Clinton Lawyers: Mohamed Atta Off-Limits

A year before the 9/11 attacks, Clinton administration lawyers told a group of military intelligence officers that information they had developed on 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta could not be shared with the FBI, saying of Atta himself: "You can't even touch him - it doesn't matter what information you have."

Rep. Curt Weldon, who helped develop the military intelligence group code-named "Able Danger," delivered the bombshell revelation in an interview Thursday with WABC Radio host Sean Hannity.

WELDON: In September of 2000 we tried on three occasions to take the information we had developed and pass it along to the FBI so they could follow up and take action against this [al-Qaida] cell and perhaps bring in Atta and question him and do whatever else was necessary.

Three times we were turned down by lawyers in the administration. (See my blog entries from two days ago)

HANNITY: We're talking about lawyers in the Clinton administration?

WELDON: Yes, it was the Clinton administration. Lawyers said there were two reasons why you can't do that. And they even put stickies over the face of Mohamed Atta on this chart they had. They said: "He's here legally. He's either got a green card or he's got a visa. So you can't even touch him - it doesn't matter what information you have." [END OF EXCERPT]

Moments later, Weldon said he was determined to find out who it was who ultimately gave the order to protect the lead 9/11 hijacker.

WELDON: The American people need to have answers. They need to have answers about who made the decision to stop our military intelligence from sharing information with the FBI, and how high up the ladder that went.

Did it stop at DoD? Or was the Justice Department involved in that decision?? Or was the White House involved in that decision?? [END OF EXCERPT]

Ladies and gentlemen, . . . Does anyone have any idea why this hasn't been portrayed as an important story by any of the major media outlets?? Could it be that the media agenda is to play down anything that makes the current administration look good, as well as anything that makes the former administration look bad?? It sure looks like it. You must ask yourself what would be happening, if this were a Democrat Party administration, instead of the hated George W. Bush??

God Bless,
Dan'L

Let the Sun Shine In

The Senate has no business keeping secrets from the American people.

BY MANUEL MIRANDA

Friday, August 12, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

"These Supreme Court hearings will be the first in the Internet era and it is important that the Committee be ready for this event." So begins an internal memorandum recently sent by the Senate archivist to all Judiciary Committee staff instructing them that federal law requires the preservation of all documents and e-mails generated in relation to the confirmation of Judge John Roberts, including e-mail correspondence from outside organizations such as "Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way, Judicial Working Group, etc.," as well as "replies."

Oh my.

A glossy Senate brochure produced late last year makes more explicit what the law requires to be preserved: "staff analytical memos, communications (textual and electronic) with Senate leadership, committee members, agency staff, and interested parties, including substantive e-mail."

Good.

According to federal law, such Senate committee working papers and e-mail correspondence is not the property of any senator or staff member. They are public property to be delivered to the National Archives at the end of each Congress.
Well, I told you so.

Readers of this Web site will recall last year's pseudoscandal, involving yours truly, over the reading of Democratic memos left unprotected on the Senate Judiciary Committee's shared network through the negligence of Democratic staff. From the start, I admitted to the grave crime of, er, reading.

The published Democratic strategy papers revealed that Democrats blocked judicial nominee Miguel Estrada because he was Hispanic, that they conspired with interested litigants to affect the outcome of pending litigation, and that they allowed radical liberal groups to call the shots in the Senate. The still-unpublished memos also showed, in my legal opinion, acts of corruption and illegality by some Democratic senators and their staffs. I documented all this in my essay, "The Politics, Ethics, and Law of a Republican Surrender" (available here in PDF form), and I brought a civil action (information here) to prove my point.

I argued that such Senate documents are public, not private or confidential as Democrats have claimed in a so-far-successful effort to protect themselves from scrutiny. The Republican surrender, however, allowed the "Memogate" controversy to focus on the act of reading the memos rather than on their content.

No senator may protect himself from scrutiny for his public work. In fact, Senate staffers are entitled, under the whistleblower provision of the government employee's code of ethics, to read any unprotected document and disclose any evidence of corruption. Federal law is plain. In 1969 Sen. Thomas Dodd's own staff handed his files to the press, and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that senators have no privacy interest in Senate-stored documents that are in the public interest.

The Senate archivist's directive that the Roberts documents are public property and should be preserved for public scrutiny and history is no small event. It serves not only historians and journalists. Such sunshine could serve to reduce the increasing corruption of the Senate confirmation process. Yet already Republicans and Democrats are planning to dodge federal law, and the Senate archivist tells me she has no way to enforce it. I disagree. But the Senate leadership, and especially Chairman Arlen Specter, should act to resolve any doubt.

At the Constitutional Convention, the framers debated what Congress could hold secret from the American people. James Wilson declared their purpose well:

"The people have a right to know what their Agents
are doing or have done, and it should not be in the option
of the Legislature to conceal their proceedings."

America's greatest jurist, Justice Joseph Story, would later describe the "Secrecy Clause" that the framers agreed upon (emphasis mine):

The object of the whole clause is to insure publicity to the
proceedings of the legislature, and a correspondent
responsibility of the members to their respective constituents.
And it is founded in sound policy and deep political foresight.
Intrigue and cabal are thus deprived of some of their main
resources, by plotting and devising measures in secrecy.
The public mind is enlightened by an attentive examination
of the public measures; patriotism and integrity and wisdom
obtain their due reward; and votes are ascertained, not by
vague conjecture, but by positive facts. . . .

So long as known and open responsibility is valuable as a check or as an incentive among representatives of a free people.The Secrecy Clause requires that the Senate should make its work public and only that which it, as a whole body, expressly designates may be held secret.

The Senate has made that designation in Senate Rule 22 and in adopting the federal laws that the Senate archivist is seeking now to enforce. It has not designated the Roberts confirmation secret, nor should it.

The Senate leadership should order all senators and staff to preserve everything for archiving, without exception, and committee members should agree now, blind and on a nonpartisan basis, to authorize the National Archives to make such records available without any delay. This should not be a problem for true statesmen who have nothing to hide, especially Democratic senators who insist so strenuously that they, on behalf of the American people, should be allowed to examine the privileged papers of the executive branch.

The author, Mr. Miranda, former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, is founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of grassroots organizations following judicial issues. His column appears on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays in the Wall Street Journal.

