A Little History Test






Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual events from history.

Do you remember?

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:

a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist, between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:

a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:

a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim
male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:

a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:

a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed in-flight by:

a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:

a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:

a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

13. Who bombed the Spanish railway a couple of years ago, killing many innocent civilians and terrorizing that country?

a. The Teletubies
b. Michael Jackson
c. The Village People
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

14. And who just bombed the City of London, twice!!!:

d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
d. Muslim male extremists, mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Anyone not able to get "D" as the answer in each of these?

Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you??

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honour winning and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim males between the ages 17 and 40 alone, lest they be guilty of the terrible dastardly deed of "profiling."

As "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does."

God Bless,
Dan'L

Sen. Hutchison: Roberts line crossed

BY TODD J. GILLMAN
The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Citing "simple decency," Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison demanded Friday that journalists quit poking around for details on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' adopted children.

"Some boundaries should be placed on inquiries into the private lives of public figures," said Hutchison, who faced some uncomfortable questions after she adopted her son and daughter four years ago, when she was 58 and husband Ray Hutchison was 68.

With a month to go before Roberts' confirmation hearings, news media and interest groups continue to scour his record.

Some have also focused on other aspects of his life. On Thursday, the online Drudge Report revealed that a New York Times reporter had made inquiries about the Roberts children, Josephine and Jack, ages 5 and 4.

According to recent news reports, the judge and his wife, Jane, wed in 1996 when both were 41 and adopted the children in 2000.

On Friday, The Times said no one had ordered an investigation of the adoptions, calling the inquiry part of a routine effort to "report extensively on the life and career" of a nominee for high office.

"Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue," said Times spokesman Toby Usnik. "We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions."

The newspaper denied assertions by conservative bloggers that it consulted lawyers about trying to unseal the adoption records. Usnik said the paper dropped the matter after learning that the records were sealed.

Hutchison called the newspaper's actions "reprehensible," saying the inquiry crossed the "fine line between legitimate background inquiries and invasion of privacy."

The National Council for Adoption also denounced the inquiry, saying the adoptions have no bearing on the judge's suitability to serve.

***********************************************

Thank You Senator Hutchison, for being willing to step up to the plate on this one, (see the original story, just two days ago, below).

God Bless,
Dan'L

Ted Kennedy Gets Cold Welcome At Guantanamo Bay





We've received a lot of emails expressing the sentiment that "you've had enough" of the constant criticism of our troops and the military from certain politicians and 'news' journalists.

Well, you're not alone, and this is one of those stories that will make you feel good - our brave troops stationed at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba [GITMO] gave an earful to Senator Ted Kennedy on a recent visit by Kennedy to the facility.The BLOG, Political Teen, has the video footage from Fox News Channel:

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/07/22/1991/

It's nice to see that the 'backlash' against those Blame America First types who tried to undermine our troops is growing... and that even our troops have had enough of the attempts to undermine their work.At our recent "I LOVE AMERICA" art exhibit and patriotic rally we were blown away at how popular our "I LOVE GITMO" shirts continued to be.

We continue to spread the message of the backlash one bumper sticker and one t-shirt at a time.

You can display your own love of GITMO here: http://www.thecampaignstore.com/store/?keywords=GITMO

And, . . . . if you click on "comments," below, . . . . you can leave a public message for other VRWC readers to enjoy.

God Bless,
Dan'L

New York Times Latest Version of Fair and Balanced News Coverage

Above you see the high school graduation photo from John G. Roberts' high school annual. It was interesting to look back to see just what he looked like, as he graduated and prepared to enter college, on his way to the SCOTUS position currently under consideration. In the interum time, John Roberts has undergone quite a few accomplishments, trials, and tribulations of life, just like you and I have gone through. It's the natural course of things. John Roberts even adopted two children into his family.

Now, the New York Times is trying to find a way to un-seal the adoption records for Roberts' two children. Why would they want to do this?? Of what possible relevance would those adoption records be??

Here, are a few suggestions. The Times wants to show that John G. Roberts moved ahead of other deserving parents in the line of couples waiting to adopt. Think about that for a moment, . . . I'd have to say that something in that judgment would have to be a bit subjective, . . wouldn't you?? Or, maybe the NYT wants to show that Roberts paid for a baby, . . . paid some woman to have a baby for him and his wife. Maybe the Times can use this to promote the idea that Roberts is anti-abortion, . . . or that he's just another one of those eeeeevil rich guys. Figure it our for yourself, . . . and then, ask yourself if the NYT would be trying to open these records if the nominee was appointed by a liberal president. If you answered that in the affirmative, you need to click "Next Blog" above, in the upper right corner of this page.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Pundit Swears, Walks Off Live Show on CNN -- [Almost no one notices!]

