Democrat like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel balks at such an obscene amount, which, by the way, is the salary of the President of the United States.
Ramsey’s reason for ultimately staying in Philadelphia? “…the support I got here at home from the business community — and the media, even — and, of course, Mayor Nutter, made the difference.”
Well, that, and the $60,000 pay raise he was promised from the Mayor as a reward for not leaving the city, courtesy of the taxpayers. That increase makes the Commissioner the highest — repeat, highest — paid city employee. Even more than the Mayor himself.
Ramsey was right about one thing. He did get quite a bit of support, from city councilmen (“we won the big prize” by retaining Ramsey) to the gushing, sycophant media. Notably, neither entity bothered asking the right questions before, or after, the lavish pay hike was doled out to the Chief.
Questions such as:
1) How can the city afford to shell out a $60,000/year salary increase to anyone when it can’t even pay its current bills, has an insolvent pension, and continues to see its tax base — what’s left of it — flee? In fact, it was just reported that there is yet another tax revenue shortfall, adding to the budget deficit. What a surprise.
And for the record, there are plenty of qualified people who would have gladly accepted the Commissioner’s previous salary of $195,000 had he chosen to leave.
2) When will Philadelphia realize that paying exorbitant salaries to government officials is not just financially foolhardy, but doesn’t guarantee results? Just look at Arlene Ackerman, the now former School Superintendent who made $325,000/year (with incentives allowing for a half-million dollar payday) to preside over an ever-worsening school district. For the privilege of leaving her post, she banked $905,000, all footed by the public.
And don’t forget scandal-plagued former Housing Authority chief Carl Greene, who, with his bonus, was making $350,000. In addition, residents are still paying sky-high legal bills related to the mess he left behind.
3) Was any quantitative, or better yet, common sense analysis done to see if Ramsey merited such a large salary bump? Murders are increasing, out-of-control flash mobs have led to curfews, police corruption is rampant, and there is growing fear on the streets, leading many suburbanites to stay away.
According to the Chief’s 2008 “Crime Fighting Strategy,” the big goal that year was to “reduce homicides by twenty-five percent,” yet the Department was way short, overseeing only a 15 percent drop from 2007 to 2008. And what of the stated overall plan of reducing homicides by 30 to 50 percent, as outlined in a public letter from Ramsey to Nutter? Not even in the ballpark. As noted above, homicides have been rising, not falling.
While certainly not all these things can be attributable to the Chief, the buck stops with him. He is responsible. Just like a CEO often receives no bonus when numbers are down, the Chief of Police should have pay raises tied to performance. But since the Mayor deals in Other People’s Money, that isn’t the case.
Is the city is safer? You can play with statistics to bolster any desired conclusion. Yet ask those in Philadelphia whether they truly feel secure, and most would simply laugh. And that’s the only statistic that matters.
Is the Chief doing a good job? In some respects, yes. But so stellar that he commands a raise three times more than the city’s per capita income? Not even close. The fact that the city can’t afford the money is just salt in the wound.
OK, fine. Ramsey got his money. It is what it is, and he isn’t relinquishing it. But that bolsters the point all the more.
The leader of the Police Department should epitomize transparency and honesty.
Instead, in what can only be assumed to be a deliberate attempt to deceive Philadelphians, games are being played with the city’s increasing murder rate. And there is no excuse for that. None.
The culture of any organization is established by the conduct of its top leaders. In the Philadelphia Police Department’s case, its culture of honor, values and integrity has taken a hit. And when the rank and file — the guys on the street chasing down the murderers — see their top brass skirting the truth for political gain, perhaps they too cut a corner where they shouldn’t be. They take on the persona of their leadership.
It’s time for the Mayor and Chief to do the right thing by telling the truth, no matter how difficult that may be. Let’s see more honesty in the most trusted institution in Philadelphia — its police department.
Only when the city’s leaders regain the trust of the people will Philadelphia begin its journey back to respectability.
An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania.
Freind’s column, “Freindly Fire,” appears nationally in Newsmax and regionally in Philadelphia Magazine’s Philly Post. It is also published regularly in a number of the state’s largest newspapers, including The Delaware County Daily Times, Chester County Daily Local, Norristown Times Herald, Pottstown Mercury and Bucks County Courier Post. Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states.
His work has been referenced in numerous other publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ bestseller “Catastrophe.”
“If the gentleman from Butler County stood yelling, knowing that he’s a gun-toter, and I felt threatened, would I be protected under court law if I blew his brains out?”
Amid audible gasps, [Rep. Margo Davidson, D-Delaware County] then giggled.
John Baer asks…
But can you imagine the outrage if this moment was reversed and a white male rural Republican lawmaker suggested blowing the brains out of a black female Democratic lawmaker?
For that matter, can you imagine the hue and cry of liberals if any conservative said something like this during a public debate? Because, you know, it’s only the political right that infuses its rhetoric with vile language, venom and references to “lock and load” or “re-arm,” right?
This instance is a profound embarrassment to Pennsylvania, its state House and Davidson, whether her remarks are stricken from the record or not.
While not made on the floor of the House, doesn’t anyone remember the “Tree of Liberty” banner unfurled in Harrisburg a few years ago?
Two men stunned onlookers by raising the banner criticizing Democratic Rep. Angel Cruz, sponsor of a bill that would create a registry of gun owners and require people to pay a yearly $10 fee for each gun or face state police confiscation of their weapons. Cruz should be “hung from the tree of liberty for treasonous acts against the Constitution,” the sign read.
I yield my time to another gentlemen from Delaware County.