FAMILY OF FALLEN SOLDIER PLEADS: PLEASE STOP, CINDY!

Thu, Aug 11 2005, 12:56:21 EDT

The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president's Crawford, Texas ranch.

The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey's aunt and godmother: Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks Ð Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement: The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect. Sincerely, Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

Developing...

9/11 HIJACKERS KNOWN IN ADVANCE

NEWSFLASH: Republican Congressman Curt Weldon from Pennsylvania has made the explosive allegation that more than a year before the attacks on 9/11, Clinton administration intelligence officials knew who four of the hijackers were, including ringleader Mohammed Atta.

So why wasn't anything done??

Because information wasn't allowed to be shared between federal agencies, thanks to 9/11 commissioner and former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, (not pronounced the way it's spelled -- It's pronounced go-REH-lek), . . . She instituted rules that forbade sharing of intelligence between, for instance, the CIA and the FBI. She was reportedly hired at the insistence of The Hildabeast, (wife of Bill Clinton, and self-proclaimed half of the dynamic-duo-two-for-the-price-of-one-Presidency). Thank you Hillary Clinton.

Here's what Weldon told the New York Times, . . . He says a military group, called "Able-Danger" had identified the four terrorists, knew they were trouble and said the FBI should know about it. They were rejected, because of Gorelick's rules. Since the Islamic hijackers had legitimate visas, "Able-Danger's" recommendation was turned down. Brilliant move, Ms Gorelick! Few Americans would be glad that you could help. Commitment to an agenda like hers, is anti-patriotic, as we can now see, through our 20/20 hindsight.

A quote from Congressman Weldon: "In fact, I'll tell you how stupid it was, they put stickies on the faces of Mohammed Atta on the chart that the military intelligence unit had completed and they said you can't talk to Atta because he's here."

Congressman Weldon has told the media that he got the information from some of the agents in the "Able-Danger" unit. If that's true, and there's no reason to believe it isn't, this is yet another example of how the debacle of 9/11 should be laid at the feet of William Jefferson Clinton's administration.

No president did more to ignore the mounting threat of Islamic terrorism than did Bill Clinton, and 3,000 people paid for his policies with their lives. Aren't we proud to have had the Slickster as our President??!!

The 9/11 Commission is coming back to investigate this one. I'll be watching, . . . . And, I'm sure I'll have more to report on this, in the coming days, . . . It's a bitch when the security people can't spell the word "SECURITY, let alone, actually DEFINE it. Maybe, . . . Just MAYBE, . . . we can learn something from this, but don't count on any liberal support for such an exercise, . . . . all you'll see from that quarter, is inappropriate blame.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Perjured jurors

By Alan Keyes
August 10, 2005

In its discussion of the meaning of "perjury," the Oxford English dictionary notes that "in legal usage, perjury was first the offence of jurors in giving a willfully false verdict, they being sworn to give a true verdict according to their knowledge ..." The spectacle of two jurors in the Michael Jackson child molestation case who now boldly and openly declare that they voted against their conscience for acquittal raises the possibility that we are entirely losing sight of this original and critical sense of the term.

If so, this represents a grave threat to the republican form of government our Constitution requires, since trial by jury is the keystone of the people's participation in the administration of justice.

The jurors claim they acted under pressure from the jury foreman, who purportedly threatened to have them removed from the jury if they did not vote with the majority. Whatever the factual basis for this claim, it has no basis in law, since it is precisely against the law to use threats in order to pressure a juror to perjure himself. If the foreman acted in this way it amounts to jury tampering, and seriously taints the outcome of the trial. We must also ask whether the judge failed to make clear to the jurors their strict responsibility to render a true verdict.

Beyond the legal questions, however, there is a question of character. The jurors admit they lacked the courage of their convictions, to such an extent in fact that they did not bother to report their situation to the trial judge. If they feared removal from the jury, it's fair to ask what damage they would have suffered from it. Perhaps they feared the loss of the attention and opportunities for remuneration they thought would be associated with being jurors in such a famous proceeding. This means that they perjured themselves for gain, and only confirms their disgraceful lack of integrity. It also points to the likelihood that their present recantation is similarly motivated.

One of the key elements of American liberty is the assumption that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Now, despite a formal verdict that leaves his innocence intact, Michael Jackson must endure another trial in the media, under accusation from individuals who acted during the trial as sworn officers of the court. This may not satisfy the formal legal definition of double jeopardy, but it raises serious questions about the actual corruption of a legal system that allows sworn officers of the court to continue in the court of public opinion the accusation that they themselves refused to sustain by due process of law.

Given the grave implications of their actions, the jurors who now admit their perjury ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The system of trial by jury is critically important to the practice of liberty. If, in a case notorious throughout the land, jurors can openly admit and profit from the failure to do their sworn duty, this casts a corrosive shadow over the whole concept of a fair jury trial.

We need clearly to send a message of intolerance toward this lack of personal integrity so that jurors throughout the country realize the oath they swear is not to be taken lightly. The officials who prosecuted Michael Jackson when they conscientiously believed the evidence warranted an indictment ought now to prosecute jurors who, by their own free admission, are guilty of a crime not against Jackson but against all of us who have the right to hope we can rely on America's promise of liberty and justice for all.



Be sure to visit Alan Keyes' communications center for founding principles, The Declaration Foundation.

NARAL Ad Links John Roberts With Abortion Clinic Bombers

By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
August 9, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- NARAL Pro-Choice America, a pro-abortion advocacy group, has launched a nationwide television ad campaign linking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts with "anti-choice extremists who use bombings and other forms of intimidation against women, doctors, and nurses at women's health clinics."

Republican and pro-life groups immediately denounced the ad campaign as false and misleading.
The new NARAL ad focuses on Roberts' 1991 friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of Operation Rescue in the Supreme Court case Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic -- a case arising from pro-life demonstrations outside abortion clinics.

Abortion rights groups compared the protesters' actions to the violence and intimidation carried out by the Ku Klux Klan.

But in 1993, the Supreme Court rejected the comparison, ruling that the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 could not be used against pro-life demonstrators; and that abortion protesters were not discriminating against women as a class.