CNN Suspends Robert Novak After 'Inexcusable' Outburst

By DAVID BAUDER, Associated Press

NEW YORK (Aug. 4) - CNN suspended commentator Robert Novak indefinitely after he swore and walked off the set Thursday during a debate with Democratic operative James Carville.

The exchange during CNN's "Inside Edition" came during a discussion of Florida's Senate campaign. CNN correspondent Ed Henry noted when it was through that he had been about to ask Novak about his role in the investigation of the leak of a CIA officer's identity.

A CNN spokeswoman, Edie Emery, called Novak's behavior "inexcusable and unacceptable."
Novak has apologized to CNN, and CNN apologizes to viewers, she said.

"We've asked Mr. Novak to take some time off," she said.

A telephone message at Novak's office was not immediately returned Thursday.

Carville and Novak were both trying to speak while they were handicapping the GOP candidacy of Katherine Harris. Novak said the opposition of the Republican establishment in Florida might not be fatal for her.

"Let me just finish, James, please," Novak continued. "I know you hate to hear me, but you have to."

Carville, addressing the camera, said: "He's got to show these right wingers that he's got a backbone, you know. It's why the Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show 'em that you're tough."

"Well, I think that's bullshit, and I hate that," Novak replied. "Just let it go."

As moderator Henry stepped in to ask Carville a question, Novak walked off the set.
Only two weeks ago, CNN executives defended their decision to keep Novak on the air during the ongoing probe into the revelation of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity. In a July 2003 newspaper column, Novak identified Plame, the wife of administration critic and former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, as a CIA operative.

Wilson has said the leak of his wife's name was an attempt by the administration to discredit him. Two other reporters connected to the case openly fought the revelation of their sources, and Judith Miller of The New York Times has been jailed for refusing to cooperate with prosecutors.

Novak has repeatedly refused to comment about his role in the federal investigation.
After Novak walked off on Thursday, Henry said that Novak had been told before the segment that he was going to be asked on air about the CIA case.

"I'm hoping that we will be able to ask him about that in the future," Henry said.

Novak has been a longtime contributor to CNN, taking the conservative point of view during the just-canceled "Crossfire" show.

*********************************************

CNN probably doesn't realize this, but every American who follows any kind of politics, whatsoever, KNOWS that James Carville, (husband of the lovely and gracious, Mary Mattilyn, who, by the way, must be some kind of Saint, for putting up with this partisan clown), is the most obnoxious of any extreme leftist category you could select.

CNN selected Carville, and named him "pundit," during the Clinton administration, to defend their hero, William Jefferson Slickster. Carville is the author of the "drag a hundred dollar-bill through any trailer court, and see what they can get," comments about Paula's claims that Clinton had sexually harassed her, while she was employed by the Arkansas State Givernment, and he was Governor.

Anyone with even one functional brain cell can see the liberal slant to the above article, and know that it's author is a card-carrying member of the extreme left portion of the media, who's also carrying forward an agenda, rooted in the cause that conservative people of any profession should be held to different standards than those who agree with the contemporary liberal bent. This story tells as much about it's author and the foundation for the subject matter as it does about the use of a swear word, and subsequent departure of an angry conservative commentator.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Cheap Shots from the left, . . .

President Bush just had his latest physical examination.

According to press accounts, Bush is in tip-top shape, . . . quite the athlete. He rides his bike regularly, exercises all the time and is in very good health.

Presidents through the years have these examinations to prove their fitness for the office in which they hold. Fairly routine. But what wasn't routine was the cheap shot the Democratic National Committee took once the report on his health was made public.

To outline the absolute desperation of the Democrats these days, take a quick peek at one of the lines from their press release:

"While President Bush has made physical fitness a personal priority, his cuts to
education funding have forced schools to roll back physical education classes
and his Administration's efforts to undermine Title IX sports programs have
threatened thousands of women's college sports programs."

Leave it to the Democratic Party to take something like physical fitness and try and turn it into a political attack. Shameless, but not unexpected.

With Howard Dean running the show, should we be surprised?

The idiocy continued, . . . this time a quote from a DNC spokesperson:

"His personal habits indicate that physical fitness is not just fun and games
for him. Don't our kids deserve the same opportunities to be physically fit??
President Bush should stop running from his responsibility and make sure that
all American children have access to physical fitness programs."

