Search this site powered by FreeFind

January, 2010 Volume 35, Issue 1



(415)868-1600 - (415)868-0502(fax) -
P.O. Box 31, Bolinas, CA, 94924
mailto:[email protected]


Beach Camping Ban

    It's easy--if you have a drink in you hand, and are with more than two people, you're arrested.  If you have a joint, with two people-same thing.  But if they have tents too, then no big deal, because you're not fighting.  As a matter of fact, you're just drinking beers, which is just what the legislators are doing just about now.
    But the legislator's tents are packed away, because if they camp, they're in Tonga-where the local animals oddly left their food dishes a day or so-a couple days ago, their owners, the not-from-Tonga contingent, wondering 'where kitty went.'  Salty checkbooks oddly colorful among the jetsom.
    Meanwhile in Bolinas, a shot of Jameson's has caused a minor argument-a lovely blond girl doesn't understand & swears she won't come back.  She and her boyfriend have traveled all the way from Cincinnati & they've loved the earth for a few years now and are thirsty in a cosmic way.  Back on the beach, he stands with a beer among four people, but realizes she's special, even though she's been
a pain in the ass, goes swimming, not wanting to get arrested,  & drowns-the whole time, people are getting arrested for being tented, but with beers.
Matt Smeltzeer,
East Bay

Miller's Analysis on Fed The Best
    Edward Miller's essay "The Federal Reserve and Wall Street" in the October issue is the best, by far, of anything I've read about the Federal Reserve and it's relation to Wall Street and the federal government. No wonder I never understood the news reports. A murky situation indeed!
Paul Kingsley

New Political Party-NRA

   Never Re-Elect Anyone the new political party is seeking YOUR vote. We don't ask for any membership dues, don't send you any material in the mail, have no solicitation of funds, will never phone you, have no meetings, and we ONLY ask you to NEVER RE-ELECT ANYONE.
Walter Schivo
PS: Remember A New Broom Sweeps Clean

Afghanistan Debacle On The Horizon?

    President Obama is trying to decide our military strategy in Afghanistan.  He is mulling over input from his civilian and military advisers, and members of Congress, but he cannot make a timely decision because of his lack of military and national security experience.  His community organizing background is not very helpful in this situation.
    It appears he will follow a path of political compromise similar to the policies that handcuffed our military in Vietnam.  Obama is attempting to stifle his generals and turn them into Obama puppets, which will kill initiative and inhibit candid assessments of the war.  This is a recipe for disaster in Afghanistan and could produce another war dominated by unsound military decisions made by politicians.
    Predator drones, air power, missiles and mechanized armies cannot defeat the Taliban and al Qaida because of the extremely rugged terrain that is home to these fighters.
    General McChrystal should receive the additional ground combat troops he requested, including special operations forces; and we need to speed up the training of the Afghan army.
    We need a decisive military strategy for Afghanistan, not the indecision exhibited by the Obama Administration, which could lead to a debacle.  If Afghanistan goes, Pakistan could follow.
Donald A. Moskowitz
Londonderry, NH

Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama
    God spoke through the Prophet Jeremiah in warning many centuries ago 'Peace, Peace! They say, though there is no peace.'
I find it appalling that President Barack Obama should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
    Obama supports institutionalized and systematic murder through embryonic stem cell research and abortion.  He supports homosexuality, which thwarts the natural generation of life. Since swearing in as President he has stockpiled his administration with "culture of death" advocates - one of who is a registered communist. He rigorously supports a winless war in Afghanistan, has taken over - in dictatorial fashion - major American banks and the car industry, and is trying to introduce socialized health care with death panels that encourage euthanasia. Only recently he snubbed the Dalai Lama and proclaimed that the U.S. is no longer a Christian nation.
    In short, Obama has been installing a totalitarian form of government in the United States and promoting it throughout the world. For this he is given an award for peace.
Obama's winning the peace prize shows these prizes are political, not governed by the principles of credibility, values and morals.
Paul Kokoski
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Should We Bear Arms?
     At least people living in towns of the wild west had the good sense to realize how deadly guns can be or the wild west would have been filled with nothing but dead people. Our gun-slinging buddies today are not as wise as they carry around concealed weapons and tote assault weapons to presidential news conferences.
    Wearing loaded weapons anywhere but when hunting is absurd and indicates irrational fears about becoming a victim of crime or that someone is going to take their beloved guns away.
    We will always be able to bear arms in this country no matter what the paranoid schizophrenics and NRA fear mongers say.
    The question is where should we bear arms? In Arizona bars, if Republican lawmakers have their way in that state. On college campuses; after every shooting incident you hear the call from gun advocates to arm all the students. And the National Rifle Association's usual answer: Gun crimes will go down if there are more guns in people's hands. How many times has this been disproved?
Ron Lowe
Santa Monica