NARAL says the defendants in the Bray case included "violent anti-choice activists Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue; Michael Bray, who had been convicted for his involvement in 10 bombings at health centers in the 1980s; and Patrick Mahoney, a consultant to Operation Rescue."

NARAL and other abortion supporters are criticizing Roberts for arguing that Operation Rescue's "unlawful behavior did not amount to discrimination against women." (The Supreme Court decided that opposition to abortion was focused on the destruction of human life, not on the women who were seeking an abortion.)

"In the four years before John Roberts argued Bray vs. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic in front of the Supreme Court, anti-choice radicals were responsible for at least 48 bombings and arsons in 24 states, along with 57 acid attacks, more than 4,000 disruptive acts such as bomb threats, harassing calls and hate mail," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, at a press conference on Monday.

"I want to be very clear that we are not suggesting Mr. Roberts condones or supports clinic violence. I'm sure he finds bombings and murder abhorrent. But still his ideological view of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue on behalf of someone like Michael Bray, who had already been convicted of a string of bombings," Keenan said.

Keenan said NARAL's job is "to let the American people know that John Roberts's record demonstrates hostility" toward the "core values" of "personal freedom and personal responsibility."

"This ad showing a disturbing part of Roberts' record is even more important since the White House decided to withhold critical information about Roberts from the public," she said.
Keenan was joined at the press conference by Emily Lyons, a former nurse at a Birmingham, Ala., abortion clinic who was seriously injured when Eric Rudolph bombed the clinic in 1998.

'Outrageous'
"It is stunning that any group would put together an ad with the false and outrageous claims that NARAL has today," said Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.

"By attempting to assert that Judge Roberts supports shameful criminal acts, NARAL has shown how far they will go to slander a good man for political gain. Organizations like NARAL that go to these lengths only serve to denigrate the confirmation process and are drastically out-of-touch with the American people."

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) said NARAL's television ads are a "smear campaign designed to ignore the facts and make assertions that are simply untrue."

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, argued the Bray case before the Supreme Court.

He says the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the application of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 could not be used against pro-life demonstrators. "Those involved in the case worked to ensure that a misapplication of the statute would not be allowed to continue," Sekulow said.

"There are many laws on the books that criminalize violence -- including violent activity outside abortion clinics. Protecting the constitutional rights of the pro-life community does not equate to endorsing violence," he said.

According to Sekulow, the ACLJ and others repeatedly have condemned those who resort to violence in the name of the pro-life movement. Therefore, he said, NARAL Pro-Choice America is being "disingenuous" in its ads.

"We believe the American people will not fall for this smear campaign," Sekulow concluded.

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

If any VRWC reader with more than one functional brain cell thought for two seconds that the upcoming confirmation hearings were going to be anything less than an all-out brawl, then they were kidding themselves.

When John G. Roberts' nomination was announced by President George W. Bush, several Democrats stepped forward in support, and even the harshest critics, such as the good Senator Teddy Chappaquiddick, as well as the recently spanked Big Dick Durban, seemed to withhold judgment.

It almost seemed, for that first day or so, as if there wouldn't be much of a fight.

RIGHT!!

Sooner or later, the people for whom abortion is the #1 issue in their lives were going to weigh in. There are groups of people on both sides of the issue that go to bed and wake up thinking about nothing but abortion, . . . whether for it, or against it.

It defines their political beliefs, whom they vote for and it's all they care about.

We call them, “One-Issue Voters.”

Funny thing is that they seem so much more vehement and adamant when they’re AGAINST and issue, or a candidate, (just ask John Forbes Kerry), rather than FOR an issue, or candidate. So now the ones who are AGAINST John G. Roberts, have begun to come out against him, and in a really big way.

The story above is about the first battleground: a TV ad being run by NARAL, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.

As you might guess from their title, this is a pro-choice group. Many of us, who reside on the other side of the isle, call them “pro-abortion,” because that’s exactly what they are. The only problem with their television ad is it's a HUGE lie.

This should come as no surprise, . . . political groups run such propaganda all the time. The ad shows a 1998 Birmingham, Alabama abortion clinic that had been bombed. The ad accuses John Roberts of filing legal papers in support of the bomber.

The only problem?? . . . John Roberts signed the legal briefing AS AN ATTORNEY, ADVOCATING FOR A CLIENT, a full SEVEN YEARS before the bombing, clearly having nothing to do with the actions of the bomber.

The ad has been found to be false by, among others, Factcheck.org. The real shame here? CNN has agreed to run the ad, in exchange for $125,000. Being from Omaha, the city that famed financial guru, Warren Buffet calls home, and whose wife passed away, earlier this year, and left millions to the NARAL group, I can’t help but wonder how many Omaha dollars went toward that small payment, and how much it will effect the future of America. That's too bad.

I KNOW that John G. Roberts won’t consider that, when he decides cases that effect the lives of Omaha families, because I know he has far more character than either Warren Buffet or his deceased wife, . . . have mercy on her soul, . . . . as it’s surely doing time somewhere besides heaven!

God Bless,
Dan’L

'White Boy' Comment Draws Ire of Black Conservatives

By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
August 10, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- Conservative African Americans Tuesday slammed liberal black activist Dick Gregory for referring to a Cybercast News Service reporter as a "white boy" during a nationally televised cable news program Monday night. Gregory later apologized for the remark.

The exchange took place during the "Hannity & Colmes" program on the Fox News Channel. Gregory and Cybercast News Service Senior Staff Writer Marc Morano discussed comments Gregory made during an Aug. 6 march in Atlanta commemorating the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act.

Reading from Morano's article, co-host Sean Hannity asked Gregory to confirm whether he had made a number of controversial remarks during the event.

The activist readily acknowledged that he had referred to Republicans as "white racist thugs" and called the United States "the most dishonest, ungodly, unspiritual nation that ever existed in the history of the planet."

But, when Gregory hesitated in his responses, Hannity turned to Morano for confirmation.
"You don't have to confirm what I said," Gregory charged. "I've already said it. So I don't need no white boy to come on and say yes, he said it."

Surprised by Gregory's reply, Hannity repeated, "No white boy? No white boy?" and asked Gregory if he wanted to apologize to Morano for calling him a racially charged term.

"Yes, I apologize for it," Gregory replied.