Since when is physical fitness the responsibility of the federal government?? Doesn't show up anywhere in my copy of the United States Constitution.

Boy, times sure must be lean down at DNC headquarters if this is the best they can do for a partisan attack on their nemesis.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Class Warfare is Alive and Well!


Federal Judge and nominee to the Supreme Court John G. Roberts has to make all sorts of disclosures to the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the confirmation process.

One of those is financial disclosure, meaning how much he's worth, where the money is and so on.

Turns out John Roberts is doing pretty well, with some $5.3 million in assets. Not bad for someone who is about to take a drastic pay cut to go back into government work.

But the media is focusing on that $5.3 million figure, . . . imagine that, a rich guy on the Supreme Court!!

And so it goes with the class warfare card.

With Roberts' wealth making news, perhaps it's worth noting the net worth of some of the politicians in the United States Senate.

Out of 100 members, 40 are millionaires, including:

The Poodle: net worth, . . . somwhere between $164 million and $211 million, thanks to the wealth inherited by his lovely, adoring wife . . .

New Jersey Senator John Corzine...$71 million . . .

And, as you can see, . . . the list goes on and on. It doesn't really matter, but with the media making as big a deal as possible about Roberts' financial disclosures this week, perhaps it's worth nothing that compared to some of the U.S. Senators that will be quizzing him, he's dirt poor.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Are we finally waking up??

It looks like people in this country are finally starting to get the message.

Earlier this week in Great Britain, the London police made a little news when they announced they weren't going to waste their time searching little white old ladies.

London remains on high alert, . . . constantly searching and looking for the next suicide bomber and the most effective ways to stop said bombers. With probably millions of people riding the subway system, how does law enforcement keep an eye on things??

Do you go the route of the TSA and search every certain number of persons, no matter who they are??

Not if you want to actually prevent a bombing.

So while the United States is strip searching the librarian, the Brits are looking for people who look like terrorists. Islamic terrorists. Outright racial profiling. Something WE, in America, could/would never do.

Or maybe we would.

Finally there seems to be a bit of backbone coming from politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle. [Hey, I believe in giving credit, where credit is due!!] And it comes to us from New York, a city with a bit of experience with terrorism. Over the weekend, Democratic State Assemblyman Dov Hikind finally came right out and said that the police were wasting time with random searches of subway patrons. Said Hikind: "They all look a certain way. It's all very nice to be politically correct here, but we're talking about terrorism."

Right.

The only way to ensure the continued survival of our beloved American way of life is to start singling people out, and we need to do this right away.

As you might expect, the good assemblyman's comments caused quite a stir. Yesterday, jumping to his defense was Republican City Councilman James Oddo. Oddo had this to say:

"The reality is that there is a group of people who want to kill us and destroy
our way of life. Young Arab fundamentalists are the individuals undertaking
these acts of terror, and we should keep those facts prominently in our minds
and eyes as we attempt to secure our populace."

Will we do whatever is necessary to stop suicide bombers before they start striking here??

If we follow the advice of these two New Yorkers, our chances are good. If we listen to everybody else, . . . you know who I mean --- the hand-wringers among us, . . . the chances are not too good. Political correctness used to be just an annoyance. Now it has very deadly consequences. Since many of us seem to have forgotten the World Trade Center, and September 11, 2001, . . . we should be able to remember London, July 7, 2005 --- thats four short weeks ago!

God Bless,
Dan'L

Senators call for internet porn tax

OUT-LAW News, 08/02/2005

Legislation that aims to make the internet a safer place for children was introduced into Congress last week, with the intention of imposing a 25% excise tax on internet pornography transactions.

The Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005, introduced by Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and eight other Senators, was published in coordination with the release of a new report by Third Way, a centrist think tank and advocacy group.

Third Way’s report exposes alarming statistics linking children to pornographic web sites. It finds that children between the ages of 12-17 are the largest viewers of internet pornography, and the average age at which children are first exposed to on-line pornography is 11 years of age.

“The internet has become our new American Main Street, and it’s literally transforming the experience of growing up in America in a way much different from the way parents of today grew up,” Senator Lincoln said.

“Many internet service providers have taken significant steps to provide parents with tools to protect their children from inappropriate material on-line and they should be commended,” she continued. “But sadly, many adult oriented web sites in today’s on-line world are not only failing to keep products unsuitable for children from view, but are also pushing those products in children’s faces. And it’s time that we stand up and say, enough is enough.”