“It’s one thing to defend one’s Second Amendment rights, but it’s another to display a sign urging the lynching of a state House member,” said caucus chairman Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland, D-Delaware County. “That goes too far and that scares many of us.”
He no doubt walked over to Rep Davidson and told her to dial it back.
Let’s ask the gentlemen from McKeesport….
Rep. Marc Gergely, D-McKeesport, chairman of the Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, had urged attendees to act civilly when lobbying lawmakers. “It is okay to disagree, but we hurt our own movement when people act irresponsibly.”
How about Rep Metcalfe?
Republican Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, of Cranberry, a strong supporter of gun owners’ rights who helped organize the rally, said the sign contained “horrible statements” that had no place in a conversation about politics and policy. The people involved did not represent the event organizers, he said.
Metcalfe had the class, at least, to denounce people at his rally he wasn’t responsible for.
Surely her fellow Democrats in the House are lining up to do so in this case?
Stricken from the record doesn’t mean stricken from memory.
(An aside, the Tribune Review changed their headline from the original “Gun supporters denounce state lawmaker at rally” to “Philadelphia protest sign at gun rally backfires”)
“Drill, baby, drill!”
That political phrase is fast approaching “Read My Lips, No New Taxes” territory, but its message is infinitely more important. The need to become energy independent is an absolute, since America’s increasing reliance on foreign oil threatens its national and economic security like never before.
With fuel prices skyrocketing, millions of jobs are threatened, and petro dollars flow from the United States to countries which wouldn’t shed a tear over another 9/11.
Because no new oil refineries or nuclear power plants have been constructed in over three decades, one leader in particular has been attempting to reduce America’s insatiable appetite for imported oil. Last year, he opened up over 500,000 square miles of coastal waters to oil and gas exploration for the first time in over twenty years, including the Atlantic Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and northern Alaska.
He summed up why: “The bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we’re going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.”
In addition, this politician said, “I will tap our natural-gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and find ways to safely harness nuclear power.”
It’s no surprise that this call for drilling was a “bitter disappointment for environmentalists and Democrats,” as one press report noted.
The surprise, however, is that this leader happens to be the head of the Democratic Party – –none other than President Barack Obama.
Obama’s actions — pushing nuclear power in particular, as he arranged loan guarantees for two new plants — are akin to a conservative Republican calling for a ban on handguns. The Democratic Party has long been captive to the radical environmentalist wing, who view Obama’s push for oil and nuclear as nothing short of treasonous.
One would think that if these folks are labeling Obama’s efforts a “betrayal,” the GOP would be embracing the President on what has traditionally been part of the Republican platform.
One would be wrong.
From the 2008 campaign to the 2010 State Of The Union address, where energy independence was a major theme, the standard Republican responses have been, “Well, he really doesn’t believe that,” and “his plan doesn’t go far enough.”
Far enough? From what? The standard GOP policy of America bent over a Middle Eastern barrel?
Even the Tea Parties are not immune. The President recently toured a wind turbine manufacturing plant in Bucks County, using the occasion to further tout his energy policy. One of that region’s largest Tea Party organizations staged a rally, billing their event as a protest to Obama “discouraging domestic oil production” by “ignoring the necessity to drill for oil in our vast national reserves.”
Hey, never let facts get in the way of the truth.
The intransigence of the Republicans to run with what should be their core issue is simply incomprehensible. And while energy independence should never be a partisan issue, given that it affects our future more than anything else, it is clearly obtainable only if the GOP/Obama version is executed.
Alternative energy sources are most certainly important, but will never produce anything remotely close to the nation’s energy needs. The indisputable fact is that black gold, natural gas and nuclear will always be the mainstay, at least until a new source is discovered.
But what has the GOP done, both when it had majorities and after it lost them? Nothing positive.
George W. Bush could have opened up the ANWR in Alaska with virtually no opposition had he called for such in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Instead, it took him seven years to call for lifting the offshore drilling moratorium put in place by… the first President Bush. Too little, too late.
During a radio interview I conducted in March 2010, a Pennsylvania Republican congressman actually said he couldn’t introduce an offshore drilling bill because he was “in the minority.” Sorry, but Civics 101 says otherwise. Any bill can be introduced; the issue is whether it would make it out of Committee. The political leverage would come from pitting the obstructionist Democratic Congress against its own President. But that never happened.
And then-Minority Leader John Boehner’s response to Obama’s plan? Nothing but rebuke rooted in pure partisanship. “It’s long past time for this Administration to stop delaying American energy production off all our shores and start listening to the American people who want an “all of the above” strategy to produce more American energy,” he has said. But Boehner’s rubber never met the road. Not when the GOP controlled the Congress and White House. Not when they were in the Minority. And not now.
Where were the Tea Party folks and Obama-bashers when the Republicans did nothing to achieve energy independence, despite holding all the cards? They had better be careful, because selective memory and deliberate inconsistencies are the hallmarks for losing all credibility with The Great American Middle.
Is the President’s plan perfect? Of course not. The rigs in the Gulf still sit idle, moratoriums still exist, and drilling in the ANWR isn’t on the President’s agenda. It’s inexplicable and inexcusable that his willingness to explore options for energy independence has been met with a Republican brick wall.
Whether it’s pure partisanship, a GOP tactic to win the Senate and White House next year, or simply the insular nature of Congress, the inability to make energy the number one issue is catastrophic. The huge growth platform that energy independence creates is the ONLY way for America to solve its budgetary woes.
Yet nothing happens.
The current inaction pushes the nation further into the red, endangering Americans’ welfare in an unprecedented fashion.
The ugly reality is that the USA may soon stand for United States Of Arabia.
Doesn’t have quite the same ring, does it?
Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”
Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com