"Well, I was already called a black tyrant by [Harry] Belafonte yesterday, so I welcome whatever Mr. Gregory wants to call me," Morano said in response.

While the rest of the interview went amicably, leaders of two black conservative organizations Tuesday were sharply critical of Gregory's remarks -- both during the interview and at the earlier event in Atlanta.

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder and president of the Brotherhood Organization for a New Destiny (BOND), said the reaction to Gregory's "white boy" comment showed that America has a double standard in this area of race relations.

"Just imagine what would have happened if Morano had called Gregory a 'black boy,'" Peterson said. "They'd be protesting Cybercast News Service and Fox News Channel, calling for the heads of the presidents of these organizations.

"But because Dick Gregory said it to a white man, it's okay," Peterson said.

He added that "we have a double standard in this country today, where black liberals can do and say whatever they want" because whites "have allowed themselves to be intimidated" by the fear of being called racists.

Mychal Massie, a radio talk show host and member of the black conservative group Project 21, agreed with Peterson, telling Cybercast News Service that Gregory's remarks provided "an unambiguous display of overt black racism."

Massie's disdain extended to the Atlanta event, which he called "a pep rally for hatred." He was also critical of many of the participants, including U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rev. Jesse Jackson, U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), actor Greg Mathis and singer/actor Harry Belafonte.

"Combined, these people have a greater aggregate income than some third-world countries," Massie said. "How has America hurt them? How have they been injured by what's taking place in America? And where are their ideas and solutions?"

Peterson also criticized what he called the "so-called rally" in Atlanta to extend the Voting Rights Act.

"Whether this act is confirmed in 2007 is not going to make a difference whether blacks go out to vote," he said. "Blacks aren't voting -- not because of the lack of opportunity -- they're not voting because there's too much apathy."

Peterson charged that the real purpose of the event was for groups like the NAACP and the AFL-CIO to begin a campaign for the 2008 presidential election. He also claimed its organizers "have used racism to fatten their pockets and maintain power. And now, they're going broke. They're desperate to get back in power."

Gregory is also a hypocrite, according to Peterson, for castigating the United States while enjoying a successful career here. "Dick Gregory has done better in this country than he would have done anywhere else in the world," Peterson said. "I'd like to know where he could go and be able to do what he has done here."

Massie added that he believes the event was entirely unnecessary because "there's not one thing a black person cannot do in America if he or she wants to do it and is prepared educationally or skill-wise.

"To hear Jackson and Belafonte and these people talk, the only thing black people can do is shine shoes at a bus stop," Massie said. "If that's what they're doing, it's because that's what they're qualified to do, or they're not looking high enough.

"The civil rights battle is over," Massie added, "and we won."

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

When will these liberal black racists realize, that unless they have evidence in hand that there are irrefutable racists, present in the room, the act of standing up, and screaming, "Racism!" at the top of their lungs, does nothing more than identify they, themselves, as racists??

Morons abound, when preaching to the choir!! (Too bad for them, their choir is getting smarter and smarter)

God Bless,
Dan'L

THE ANGRY MOM CAMPING IN CRAWFORD TELLS TWO DIFFERENT STORIES

Early yesterday, I told you about the story of Mrs. Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a brave American soldier who gave his life last year in the line of duty in Iraq. She has been really pissed-off about this, and has turned into quite a peace activist. And, that’s just fine.

So, she decided that she would camp out at George Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas this week. She has started a political movement and an organization, demanding to speak with the president. She wants to know why George W. Bush "killed her son."

She wants us to ignore the fact that her son was killed by Islamic terrorists in Sadr City.

But now that Mrs. Sheehan has put herself out there, people have begun doing a little research.

Enter the Drudge Report. (Say what you will, but you cannot deny that he’s usually right. And, most of the time, he’s first, too.) . . . . It seems not only has Mrs. Sheehan already met with George Bush, but there are two stories about what took place . . . .

The story she's currently telling, that she met with him and he was mean and indifferent to her, directly contradicts the story she told after that meeting took place last year. Just take a look at what she told a reporter then:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's
sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

She also talked about how her life briefly returned to normal, (one could only assume that a bit of normalcy caused her some consternation, and she just couldn’t stand it):

"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being
together."

Hmmmmmm, . . . . Now, . . . let's fast-forward to the present day, where she's singing a different tune:

"Every time we tried to talk [to President Bush] about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party."

Does she really think no one would notice this disparity in her approach?? Go home, Mrs. Sheehan. You're the ONLY one dishonoring your son's memory. You do him, and his memory, a great disservice!! Most Americans think the world of your son. They honor his memory far more than you apparently realize. They recognize his contribution to the preservation of the freedoms they enjoy daily, and would never consider doing what you're doing. Go home and grieve. You'll be much better off, for it.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Mujibar

Mujibar was trying to get into America legally through Immigration.

The US Immigration Officer said, "Mujibar, you have passed all the tests,except there is one more test. Unless you pass it you cannot enter America."

Mujibar said, "I am ready."

The officer said, "Make a sentence using the words Yellow, Pink and Green."

Mujibar thought for a few minutes and said, "Mister Officer, I am ready to pass my test."

The Officer said, "Go ahead."

Mujibar said, "The telephone, she goes green, green, green,and I pink it up,and I say, 'Yellow, this is Mr Mujibar, can I jelp you??'"

Mujibar now lives in a neighbourhood near you, and earns a really good salary,telecommuting to provide services to YOU on YOUR ISP, and you can talk to him, by calling the Help Desk.

God Bless,
Dan'L

From Smoker to Zealot in Twelve Short Years

(or "From Diagnosis to Dead in Four Short Months")

It doesn't seem all that long ago, that we were reading that Peter Jennings had lung cancer. He took a leave from ABC's World News Tonight just four very short months ago. Many of us were wondering how his treatment was going.

Now we know. Peter Jennings passed away last night. In their coverage this morning ABC mentioned that Peter Jennings had been a smoker for most of his adult life. Okay, . . . I know I'm going to catch commentary hell about this, but now is as good a time as any to say this: You smokers -- you drug addicts out there -- don't forget to light up today on your way to work.

After all, there's nothing quite like driving to work in that fresh morning air while filing your lungs with smoke.