The legislation has three clear objectives:

§ Requires Age Verification – Adult, for-profit web sites will be required to use software to verify the age of users attempting to access their web sites. On-line
merchants, banks, and credit card companies will not be able to process
payment transactions that are not age verified. The FTC will issue and
enforce the regulations outlined in this section.

§ Establish an Internet Safety and Child Protection Trust Fund
(ISCP Trust Fund) – This fund will centralise and coordinate the
allocation of federal resources in support of efforts on the part of
law enforcement and others to combat internet and pornography
related crimes against children. Trust Fund resources will also
support initiatives that help parents exercise greater supervision
over their kids’ on-line activities.

§ Force Pornographers to Pay the Costs of Child Protection –
The Internet Safety and Child Protection Trust Fund will not be
deficit-financed or financed from taxes paid by the average,
working American. Rather, the Trust Fund will be financed by
a 25% excise tax on internet pornography transactions.

Democrat Representatives Jim Matheson and Robert Menendez have introduced similar legislation into the House of Representatives.

********************************************

Do I really need to tell you what I think of this one?? It's only here, to show just how absurd these morons can be. It's that damned EEEEVIL Internet thingie, AGAIN!

Grab your coat, Mabel, We're goin' to town! We're gonna talk to the Mayor, 'bout this taxation stuff!!

God Bless,
Dan'L

Islamic Clerics:

http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/soapbox.asp

Although the radical Islamic terrorist attacks have increased in the last year and I keep hearing and reading that Islam is a peaceful religion, I have seen little in the way of Muslim clerics coming forward to vehemently denounce these acts of murder.

I would like to ask a question of the leaders and practitioners of the Islamic religion. Does it say in the Koran that when a young man dies in the act of killing non believers, even though they are innocent, non combatant women and children, that he will go to a paradise and have seventy or so virgins at his beck and call throughout eternity?

If that is in the Koran it certainly disapproves the theory that Islam is a peaceful religion. If it is not why would it not be your duty to come out and inform these young men that what they are doing is not sanctioned by your writings and there is no male dominated heaven and that only death and eternity await them when they strap explosives on their bodies and kill people who have done nothing to them.

It seems to me that the Muslim faith is trying to have it both ways now, claiming passivity for the religion and failing to denounce those who, if it is peaceful, are defiling it.

Isn’t the fact of the matter that an element within the Islamic world has gone berserk and totally out of control of everyone except the most radical mullahs and leaders like Osama Bin Ladin and the Al Qaida?

Isn’t it true that the Muslim world cringes in fear just as much as the non-Muslim world does when it comes to these murderous loose canons? Haven’t the attacks on Islamic countries and Islamic people proven the fact that these people have no conscience against murdering their own brothers and sister if they think it will further their cause?

Isn’t it true that these radicals are a thorn in the side of mainstream Islam?

There are millions of gainfully employed, tax paying, hard working Muslims living and thriving in America and I find it hard to believe that they would like to see their way of life destroyed.

If that is the case where is the outcry, where is the indignation, where is the patriotism to your chosen country?

Let’s hear some long and loud cries from the Islamic community denouncing, in no uncertain terms, the acts of murder and mayhem being carried out around the globe by the radicals.

It all boils down to this. Either the terrorism is a part of mainstream Islam or it is not.

You either condemn it or condone it.

You either fight it or support it.

There is no middle ground here. There are only two sides to be chosen. You are either with the terrorists who want to destroy everything free people cherish or you’re with the people they are trying to destroy.

I invite every peace loving Muslim to come and join us in our fight.

Choose soon.

Pray for our troops.

What do you think?

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

*****************************************

But your stereotypical Uppity Eastern, (or Western, for that matter -- we can't forget the left coast, can we?), extremist liberal thinks that Country Music and the good folks therein are just a bunch of hicks, and that George W. Bush invites them to the White House ONLY because he needs to carry more of the South, where the dems have traditionally held a lot of political clout.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Playing by the RULES, . . .

Much to the dismay of Senators Charles Schumer, Edward Kennedy and George Voinovich, George Bush appointed John Bolton to be the ambassador to the UN day before yesterday. This is provided for by the US Constitution, . . . the president can appoint someone during a Congressional recess, and that person can serve until the next Congress takes office, which will occur in January 2007. So Bolton it is. He’s our guy, over at the tacky-decorated place with too many floors, and all the funny flags out front.So why do extreme leftist Democrats have their panties all up in a bunch over Bolton's appointment??