Lead The World Forward In Clean Energy
    We have an historic opportunity to unleash America's clean energy future, put millions of Americans to work, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and solve the climate crisis.
The Senate is scheduled to take up landmark climate and energy legislation soon. The House has already passed a strong bill. We need the Senate to act.
    The 21st century will be a clean energy century and the country that seizes the opportunity for clean energy innovation will lead the world forward.
The longer we wait, the more difficult and costly it will be to reduce emissions and solve the climate crisis. A delay of just two years would double the required emissions cuts per year to achieve the same total emissions reductions by 2020.
    Polls show that a clear majority of the American people support a cap on America's global warming pollution and a transition to a clean energy future.
Ms. Norma J F Harrison

Headed In The Right Direction
    Today President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize and Republicans are angry. Last week America lost it's bid to get the 2016 Olympics and the Republicans were cheering. Since Republicans have been doing everything wrong and caused our current economic crisis and started the two wars we are currently stuck with they are trying to redefine losing as winning and winning as losing. It seems that the angrier the Republicans are the more you know America is heading in the right direction. Congratulations Mr. President!
   I'm Marc Perkel - And I approved this message!
Marc Perkel

Time To Reassess-It's Not Working
    It is said Afghanistan is where empires go to die and apparently it is American's turn to join the others in the graveyard. The United States seems to run into trouble every time it tries to save a country from some evil.
     I don't want to appear disrespectful about benevolent Uncle Sam, who is a nice guy but penniless, and yet will give you money it doesn't have anyhow. He can't afford it but will send troops to fight and defend countries that are oftentimes skeptical of his intentions and wish he'd go home.
     The U.S. is like a boy scout trying to help someone across the street when they don't even want to go.  Uncle Sam was never invited to invade Vietnam and Iraq and save the people from perdition in the first place.  The administrations would fabricate an excuse to save Vietnam from communism and the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein.
    Now, we are in Afghanistan on a crusade to eradicate the al-Qaida terrorists from the mountainous terrain, a creditable pursuit but 8 years too late as it is now reported that the al-Qaida are slipping way and hiding out in Pakistan.
    There is something wrong about our 8-year mission to date in avenging the deaths of those in the Twin Tower tragedy. The terrorists chip away at our finest and brightest killing 6 or 8 soldiers every other day with no end in sight and no sign of ever achieving some victorious outcome from it all.
    It is time to come home, regroup, and reassess where we should go from here.  But what we are doing now ain't workin'.
David A. Whelan
Forest Knolls

Choice Between Inuit And Polar Bear
    There is no such thing as "sustainable hunting". Predators kill the weak. Hunters deliberately target the strong, thereby weakening the gene pool. For details, see
    It is easy to favor preserving native cultures; most people do. It is  easy to favor preserving wildlife; most people do. What nobody wants to talk about is what to do when those two priorities conflict with each other, as in this case. The only choice that makes sense is to protect the weaker party --in this case, the polar bear. Extinction is forever, and polar bears cannot protect themselves from humans. The Inuit, on the other hand, like all humans, can live almost anywhere. It would be a shame for them to lose their culture,  but  there is really no way to preserve it. It is fast becoming obsolete, due to forces beyond our control. In a choice between saving the Inuit culture, which may be 10,000 years old, versus saving the polar bear, a species that is millions of years old, we MUST come down on the side of the polar bear and other wildlife.
Mike Vandeman, Ph.D.
San Ramon