When my mother died, in the summer of 1993, from an aeortic aneurism, and she was full of undiagnosed, undiscovered cancer, and it couldn't be repaired, and the doctors had to allow her to bleed to death, lying there on the operating table, . . . I quit smoking. Turned it off like a light switch. I never had smoked more than a pack of Pall Malls, each day. That's way too many! Mom never smoked more than a half pack of any of her favorites, including, but not limited to Chesterfields, L&Ms, Larks or Marlboro Lights, or her dying brand, Kent Golden Lights. When I climbed aboard the chartered plane, taking just li'l ol' me to back home, to be with family, (I'd been informed of her death, via our company voicemail), I tossed a hundred dollar lighter, (no moving parts), and my last pack of Pall Malls, out of the plane, on the runway, at Scottsbluff International Airport, in Scottsbluff, Nebraska. I'd kicked the habit forever. Sure, I'd quit one other time, . . . for four months, while my wife was pregnant with our second child, my beautiful duaghter, Melissa. But the pressures of male pregnancy transference didn't allow me to stay off the damned things, and I fired one up one day, after a particularly difficult session of "You'll never get it right, unless you do it my way, and I'll still find some problem and harp about it for hours!" It felt good to be able to inhale those chemicals, once again. . . . But Mom's sudden departure cured me of the desire for those terrible "cancer sticks." Sure, for years, afterwards, I still reached, nervously, for my breast pocket, to grab the red cellophane-covered soft pack that wasn't there. I carried a lighter, just to be a gentleman, and light my wife's continuance of the habit, (it's so much more difficult to quit, when your spouse doesn't join you), for years, and then decided that being "an enabler" wasn't something I wanted to do. Keep in mind that when I quit, I promised the world that I would NEVER be the militant anti-smoker, that I hand encountered on business trips to the West Coast and the Pacific Northwest. My first experience with that kind of militancy, was in Seattle, WA, (of course), where people sitting near us, in a hotel eatery were miffed at the smell of our clothing, (I was eating with two other midwesterners, who were also smokers, and we'd all burned one, before going to diner), and we were asked to change tables by the matre d' hotel, who checked with the front desk, and ratted out one of my colleagues, who had asked for a smoking room, at the last minute, but none were available, so he waited a few minutes, and called back to reserve a non-smoking room. With my promise to the world, still intact, I have to say that I've learned a lot, over the ensuing twelve years, and that militancy isn't so abrasive, as it used to be.

I never had much use for Peter Jennings, as his political agenda seemed to get in the way of his being a good journalist, more often than not. That will probably also get me some commentary hell, but it's evidenced by a number of things he said, over the many years of his presence on the American Broadcasting Company stations, coast to coast, the most memorable and very recent example of which, would be his comments demeaning President Bush, "for running off, to Omaha, [specifically, to Offutt Air Force Base, location of the former headquarters of the Stategic Air Command], on September 11, 2001. As a Canadian, Jennings was NEVER an American Patriot, in my eyes, even after he got his dual citizenship. I hope he can explain that to the Saint who shares his name, when he gets to the Pearly Gates. Godspeed, Peter!

And when you and your smoking colleagues leave the office five times today to meet in your little leper colony outside to do your favorite drug, why don't you strike up a little conversation about Peter Jennings?? Diagnosis to dead in four months. Just what are you going to be doing four months from now??

God Bless,
Dan'L

A.G. Spitzer Probing Air America Loan

Head for the bank, and cash the checks, Al, (don't deposit them!)

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has opened a preliminary probe into a suspicious loan obtained by the left-wing radio network Air America from the largely taxpayer-funded Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club of New York City."We are looking into it in consultation with the city's Department of Investigation," Spitzer spokesman Darren Dopp told the New York Post on Saturday.

Last month, the DOI said Gloria Wise was under investigation for approving "significant inappropriate transactions" and using "falsified documents that were submitted to various city agencies."

In July, the Bronx News reported that the Air America loan "is at the center of the city’s probe of corruption at the local club." Subsequent reports have pegged the loan's amount at $875,000.

Spitzer's spokesman said the probe is examining "the conduct of the board of [the] charitable not-for-profit organization. The question is: Was their action appropriate?"

Gloria Wise board member Hillel Valentine told the Post that "a gentleman from the Attorney General's Office" visited their offices on Friday.

"I expect that," said Valentine, 80, a former assistant chief in the New York Transit Police Department. "That's their job. I would do the same thing myself."

The Post said that the AG's decision to launch a probe was driven by "Internet bloggers and Republican critics [who] began pounding Spitzer for not intervening" since the DOI investigation was revealed last month.

After promising to pay back Gloria Wise weeks ago, the liberal network has finally started to make amends for the fishy financing - depositing a $50,000 installment in an escrow account controlled by Air America's lawyer.

But even that transaction has raised the eyebrows of New York's DOI probers, who had urged Air America to place the entire $875,000 in an escrow account that no one could touch without their approval.

God Bless,
Dan'L

SOLDIER'S MOM IN CRAWFORD

It's hard to even begin to understand a mother's grief at losing a child. When a parent loses a son or daughter in a war, you fully expect that parent to lash out at the Military, the government or the administration.

In other words, you cut them some slack, . . . give them some leeway. After all, their family member paid the ultimate price. But sometimes the actions of a grieving parent graduate to the level of political action.

The statements and charges become more and more outrageous, and it's time to respond to it.

We now have one such case involving one Cindy Sheehan of California. She is camped out down in Crawford, Texas outside George Bush's ranch. She is demanding to speak to the president.

Her son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed last year in Iraq while fighting Islamic terrorists. So what are her demands??

Quoting Sheehan: "I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son??"

This, of course, is extremely ridiculous, and is doing nothing more than trivializing her son's service. It's one thing to go down to Crawford, set up a protest and demand answers or whatever, . . . but to accuse Bush of murdering her son?? That's just a bit over the top there, Mrs. Sheehan.

She also has started an organization, called the Gold Star Families for Peace, which is, among other things, demanding that George Bush send his daughters to Iraq if the cause is so noble.

This ignores a few things that Mrs. Sheehan may just need a bit of reminding about. First, we have an all-volunteer Military. Her son made the choice, himself, to enlist in the Army. If he didn't want the possibility of going to war, he shouldn't have signed up. It is a risk people take.