It has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons they've given. Stories about abusing subordinates and manipulating intelligence aren't why the left opposes Bolton. Instead, it's because Bolton is not an internationalist United Nations worshiper. He believes the United States is a sovereign nation and the world's only superpower. This irritates the hell out of the leftists, like Chuckie Schumer, Kofi Annan and Teddy Kennedy. They believe the United Nations should be the world's only superpower, with taxing authority and military control over its member nations. The next 19 months will be interesting down at UN, . . . . hopefully with Bolton swinging the axe, so we can reform that tax-exempt building that could get by without the top third of its floors.

The best part of the whole idea, is to listen to the media, and the whining Democrats, you would think that a recess appointment was a rare abuse of power. It would be easy to infer that such an outrage hadn't taken place in what, . . . about 100 years??

Nope, . . . . Actually it’s quite the contrary. Let's go to the tape, James. Let’s shine a little light of truth, on the matter:According to research that even my good friend, Bill Pelton, could do, using the four most recent presidents, here are the numbers of recess appointments made:

--President George W. Bush: 110 recess appointments in 4 1/2 years in office.
--President Bill Clinton: 140 recess appointments in two terms.
--President Bush Senior: 77 recess appointments in his one term.
--President Ronald Reagan: 240 recess appointments in two terms.

So let's see, . . . according to MY calculator, that's 567 recess appointments in the last 25 years, or an average of just over 22 a year.

Bush had the power to put Bolton in the ambassador chair and he did it. Other presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have done the same thing. It's nothing new. Ike even used the recess appointment to put 3 Justices on the Supreme Court. Can you imagine the squeals of the Democrats today if Bush did the same thing??

God Bless,
Dan'L

Correcting the CIA

Robert Novak

August 2, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A statement attributed to the former CIA spokesman indicating that I deliberately disregarded what he told me in writing my 2003 column about Joseph Wilson's wife is just plain wrong.

Though frustrated, I have followed the advice of my attorneys and written almost nothing about the CIA leak over two years because of a criminal investigation by a federal special prosecutor. The lawyers also urged me not to write this. But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply.

In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former Amb. Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."

This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. That would be inexcusable for any journalist and particularly a veteran of 48 years in Washington. The truth is otherwise, and that is why I feel compelled to write this column.

My column of July 14, 2003, asked why the CIA in 2002 sent Wilson, a critic of President Bush, to Niger to investigate an Italian intelligence report of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases. All the subsequent furor was caused by three sentences in the sixth paragraph:

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA [Harlow] says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."

There never was any question of me talking about Mrs. Wilson "authorizing." I was told she "suggested" the mission, and that is what I asked Harlow. His denial was contradicted in July 2004 by a unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee report. The report said Wilson's wife "suggested his name for the trip." It cited an internal CIA memo from her saying "my husband has good relations" with officials in Niger and "lots of French contacts," adding they "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee that Mrs. Wilson "had the idea" of sending Wilson to Africa.

So, what was "wrong" with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect. He told the Post reporters he had "warned" me that if I "did write about it, her name should not be revealed." That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America."

Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson "was undercover because that was classified." What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, "she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.'" According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when Agency officials feared she had been "outed" by the traitor Aldrich Ames.

I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if Bill Harlow, then CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the Agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger herself or anybody.

The recent first disclosure of secret grand jury testimony set off a news media feeding frenzy centered on this obscure case. Joseph Wilson was discarded a year ago by the Kerry presidential campaign after the Senate committee reported much of what he said "had no basis in fact." The re-emerged Wilson is now accusing the senators of "smearing" him. I eagerly await the end of this investigation when I may be able to correct other misinformation about me and the case.

*****************************************

Makes ya wonder what the extremists over on the left will be saying, now (besides their usual demonization of Novak, that is)?? Typical extremist behavior, I guess!!

God Bless,
Dan'L

Recess Activities, Anyone??

When George Bush nominated John Bolton to be the next ambassador to the United Nations, it didn't take long before Democrats lost their minds and announced their opposition to Bolton. Their main reasons are that he dared to criticize the United Nations and that he is blunt and direct. Bolton even went so far as to say you could lop 10 floors off the top of the UN building and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Hmmmmmm? Sounds right to me.

But, . . . Bolton was only partially right, . . . you could tear down the entire UN headquarters and it wouldn't make any difference. In fact, it might actually help.

Anyway, Democrats and a few weak-kneed Republicans in the Senate aren't supporting Bolton.

As a result, they don't have 60 votes to bring the nomination to the floor for a vote. If this were a Democratic president's nominee, we would never hear the end of the whining. But as is too often the case, there are different rules when a Republican president is doing the picking.