Vanishing Species: Frogs and Turtles
    Frogs and turtles are in big trouble worldwide for a variety of reasons. The State Fish & Game Commission is now considering a ban on the importation and sale of live frogs and turtles for California's many live animal food markets.
    Every year some two million American bullfrogs are imported into California for the markets, along with several hundred thousand turtles. The frogs are commercially raised in Taiwan. The turtles are all taken from the wild in the eastern U.S., depleting local populations there.
    None of these animals are native to California, and they cause environmental havoc when released into local waters (a common, though illegal practice). The exotics prey upon and displace our native species. Worse, all are diseased and/or parasitized. It is illegal to sell such products for human consumption, but the sales continue unabated.
    Even more troubling, a 2009 study published in BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION showed that 62% of the frogs necropsied were infected with the notorious chytrid fungus, a prime suspect in the extinctions of scores of amphibian species around the world.
    Letters in support of the ban are urgently needed. Please write: State Fish & Game Commission, 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; email [email protected]
Eric Mill

Governor Doesn't Want To Protect State Parks
     Governor Schwarzenegger just vetoed two landmark state park protection bill-Senate Bill 679 by Senator Lois Wolk (D-Linden) and Senate Bill 372 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego). These bills would have protected California's state park system against development proposals that threaten state parks, and ensure that efforts to use state parks for non-park purposes result in no net loss of park lands for Californians. The vetoes of SB 679 and SB 372 come on the heels of $14.2 million in budget cuts to the state parks. These budget cuts threaten to partially close parks and to significantly reduce maintenance throughout the system.
     In this singular moment, the Governor had an opportunity to give all Californians a small glimmer of hope for state parks. It simply didn't happen. In his veto message, the Governor has confirmed Californians worst fears that our state parks are at great risk. In his veto message on SB 679, he states:
     Whether it is roads, water and energy infrastructure, or areas necessary for the installation of renewable energy facilities, maintaining the flexibility of the current process is absolutely necessary as the state continues to strive to meet its infrastructure needs for a growing population.
     In 2007, an informal survey of state parks found 122 such development threats in 73 state parks. Every single one of these proposals, if built, would benefit private developers, utilities, or other institutions and not state parks. Parkland is not set aside as a land bank for development projects, no matter how worthy.
     We wish to remind the Governor that the park system has been largely paid for with funds that the public has specifically dedicated for that purpose. The cavalier attitude with which the Governor treats this investment is frankly shocking. When Californians of every walk of life voted to put their hard earned income into bonds to support capital improvements and the expansion of their state parks system they thought that policy leaders, elected and appointed, would protect that investment in perpetuity. Instead, that system is threatened by just the kind of projects that the Governor refers to in his statement. 
     The Governor had an unprecedented opportunity to prevent our state park system from becoming a path of least resistance for development and other non-park uses. Instead he has encouraged those who would seek these parks for potential development schemes. This is a chilling message in the context of the state parks' budget cuts that the Governor signed into law just a little over two months ago.
Elizabeth Goldstein, President                                              
CA State Parks Foundation  

What's To Hate About This One?
    We've heard a lot about health care reform all summer long, from Sarah Palin's "death panels" to Republicans ranting that the new health plan is actually a secret code for killing granny. The president keeps telling Americans over and over what is in the new proposed legislation but it seems to go in one ear and out the other for most people.
    For Republicans, Democrats and inattentive bystanders here is what is being considered in the current health care plan: Keep the health care you have if you so desire; continue to see the doctor of your choice; the plan equitably shares costs and contains costs between the public, large and small businesses, and government; enables small businesses (under 50 employees) to afford to provide health care for its employees; increases the quality of care for all Americans; reforms the insurance market so that you never lose your coverage; keeps what works in health care and repairs what's broken; forces private plans to be more competitive on both price and quality; gives tax credits for citizens at or below three times the federal poverty line, on a sliding scale based on income and what you can afford; specifically prohibits government funding of health care for illegal immigrants and for abortion services; pays for, but does not mandate, voluntary discussions with your doctor about what level of end-of-life care you want (private insurance does not currently pay for these discussions); makes it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions or to cancel coverage when you become ill or injured; pays for preventive care, such as cancer screenings (prevention is cheaper than treatment); increases communication and cooperation between hospitals, clinics, and doctor's offices to reduce overhead, contain costs and improve quality of care.
    What's not to love about this plan? For conservatives it has fiscal restraints, and denies illegal immigrants health care and bans government-funded abortions. For Democrats it offers universal coverage to almost everyone and brings health care up to date. So why are  Republicans, insurance and pharmaceutical companies and the Medical monopoly fighting this new plan tooth and nails.
Ron Lowe          
Nevada City