Sure, in peacetime, you get to sign up, be stationed somewhere and have your college paid for, but that's not how it works in wartime.

However, President Bush, ever the class act, sent his White House deputy chief of staff and National Security Adviser out to talk to Sheehan. They met with her for 45 minutes. They explained that her son died for a noble cause and that the best way to honor his memory would be for her to support completion of the mission in Iraq. She isn't budging until she gets to meet with Bush.

My advice is that she needs to stock up on bottled water, . . . it's supposed to be in the mid-to-upper 90's in Crawford all this week. Oh, . . . and I'll continue to pray, along with many others, for her, and her son's heroic soul. God Bless Our American Heroes, like him! Most American citizens are doing the same.

God Bless,
Dan'L

Cop G.I. slain in Iraq was life of the party


The war in Iraq hit home hard for a band of Long Island buddies last week when a sniper's bullet took one of their own - city cop and Army Reserves Staff Sgt. James McNaughton.

The guys shared their memories of "Jimmy" with fondness, sadness, some laughter and much pride.

They called the 27-year-old, who died Tuesday, tough and scrappy, a stalwart friend, a patriot, a leader, a family man - and a mean poker player.

"Yeah, and don't forget he was a b---buster," added Shawn Donnelly, 26, who grew up with McNaughton in Centereach, L.I. "He just loved to tease you." The guys smiled and nodded.

Dave Drago, 26, was on the Centereach High School wrestling team with McNaughton.

"I'm not one to be emotional," he said. "But when I heard, I just dropped to my knees and lost it. Jimmy and I were inseparable since the third grade. I couldn't bear the thought he was gone."

"Jimmy was like a brother," said Drago, a physician's assistant at Gouverneur Hospital in Manhattan.

"Right," nodded Eric Wiggins, 26. "If you ever needed anything, you could call him up at 3 in the morning and he'd be there."

Donnelly recalled that McNaughton "happily" served as his friends' designated driver when they went out drinking. "And he also was the guy who'd tell you when you were getting out of line."

They remembered that McNaughton was so proud of his country that he had an American flag tattooed on his shoulder.

"You'd better not keep your hat on when the National Anthem was being played," said Wiggins, "because Jimmy was sure to tell you to take it off."

Andy Youssef, 24, who served with McNaughton stateside, said he had talked to men in the slain soldier's Iraq unit and learned that many of the troops had wept at the loss. "That tells you the guy was loved."

One memory replaced the sadness with smiles and some laughter.

"Every Fourth of July, the gang would go over to one guy's house and we'd wind up shooting bottle rockets near each other," Drago recalled.

"It was dangerous and all of us were scared, all of us but Jimmy. By the end of the night there were 12 people on one side and Jimmy on the other. One time a rocket shot up his shorts and he ran around like a maniac. I don't think any of us ever laughed so much."

Drago said McNaughton was looking forward to marrying his fiancée, fellow cop Liliana Paredes, and continuing "doing what he was doing with his life - being a soldier and a cop like his father, like his grandfather, like his great uncle."

McNaughton is gone, but his buddies intend to keep him alive in their hearts forever.

Their plan is to get together every April 13, his birthday, - maybe in Atlantic City - where some can imagine their pal drawing to a royal flush and laughing his endearing laugh.

Whats wrong with the Medical Profession??






Billy Tauzin, the former Republican Congressional Representative from the Great State of Louisiana, and who turned down an offer to become the replacement for Jack Valenti, the obvious democrat party member who currently represents the Motion Picture Association, and who is now the head guy over at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, is mentioned in my local newspaper's editorial column today, as shown below. Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, (R-TN), a physician, himself, has been at odds with Tauzin over the content of several proposals, and now our daily rag has taken up the torch, to respond with a veiled attempt to show support in some direction. I've also responded to this editorial, with a slightly different take on the issue. Enjoy:

Published in The Daily Nonpareil, Council Bluffs, Iowa, Sunday, August 07, 2005:

Sunday's Our View

Pressing mute button on ads

OurPosition: Frist is right to push for moratorium on drug spots

Unless you ignore television entirely, you've almost certainly noticed it: Drug advertising has been exploding. In 2004, the industry spent $4.02 billion on advertising, up 23 percent from 2003 and 62 percent from 2002. And, as with many explosions, there are helpless victims.

Pharmaceutical ads have been under an intense spotlight since Merck & Co. removed its pain reliever Vioxx from the market last year in the wake of a study that found the drug doubled patients' risk of heart attacks and strokes. Vioxx was heavily marketed, and doctors say the ads pushed many patients who really didn't require the pricey drug to take it, potentially exposing them to dangerous side effects.

Last month, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., called for a two-year moratorium on advertising new drugs, saying commercials drive up health care costs.

In an effort to stem the tide of complaints, the pharmaceutical industry unveiled new guidelines last Tuesday for the consumer marketing of medicines, including pledges to educate doctors before beginning consumer campaigns and more clearly outline the risks involved in taking prescription drugs.

Billy Tauzin, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said the promise to put off consumer advertising while doctors learn about drugs is the most important of the 15 principles included in the guidelines. But he said mandating a specific time restriction, as suggested by Frist and others, didn't make sense, noting it could hold back information ads on lifesaving drugs.

Critics responded that the voluntary code is toothless, and that many of its principles - such as presenting information that is accurate and not misleading - are already required by law. Adding even more validity to the critics' complaints, the industry will not sanction any company that violates the guidelines.

If the industry was sincere about ending misleading advertising it would use its considerable clout to work with Congress to ensure the Food and Drug Administration has adequate resources to police the industry's current campaigns, Rob Schneider, director of Consumers Union's prescription drug reform effort, told the Associated Press.

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, the director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, was even more blunt: "They (the guidelines) are designed as a desperate attempt to fend off real regulation of drug ads."

Given the guidelines' lack of sanctions for violations, Wolfe, in our opinion, makes an all too valid point. Frist, too, himself a doctor, was not overly impressed by the guidelines. He said he still wishes they included a moratorium on new drug ads.

We think he should add that to his congressional "to do" list.