So what is George Bush to do??

It turns out there is a loophole that could get John Bolton installed at the UN right away. It's called a recess appointment, and it's considered an end-run around the Senate. How does it work?? All Bush has to do is wait for the Senate to go on vacation, then appoint John Bolton to the seat. The only glitch?? . . . . He can only serve until the next session of Congress begins, which would be January 2007. That leaves John Bolton about 19 months or so to do the gig. Obviously, Bush thinks he can accomplish a lot, during that time frame.

Despite the Constitution giving the president this power, those extremist Democrats are not pleased. Enter Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd. Dodd complained on Fox News Sunday yesterday that Bolton was damaged goods and didn't have the confidence of the Congress. Too bad.

Since Dodd has said that Bolton doesn't have the confidence of the Congress, then why don't we just have a vote to see for sure?? If the Democrats are right, Bolton won't be confirmed and Bush will pick someone else. But the left is afraid he would be confirmed, which is why they won't allow the vote. Typical move from the extremists!!

God Bless,
Dan'L

Now, that the four would-be Islamic bombers have been captured in London, the international media and pro-appeasement Euro-weenies have set about to try and figure out why these complete-wastes-of-protoplasm did what they did.

First up, we have a CNN report this morning that says a suspect in Italian custody is saying the attempted July 21 bombings had nothing to do with the bombings on July 7 or Al-Qaeda.

He says he did it to draw attention to the anger over war in Iraq. Voila! So, . . ummmm, . . what was Osama bin Laden's excuse on 9/11??

For those of you who were indoctrinated in public schools, the Iraq action came after 9/11, not before. The implication is that the war in Iraq made these Islamic terrorists try to do what they did and as a result, the whole thing is George Bush's fault. Liberal conspiracies are so neat and tidy, aren't they?Well, not really. First of all, people lie. Is Hussain Osman going to tell police if he is a member of Al-Qaeda? Probably not.

Second, if the bombings were done because they were mad about Iraq, how would anyone ever know?? But to really understand the thinking of these psychos, take a look at a few of the supposed quotes from this Islamic baby killer:"I am against war. I've marched in peace rallies and nobody listened to me. I never thought of killing people."

Apparently he never thought of killing people until he decided to blow up innocent people on July 21st. Fortunately, he’s incompetent, and the bombs didn't go off. Expect the media and various other Islamic terrorist apologists, on the far-left side of any room, to start blaming and justifying the London bombings because of the war in Iraq.

Bush is the real terrorist in their weak little minds. Morons abound!

God Bless,
Dan'L

THOUSANDS OF ILLEGAL ALIEN CHILD PREDATORS CAPTURED

Jim Kouri, CPP
August 01, 2005

Top officials at the Department of Homeland Security recently announced that arrests during the first two years of Operation Predator have exceeded 6,000.

Operation Predator is Immigration and Customs Enforcement's comprehensive initiative to safeguard children from foreign national pedophiles, international sex tourists, Internet child pornographers and human traffickers. Operation Predator evolved out of ICE's mission to find and deport illegal aliens, particularly those with criminal records. The majority of the arrests under Operation Predator - roughly 85% - have involved foreign nationals in this country whose child sex crimes make them removable from the United States. By matching immigration databases with state Megan’s law directories, ICE agents have arrested more than 1,800 registered sex offenders.

Since Operation Predator began on July 9, 2003, the initiative has resulted in 6,085 child predator arrests throughout the country - an average of roughly 250 arrests per month and eight arrests per day. While arrests have been made in every state, the most have occurred in these states: Arizona (207), California (1,578), Florida (255), Illinois (282), Michigan (153), Minnesota (190), New Jersey (423), New York (367), Oregon (148) and Texas (545).

Operation Predator also has an important international component, as leads developed by domestic ICE offices are shared with ICE Attaché offices overseas and foreign law enforcement for action. To date, leads shared by ICE with foreign authorities have resulted in the arrest of roughly 1,000 individuals overseas.

"With an average of nearly 250 child sex predator arrests per month, ICE's Operation Predator has emerged as one of most successful efforts ever launched to protect America's children. In enforcing the nation's immigration laws, ICE is systematically targeting those who pose the greatest threats, including criminal aliens who prey on our children.

Some recent ICE arrests involving criminal aliens who committed child sex crimes include Julio Cesar Rabago-Magana, a Mexican man who raped a four-year-old child in the basement of Mercado Central in Minneapolis, Minn. Rabago-Magana pleaded guilty Oct. 23, 2002 to first-degree criminal sexual conduct. After serving his criminal sentence, he was arrested by ICE agents at his St. Paul home on March 3, 2005, and deported six days later.