Absurd Article On Obama
    Your shtick in the September issue front page OBAMA'S AMERICA IS NOT DELIVERING THE GOODS is absurd. Ignorance of the people, their susceptibility to media and hype, naivety, impatience, unrealistic expectations - are the most serious problems the US confronts.
    Obama inherited an enormous economic mess mess which required drastic, risky measures.  The comparisons your writer makes with Menachen Begin, have no bearing and are largely irrelevant.  Roosevelt needed 10 years to straighten out the economy and it was WWII which bailed him out. 
John Salz
Mill Valley

Commemorate The 45,000 Who Die Because They Have No Healthcare
    Every September, we solemnly commemorate the 3,000 victims of 9/11.  How come we never commemorate the estimated 45,000 of our fellow citizens who die every single year simply because they don't have health insurance?
    It should also be noted that while the 3,000 deaths of our fellow citizens on 9/11 were caused by a foreign power, the yearly 45,000 deaths of our fellow citizens without health care are being caused by a power within our own country - our corporate health care system.
     We must be steadfast in demanding real health care reform - a system that guarantees health care for all.
Edith Cacciatore

Looming Catastrophe
   When Pres. Obama and his tame congressional flacks demand an immediate vote on a bill of over 1,000 pages that NOBODY, not even the legislators, have read, you can bet the farm there's a huge, stinking mackerel wrapped in those 1,000 pages.
    When THE PEOPLE are denied the right to see what's in the bill before those congressional clowns vote on it, then the Obamacrat majority has clearly forsworn its oath of fealty to Constitution, duty and constituents, slavishly cleaving only to their false messiah in his empty suit.
    Our only recourse, short of taking arms against tyranny, as Colonial Americans did, is to expel as many as possible from Congress in November's election. Otherwise the looming catastrophe promised by Obamacare legislation will surely crash down upon us.
Fielding Greaves
LTC, USA, Ret.
Union member, AFL/CIO
Dedicated taxpayer advocate

Huge Threat To Wildlife
   Climate change poses an unprecedented threat to wildlife -- changing, shrinking and destroying habitat, forcing wildlife to migrate or adapt, or even threatening their very existence.
   The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change warns that if we don't take strong action to address global warming soon, 20-30%vof the world's plant and animal species will be at increased risk of extinction by 2050.
   Fortunately, there is something that can be done. This summer, the House of Representatives passed legislation to both reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that are triggering climate change
and take steps to safeguard natural resources and wildlife threatened by the changes in climate already set in motion. Now the Senate is moving on similar legislation recently introduced by Senators Boxer and
    However, reducing carbon emissions is not enough. Any comprehensive climate and energy legislation must dedicate 5% of the funding generated to safeguarding fish and wildlife and the natural resources on which we all rely. Our senators should know that their constituents expect nothing less.
Marc Chapone
San Francisco