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

Here's my response, sent Sunday Morning for the edification of their editorial staff:

I'm so happy you chose this topic. You're exactly correct that there is a terrible state of affairs within the medical profession. These drug companies have proportional marketing budgets that allow them to do one of two things:

1.) They can offer television networks, and their affiliates,
huge amounts of money, (think about where it comes from), to promote their
products to the general public. I view this as allowing an American
citizen the discretion to make his/her choices him/herself. What could be
better than that, when the alternative, that has been occurring for several
decades now, is, . . .

2.) Kickbacks paid to doctors, based upon their ability to assist with marketing those drugs and companies that offer the best deal for the doctor. This turns a physician into a legal drug pusher. Doctors begin to rationalize writing prescriptions for certain drugs for large numbers of patients, based on their own numbers, instead
of whether that patient actually NEEDS that prescription.

Americans need to choose. Without specific regulation in the best interests of the average American citizen, we are headed for disaster. We are in a very sad state of affairs, in this country, when our mortality rate exceeds that of many third-world countries -- our people are dying at younger ages than the people in India, Iran, and any number of countries in South Asia. We MUST ask ourselves, "Why is that?" (I doubt that it's ONLY Congressional action, or inaction, causing this situation)

Could it be that the medical schools offer many classes that are geared and funded by donations from many people connected to drug companies, and outright sponsorship from those same drug companies? Could it be that we have lost track of what's really important, in the healthcare industry? Could it be that the vast majority of medical students, upon graduation, have only received two to three days of nutritional training, and almost no ethical training?

Could it be that we've deluded ourselves into thinking that WE, in America, have all the answers, and therefore the best medical profession on the planet, hence our people are in better health, than anyone else. The numbers just don't show it!

Maybe we could direct the very same thinking found in McCain-Feingold in the direction of donations by drug companies to the people who run the FDA and many of our congress critters. Worrying about how they spend their money on advertising is much like worrying about closing the barn door, after all the horses have escaped.

Corruption is always something that needs looked into, and the media is supposed to be pointing that out, but it seems they're concentrated on getting Karl Rove, instead. That supports theories on something I've been saying, doesn't it?

God Bless,
Dan'L

Where in the world is Osama bin Laden?

Let's face it. He shouldn't be hard to find, especially from a Predator, . . . an aerial reconnaissance vehicle that can read the minute hand of a wristwatch from an altitude of 26,000 feet.

Bin Laden is very tall – slightly over 6'6" – and incredibly thin, less than 150 pounds. He wears shalwart kameez – the loose-fitting tunics and baggy pants of al-Qaida and Taliban soldiers – and, when the weather is cold, he dons a camouflage jacket.

Although he was born in 1957 and far from retirement age, the al-Qaida chieftain appears to be very old. His long scraggly beard is pure white; his face is lined with countless wrinkles; and his shoulders are hunched and rounded. He is bent forward to such a degree that he seems to suffer from a form of osteoporosis. He is left-handed and walks with a cane.

Osama is almost always surrounded by fawning attendants who hail him not as Sultan bin Laden or Emir bin Laden but rather as "awaited enlightened one," the title reserved for the Mahdi."

The Mahdi is the rightly guided caliph who will appear during the last days of human history.
His coming is foretold by the Haddith, the sacred teachings that supplement the Quran. In such writings, the Mahdi is depicted as the figure who will bring forth the "Day of Islam," when all people throughout the world – believers and unbelievers alike – will fall in submission before the throne of Allah.

Bin Laden possesses the distinguishing marks of the Mahdi – the high forehead, the prominent nose, the gap between his teeth, and the black mole on his face. He is pleased to point out these features to photographers and reporters from al-Jazeera and other Arabic news outlets.
Despite his pre-eminence among Muslims, the $25 million price tag on his head and the fact that his image is omnipresent in marketplaces, stores, shops, murals on the sides of buildings throughout the Middle East, no one has been able to find him.

This initially gave rise to speculation that he had been killed by the bombings of al-Qaida cells and safe homes at the launching of Operation Enduring Freedom on Oct. 7, 2001.

Such speculation was put to rest by the appearance of Osama with his sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri on Kabul television in late October 2001. In the broadcast, the twosome sat before a campfire with sticks and appeared like Muslim Boy Scouts about to roast some marshmallows.

In November 2001, after coalition forces seized control of Kandahar, Afghanistan, U. S. officials received word that bin Laden and company were safely sequestered within an impregnable mountain fortress that had been created 350 yards beneath solid rock at the highest peak of the Spin Ghar or "White Mountains," a peak known as Tora Bora.

Elaborate drawings of this fortress were published in major newspapers throughout the world, including The New York Times. The drawings depicted a vast underground complex that contained a bakery, a hospital with ultrasound equipment, a hotel for 2,000 occupants, a mosque, a library, an arsenal for weapons of mass destruction and a hydro-electric plant.

And so the massive bombing of Tora Bora began. For nearly two weeks, the mountain peak was pounded with "bunker blasters" in an attempt to collapse the troglodyte lair of the terrorists. At one point, a "daisy cutter" – a 6,800 kilogram bomb, the largest in the U.S. arsenal – was dropped on the target.

At the end of the siege, coalition forces combed the mountainside in search of hundreds of bodies. But few bodies were found and only 19 emaciated and toothless captives could be rounded up for the victory parade before the international press in Kandahar.

The vast underground complex did not exist. It had been a figment of overactive imaginations of members of the Northern Alliance that had been accepted without question by U.S. intelligence officials.

Next came word that the elusive bin Laden had regrouped his forces and was hiding in the mountainous region of Shah-i-Kot. Two tall, thin and bearded men in shalwart kameez were spotted by an aerial reconnaissance vehicle standing before a tarpaulin at the entrance to a cave. U.S. military heads assumed that the tarpaulin was covering a machine-gun post and that the men, because of their height, dress and posture, were Arabs and, therefore, al-Qaida operatives.
Operation Anaconda, the plan to encircle Shah-i-Kot and squeeze the al-Qaida and Taliban operatives out of their hiding places, got underway on March 2, 2003. Fierce resistance was reported by the coalition forces. Megaton bombs were dropped at the rate of 260 a day to ferret out the terrorists. The reported enemy death toll rose and fell like the fluctuations of a troubled currency: 100, 500, 200, 800, 300. When the fighting came to an end on March 12, only 10 enemy soldiers were taken prisoner and less than 20 bodies were found within the battle zone. The full military offensive, replete with the dropping of 3,250 bombs, had been conducted on largely uninhabited territory.