To date, more than 2,100 of these foreign-born predators have been removed from the United States to their home nations. As part of this process, ICE advises the host nation governments about the criminal histories of each sex predator it is deporting to their nations. ICE also issues Green Notices through Interpol in appropriate cases. The Green Notice provides information on career criminals who have committed, or are likely to commit, offenses in several countries.

Sources:
US Department of Homeland Security
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
National Security Institute
American Society for Industrial Security

*************************************************

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug warin the 1980s. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trainedpolice and security officers throughout the country.

He writes for many police and crime magazines including Chief of Police,Police Times, The Narc Officer, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, and others. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News,etc. His book "Assume The Position" is available at Amazon.Com,Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores.

HOW TO CALL THE POLICE

George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi was going up to bed when his lovely wife told him that when she glanced outside, she'd noticed that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she pointed out that even George could see from the bedroom window.

George opened the back door to go turn off the light, but he saw that there were people in the shed stealing things.

He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone IN your house?" and he said "no".

Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available. Immediately, George had second thoughts of his tendency to be honest with the police.

George said, "Okay," hung up, counted slowly to 30, and phoned the police again.

"Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now cause I've just shot them all. Every last one of the bastards!"

Then he hung up.

Within five minutes four police cars, an Armed Response unit, a Supervisor, and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips residence and caught the burglars red-handed.

One of the Policemen said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"

George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"

Ya just gotta love those 911 operators, . . . Right??

God Bless,
Dan'L

Insecurity over 9 worrisome digits

Some antifraud experts question a new bid by Congress to limit use of Social Security numbers.

By Brian Bergstein
Associated Press

NEW YORK - Recent disclosures of massive data leaks at information brokers, banks and retailers have prompted Congress to consider again tightening access to Social Security numbers, which have evolved into dangerous master keys for fraudsters.

But Social Security numbers already have come under a hodgepodge of restrictions over the years, and many experts question whether the new proposals would truly hinder identity theft. In fact, reducing some companies' access to Social Security numbers could worsen the situation.

Several identity theft watchdogs say the bills would neglect the deeper reason why committing financial fraud is relatively easy: Speed, not identity assurance, is the main priority of U.S. financial institutions that issue credit.

The fact that many companies use Social Security numbers essentially as a password - not only are they the key to getting credit, they can also unlock access to an account over the phone - certainly magnifies the problem. That's why Congress hopes to hide the numbers better - by reducing the ways they can be sold, for example, or by prohibiting them from being printed on benefit checks.

Even so, keeping the numbers and other personal data out of the wrong hands likely will remain tricky.

"It's too easy to get to data no matter what the key is, from insiders or hackers or mistakes," said Jody Westby, head of the security and privacy practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P. "What we have to do is make it harder to use the data."

Westby's solution would be simple: universal use of the fraud alert, which identity theft victims are allowed to put on their credit reports for seven years. Before any new credit is granted, a card issuer or loan provider is supposed to call them and double-check that they, rather than an impostor, really made the application.

Putting everyone on fraud alert status would be a simple way of bringing more personal control to the system, Westby argues, just as do-not-call lists let people decide for themselves whether to talk to telemarketers.

In contrast, the data bills pending in Congress would make a lot of changes at once. Consumer advocates like many of the provisions, such as allowing people to refuse to give businesses their Social Security numbers, requiring more encryption of financial records, and demanding widespread disclosure of data breaches.

Finer points in the bills are expected to change as several measures are combined in hopes of generating one likely to pass. But a look at some of the details shows the difficulty of restricting Social Security numbers.

For example, a proposal from Sens. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) and Pat Leahy (D., Vt.) would prohibit data brokers from selling a Social Security number without the consent of the subject. But there are many exceptions. The numbers could be sold for "research" purposes, for example, or if just the last four digits are listed.

The latter exception "almost nullifies the entire bill," said Daniel Solove, a law professor at George Washington University and author of The Digital Person. That's because the last four digits of any Social Security number are the only truly random part of the string. A savvy thief sometimes can determine the first five digits, because those are determined by where and when the number was granted.

Even if a fraudster doesn't get someone's exact number, he still might be able to obtain credit in that person's name.

Because the system is built to grant credit in a minute, there's a built-in tolerance for typographical errors or misprints such as transposed digits in a Social Security number.