Medical Care and Drug Testing
    In a message dated 9/30/2009 8:41:15 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test to show I am clear of drugs, with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. So here is my Question.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
    Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their rump --doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
    I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.
     Why stop at welfare checks? Drug testing all students might require schools to spend more Federal funds on security and medical tests than educating them costs.  That's a positive, isn't it, especially considering the liberal agenda of the government's socialist secular education bureaucracy? 
    There would be all those new jobs for last year's grads, a great entry-level pipeline to the booming privatized security and forensic para-medical industries being run by our Blackwater vets. The cost-saving compromise would be to make full use of dogs, drug testing all those the dog signals on, and also to test according to a broad range of profiles all those whose appearance or behavior appear to result from or to approve of the use of drugs. To be most effective, uncover abusively permissive parents by issuing John Doe, Jr. warrants to search the homes of students who bust the dog test.  Considering that schools are used for poll sites, drug test all who come to vote, thereby disenfranchising the dirty dissident. 
    Considering the extent that drugs fund pro-terrorist thought in America, willingness to submit to a drug test on demand should be a requirement for anyone to enter the compound of a State educational facility, or to enter a Federal building, or to book passage on a ship or airplane, or withdraw cash from a bank.  As "wars" go, the War On Drugs is still in the candy-ass dewy-eyed pantywaist liberal stage, and the adoption of more realistic and resolute tactics in its prosecution remains still only a conservative's hope and dream. When you vote on this issue, just remember that only regulation, surveillance, accountability, and enforcement make security possible, and nothing is more important than protecting the children. 
     WHAT CHUMPS!!!  It is not the government that is demanding the tests to make sure you are only using the drugs the pharmos sell.  It is your employer's insurance company.  They know about 60,000,000 of us use forbidden substances.  If you present a claim for injury or illness, and they can show you have the wrong molecule in your urine, they can declare you were "in process of committing a crime" and "under the influence of a controlled substance" when it happened. Therefore, your policy is abrogated, and they pay you nothing.  Creating a security state is not for your protection, you fear-manipulated sheep:  it is to enable them to exploit you.  Even good shepherds do not keep flocks because they love sheep, but because they know the price of mutton and wool.  Your idea of freedom seems not to extend beyond obedience, and it is a tragedy of lost America that you are so eager to send the sheepdogs to punish all who will not stay in line, in harness, in step, and informant.
    The War On Drugs is not the real thing, it is just a drill.  It is a drill, like line-dancing class, to teach you the steps, and how to respond to the calls.   Do-si-do, and dont-see-dont.   Drill, baby, drill....    
 James Nathan Post

Tweakers In Bolinas
    Hey- I read your newspaper. I love Bolinas. I live in Marin. I have been visiting Bolinas for 15 years. I love Smiley's. But I hate how it seems like there are more and more tweakers (meth-heads) in the town every time I go there. The past couple of times we have gone there we have been yelled at by incoherent and seemingly dangerous tweakers. They seem to have little encampments on the beach. It sucks. I don't mind the drunks- they add some character to the place. I like the hippies, perhaps because I am one too. But the tweakers are ruining the place. They are bad news. They are unpredictable. Is anyone doing anything about it?
Joe James

Medicare Is Like  Public Option
    What are the odds! 66 years old and never a knee injury. In May I broke my right kneecap and recovered rather quickly thanks to Medicare and the services offered. I, like tens of millions of other Americans, contribute money out of each Social Security payment for Medicare. I can say that my stay and care in the hospital and follow-up was exceptional and efficient thanks in part to Medicare.
    Then October 1, I was in a crosswalk and got hit by a car, got banged up, and suffered a broken left knee. Medicare stepped in again and took care of MRI's, doctors and the hospital stay, and I am already well on my way to a speedy recovery,
     Medicare is much like a public option, single payer, and nationalized medical program that President Obama and Democrats have been proposing and those Republican obstructionists have been fighting against. I think about the millions of other Americans that don't have the option of Medicare and how I would have been up the proverbial creek without a paddle without it.
    The ongoing debate and struggle over health care for all Americans is a human rights issue. Why would anyone in America not want universal health care coverage except in that they have been bambozzeled and mislead by Fox News and the Republican Party.
Ron Lowe
Nevada City