In the wake of the first phase of Operation Enduring Freedom, U.S. intelligence sources were able to confirm over 500 al-Qaida and Taliban soldiers had fled Afghanistan by scaling the mountains in the south along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and cutting through Afghanistan's southernmost provinces toward the border with Iran, where they found safe haven.

The enemy operatives within Iran included Saad bin Laden, Osama's eldest son; Yaaz bin Sifat, a top-ranking al-Qaida planner; Mohammed Islam Haani, the major of Kabul under the Taliban; and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had been in charge of al-Qaida's attacks on Europe. By spring of 2002, al Zawahiri, bin Laden's top lieutenant, was spotted in Iran, where he reportedly donned the disguise of an Iranian cleric with a black turban and a dyed beard.

Within Iran, the al-Qaida guests were placed in safe houses by SAVAMA, the Iranian intelligence service. These villas, located in southern Iran, with saunas and swimming pools, are lavish even by American standards. The operatives remain in this villa at this writing.

But where was Osama??

In 2003, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, ISI, informed CIA officials that the al-Qaida head was sequestered in the wilds of Waziristan, a region between Balochistan and the North West Frontier in Pakistan.

In July 2003, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf shelled out millions in cold cash (thanks to the largesse of the CIA) to tribal chieftains within Northern Waziristan in order to obtain permission for Pakistani troops to enter their semi-autonomous tribal territories. It was the first time that such troops were allowed to set foot within the province since the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

It was small surprise to many observers that the payments were for nothing. The Pakistani troops combed the Tirah and Shawai valleys and discovered not a trace of Osama or any al-Qaida officials.

Attention now turned to South Waziristan. In March 2004, President Musharraf, upon receiving the consent of the chieftains, sent an army of 70,000 into the province. A welter of excitement followed the invasion when Musharraf announced that a high value target had been pinned down. The speculation, fueled by U.S. military sources, was that it was bin Laden or al-Zawahiri. But neither one showed up. There were foreign militants in the area, but less than 600, far fewer than the Pakistani authorities claimed, and most were Uzbeks.

The hunt for Osama bin Laden had grown cold. There were no confirmed sightings; no intercepts of satellite phone calls; no evidence of e-mails. The only assurance of his existence came from his periodic appearances on al-Jazeera. He had performed the most remarkable disappearing act in human history.

Still and all, stories surfaced that he had made his way to Chechnya and that he was safely sequestered among the Uighurs in China.

Where is Osama bin Laden??

His whereabouts cannot be pinpointed by official military and intelligence sources, despite the drones that fly day and night over the Afghan-Pakistani border. Nor can his hiding place be determined by members of the media, who continue to provide c-notes to Pashtuns and Tajiks for useless information.

To discover the whereabouts of the world's most wanted man, it is best to turn to unofficial yet reliable sources, such as the professional soldiers for paramilitary corporations that attend the annual Soldier of Fortune convention in Las Vegas. The mercenaries – "mercs" for short – know where he is since they are anxious albeit not willing to collect the $25 million bounty.

Osama bin Laden is alive and well and living in the valley of Dir within the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. He has been there since he escaped from Tora Bora in December 2001.

To substantiate this claim, the mercs produce shabnamas or "night letters" that are circulated among the various tribes within the frontier. The night letters contain updates of Osama at work and play and photos of the al-Qaida leader with Maulvi Sufi Mohamed, an old and revered Muslim scholar, who maintains a Taliban-style rule over the valley of Dir with public executions of adulterers, homosexuals, apostates and Christian infidels.

Mercs point out that news of Osama's whereabouts was even published on the front page of the Daily Ummat, the leading Urdu language paper of Karachi, on Aug. 10, 2003. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. defense department – let alone the U. S. intelligence community – took heed of the article with the smiling face of the great emir before the invasions of Waziristan.

Dir remains within the Malakand Pass, the site of some of the fiercest skirmishes under the British Raj. A Pakistani army fort still stands where the young Winston Churchill shot down rebels and received a citation for heroism. Ironically, it now serves as the headquarters of the leader of the Mujahadeen who has unleashed a wave of terrorist attacks against Great Britain.

Despite the bounty, bin Laden remains not only safe and secure in Dir but also free to travel to other parts of the country, including regular trips to Peshawar and the smuggler-infested bazaar town of Rebat at the center of "the Devil's Triangle," the conjunction of the borders of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran.

No Muslim will dare to capture or kill him – not even a squadron of elite military personnel from the Musharraf government, let alone a group of professional bounty hunters. It is the duty of all Muslims to honor the revered leader of the Mujahadeen, who has been ordained to bring forth the Day of Islam.

What's more, bin Laden is protected by milmastia – the Islamic code of hospitality that demands protection for fellow Muslims who seek shelter in their country – even if such protection means risking their lives. Believing Muslims know that the $25 million reward comes with the price tag of apostasy and eternal damnation. Mercs point out that Pakistani soldiers and ISI officials are even unwilling to collar Osama and his cohorts when they appear in Peshawar. They don't want to go to hell for money or Musharraf.

Bin Laden remains protected by yet another factor. Any concerted attempt by the United States to invade any part of the North West Frontier Province by crossing the 680-mile border between Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to capture the world's most wanted man will be met by the resistance of the vast majority of 20 million Muslims who inhabit the formidable area.

Such resistance could lead to the toppling of the Musharraf regime with the result that Pakistan, with its arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons, would fall under the control of the radical mullahs, who wait in the wings.

At present, the way to Dir, according to the mercs, remains strewn with the bodies of would-be bounty hunters. They have been cast in the pines beside the dirt road. All have been tortured, stripped naked and castrated. Their eyeballs have been plucked from their sockets; their ears have been hacked off; and their tongues have been ripped from their mouths. Notes have been strapped to the groin of every victim. "Do not be angry or shocked," the notes say in Pashtu. "These are the bodies of agents of the USA."

That's the way it is, and anyone who thinks this should be a piece of cake is welcome to make any attempt they wish, in order to collect that rather large bounty, on Mr. bin Laden's head.

God Bless,
Dan'L