"They're looking for accurate matches, but not exact matches, and that gray area is where fraudsters seek to perpetrate their crime," said Terrence DeFranco, chief of Edentify Inc., which makes software that scans credit applications for signs of fraud.

To perform that check, Edentify examines information harvested by data brokers, companies such as ChoicePoint Inc. or Reed Elsevier P.L.C.'s LexisNexis, which both had breaches that led to the current scrutiny.

Consequently, DeFranco has lobbied Congress to make sure Social Security numbers could still be sold for fraud-prevention services such as his.

Since ChoicePoint discovered that it let identity thieves posing as legitimate customers get information on 145,000 Americans, the company has stopped printing Social Security numbers on background reports.

But James Lee, ChoicePoint's director of marketing, argues that preventing data brokers from harvesting Social Security numbers would be ill-advised. The accuracy of background checks and other reports would suffer, he said, because the numbers remain the best way to differentiate people with similar names and to examine people's financial histories.

"You have to be very careful of the law of unintended consequences," he said.

What this all points out, many people in the information business argue, is the need for a new identifier.

One solution could be a "federated identity" system that relies on the mathematical principles of cryptography to ensure that information can be transferred only among prearranged parties.

*********************************************

Ladies and Gentlemen, . . . with all due respect, the above AP story is a bit off-kilter. The author is correct in saying that "it will be tricky." The author suggests that a new unique identifier be adopted by our government, to replace the social security numbers that have been in use for the past sixty, or so, years.

Sure! . . . . You Betcha! . . . . And the idea that this new, unique, identifer would somehow be more theft-proof, than the old, out-dated, worn out, over-used, blase' social security numbers, is pure unadulterated HYPE!

What's worse is that it's unintended consequences are so far-reaching that it would scare you to listen to the group that represents America's Private Investigation and Security Professions. As has been posted here in the past, (see archives for early July, 2005), the investigative profession supports several phrases found in the U.S. Constitution as well as the one on the precipitium overhanging the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court Building, that says, "Equal Justice Under Law."

Let's say, for example that you are arrested for a terrible crime, but you claim you're not guilty of that crime. Your fellow citizens of your community have paid some law enforcement agency, set up under the government of and by the people, has expended public funds to investigate a crime, and they concluded that you committed it. You must defend yourself. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you, at no cost. Good deal, ehh? You Betcha! And, along with that, you get a free investigator, with equal access to evidence and investigative powers, just like those taxpayer funded law enforcement investigators?

Theoretically, YES!

But the reality is, that the things mentioned in the above article will prevent any such thing from happening. You will NOT have equal justice under law. You will be railroaded by the government, and your trial will be anything BUT fair. The private sale of a social security number may not seem like a big deal, to most. But forty-four out of the fifty states make those Licensed Private Investigators who will be your key to proving your innocence, jump through a number of hoops, and force them to meet certain licensing requirements, before they can legally perform those kinds of duties for you. (Sure, some of the states do a very poor job of understanding exactly WHAT a Private Investigator does, how he does it, why he does it, or what effect it has on the quality of life in America, but the licensing laws are there as a foundation for controlling these individuals, and raising the standards for professionalism)

So, next time you see an article on "Privacy" or "Identity Theft," or the loss of thousands of data files by the credit reporting companies, or the industries that serve them and work for them, please understand that the issue is being exploited by some, who would, wittingly or unwittingly, take your freedom to know the truth, and protect you from the government away -- far away! An excellent example of this, is the prolifery of HIPPA laws, passed "to protect your medical privacy," but which had extremely extensive unintended consequences. When it comes to the government taking your guarenteed pursuits of life, liberty and happiness, and destroying them, with well-intentioned legislation, damaged by extreme unintended consequences.

Don't get me wrong, Private Investigators are NOT anti-privacy. We endorse legislation that truly prevents the misuse of unique identifiers. We'll work hard to get a comprehensive bill passed. As I've said many times, this is an insidious crime. We help people to fix problems, when their identity has been stolen. We've seen the insidious damage that can be done to an individual, by some criminal who obtains and misuses those unique identifiers. But passing legislation that bans all sales of those unique identifiers, will never solve the problem, and it will damage American freedoms, to extents never before seen. Trading the social security number, for some other unique identifer will NEVER make that unique identifer more secure, just like banning guns doesn't keep gun related crimes from happening.

Wake-up America! This may not be important to you, right now. But when you need it, to either stay out of jail or to know the truth about some huge issue in your life, whether it's days, months, or years in the future, it will be too late to change it.

God Bless,
Dan'L