Criminals Among Us?
    There are several "Swords of Damocles" hanging above the heads of Bush and Cheney that President Obama should be aware of. The president's current policy "to go forward and not backward"  appears to suggest that when looking backward spells trouble, he would rather not do so and simply go forward. Well, this policy can easily backfire on him.
There is a judge in the Spanish High Court by the name of Baltazar Garzon who in March allowed a case to proceed against  six Bush administration officials over allegations that they gave legal cover for torture at Guatanamo. The court has given itself jurisdiction over any case worldwide under it's doctrine of universal justice. The officials are: Alberto Gonzales, Douglas Feith, David Addington, John Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and William Haynes.  It is traditional for the prosecution to grab underlings first  in order to get them to talk on why they did what they did, which leads up to their superiors.
The Doctrine of Command Responsiblity dictates that commanders, all the way up the "Command Chain", to the president are liable for war crimes if they knowingly did nothing to stop them from being committed.
If the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice is coming after American officials for war crimes, what is the position of the Obama administration on the matter?  Shouldn't the U.S. government lead the charge in bringing these officials to justice- rather than pretend ignorance over the matter?
    This brings to the fore the U.S. Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence Investigation into the Bush  administration's torture policy which according to Senator Seymour Whitehouse (D-RI) includes looking into the role of the chain of command.  There is also the proposed Truth Commission that Senator Leahy is pushing with vigor but not getting the necessary traction it requires from the White House.
There is the very imminent possibility that some of these officials under question may unwittingly visit countries that have governments that are signatories to the International Criminal Court (ICC}. The ICC's principal mission is to enact "Article Five of the Roman Statute "Article Five grants jurisdiction over the four crimes considered "the most serious crimes against the international community as a whole"; genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. Should these governments learn of their presence in their respective countries, they have the right to apprehend them and be subjected to investigation.
    Before any government can do this, the US, government is duty bound to at least subject these suspected criminals to some serious investigation so that they are either cleared of the charges or vigorously prosecuted. Otherwise, we are projecting to the whole world that we are knowingly harboring criminals that are veritable fugitives, hiding from justice.
If President Obama is indeed committed to change, he should make certain that the American people are looked upon by the international community as law abiding, God fearing and generous people rather than what these free wheeling, arrogant war criminals are portraying us to be.
    If President Obama  is indeed committed to fairness and justice, he should understand that we are speaking here of the people who were in power when he offered his services to the American people to change a decidedly wayward government. He was elected president precisely because of his promise to change not only our government but the bad name that the Bush administration has given the American people. That change does not end by booting out the Bush gang but holding them responsible for the crimes that they have committed. Otherwise, the Obama government will in fact guarantee them protection and simply be an extension to that tragedy.
Antonio R. Serna
Rohnert Park

White House Immersed In Pork Barrel
    When President Obama was campaigning for President he made a solemn pledge he would eliminate or reduce earmarks.  He broke that promise during the push to implement the new healthcare program.
    The White House cut backroom deals with a number of senators to secure their votes for the bill.  Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska received $100 million in federal funds for a rip off which exempted his state from paying for new Medicaid patients.  Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got a kickback of $300 million in extra federal spending for her state.
    The healthcare bill will add  $1 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, and the Medicare system will suffer cuts of $500 billion. Approximately 30 million people will be added to the healthcare system.  This will place a severe strain on hospitals and doctors who will not be able to handle the huge influx of new patients.  The end result will be long waiting periods and lower quality service for all. 
    A particular concern is the impact of the program on small businesses, which will be forced to provide health insurance to their employees. This program could force many small businesses to raise prices and/or reduce costs (primarily labor costs), and some businesses will be forced to close their doors.  It should be noted small businesses account for about 70% of the jobs in this country.
    It is unfortunate the White House had to resort to pork barrel chicanery to get a highly flawed healthcare bill passed.
Donald A. Moskowitz
Londonderry, NH

What We Do And Conscience
    We are at a most dangerous point in the history of the world today. We have leaders of the United States government armed with nuclear weapons, as Professor Chossudovsky said, treating them as if they were conventional weapons and leaders who have now openly and publicly repudiated the principles of law, of international law, that the United States government applied to the Nazi leaders for the atrocities they committed during the 2nd World War, and in the process of doing this, these United States government officials have made Nazi arguments made by the lawyers for the Nazi defendants at Nuremberg. What we as human beings do about this situation is up to the conscience of every one of us. Thank you.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
Champaign, IL




Smiley's Hotel in downtown Bolinas, California offers some of the best rooms in West Marin at the most reasonable prices. Garden settings and only a 5 minute walk to some beautiful beaches. 30 miles north of San Francisco, it is the best kept secret hideaway in Marin.
Click Here To Find Out More