Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 9:30 pm
You last visited January 19, 2017, 8:42 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

"Al-Qaida warning: Muslims leave U.S.

Published:

My last post has established that al Qaida and the like are descended from Hitler's Nazis, also one article I posted said bin Laden was intent on "ethnic cleansing" so I'm not sure what it's going to take to convince some how serious their threat is. 

These two articles are likely the intelligence President Bush was referring to in his latest speech because he was stressing the point that YES they do want to kill us, and YES they're planning another attack. 

BTW, I use World Net Daily quite frequently for intelligence articles because Joseph Farah who owns WND also has an intelligence bulletin, G-2 which has been pretty accurate.

Live links. 


"Al-Qaida warning: Muslims leave U.S.
Afghan terror commander hints at big attack on N.Y., Washington

Posted: September 17, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Source  WorldNetDaily.com

"The new al-Qaida field commander in Afghanistan is calling for Muslims to leave the U.S. – particularly Washington and New York – in anticipation of a major terror attack to rival Sept. 11, according to an interview by a Pakistani journalist.

Abu Dawood told Hamid Mir, a reporter who has covered al-Qaida and met with Osama bin Laden, the attack is being coordinated by Adnan el-Shukrijumah and suggests it may involve some form of weapon of mass destruction smuggled across the Mexican border.

"Our brothers are ready to attack inside America. We will breach their security again," he is quoted as saying. "There is no timeframe for our attack inside America; we can do it any time."

As WND has previously reported, el-Shukrijumah is a trained nuclear technician and accomplished pilot who has been singled out by bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to serve as the field commander for the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

The terrorist was last seen in Mexico, where, on Nov. 1, 2004, he allegedly hijacked a Piper PA Pawnee cropduster from Ejido Queretaro near Mexicali to transport a nuclear weapon and nuclear equipment into the U.S., according to Paul Williams, a former FBI consultant and author of "The Dunces of Doomsday."

"He is an American and a friend of Muhammad Atta, who led 9/11 attacks five years ago," said Dawood. "We call him 'Jaffer al Tayyar' (Jafer the Pilot); he is very brave and intelligent. (President) Bush is aware that brother Adnan has smuggled deadly materials inside America from the Mexican border. Bush is silent about him, because he doesn’t want to panic his people. Sheikh Osama bin Laden has completed his cycle of warnings. You know, he is man of his words, he is not a politician; he always does what he says. If he said it many times that Americans will see new attacks, they will definitely see new attacks. He is a real mujahid. Americans will not win this war, which they have started against Muslims. Americans are the biggest supporters of the biggest terrorist in the world, which is Israel."

Dawood said he was currently conducting operations in Afghanistan under the leadership of the Taliban. He warned of a series of upcoming suicide bombings there directed against government and coalition forces during Ramadan.

He is also quoted as saying the next attack in America will not be conducted by people like Atta.

"We have a different plan for the next attack," he told Mir. "You will see. Americans will hardly find out any Muslim names, after the next attack. Most of our brothers are living in Western countries, with Jewish and Christian names, with passports of Western countries. This time, someone with the name of Mohamed Atta will not attack inside America, it would be some David, Richard or Peter."

He said there will be another audio message from bin Laden aired within the next two weeks.

Mir reportedly interviewed Dawood Sept. 12 at the tomb of Sultan Mehmud Ghaznawi on the outskirts of Kabul. Dawood and the al-Qaida leaders who accompanied him were clean-shaven and dressed as Western reporters. The al-Qaida commander had contacted Mir by cell phone to arrange the meeting.

"You have witnessed the brutality of the Israelis in the recent 34-day war against Lebanese civilians," said Dawood. "9/11 was a revenge of Palestinian children, killed by the U.S.-made weapons, supplied to Israel. The next attack on America would be a revenge of Lebanese children killed by U.S.-made cluster bombs. Bush and (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair are the Crusaders, and Muslim leaders, like (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf and (Afghani President Hamid) Karzai are their collaborators. We will teach a lesson to all of them."

El-Shukrijumah was born in Guyana Aug. 4, 1975 – the firstborn of Gulshair el-Shukrijumah, a 44-year-old radical Muslim cleric, and his 16-year-old wife. In 1985, Gulshair migrated to the United States, where he assumed duties as the imam of the Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn.

The mosque, located at 554 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, has served as a hive for terrorist activities. It has raised millions for the jihad and has served as a recruiting station for al-Qaida. Many of the planners of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, including blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, were prominent members of this notorious "house of worship."

In 1995, the Shukrijumah family relocated to Miramar, Fla., where Gulshair became the spiritual leader of the radical Masjid al-Hijah Mosque, and where Adnan became friends with Jose Padilla, who planned to detonate a radiological bomb in midtown Manhattan; Mandhai Jokhan, who was convicted of attempting to blow up nuclear power plants in southern Florida; and a group of other home-grown terrorists.

Adnan Shukrijumah attended flight schools in Florida and Norman, Oklahoma, along with Mohammad Atta and the other 9/11 operatives, and he became a highly skilled commercial jet pilot, although he, like Atta and the other terrorists, never applied for a license with the Federal Aviation Commission.

In April 2001, Shukrijumah spent 10 days in Panama, where he reportedly met with al-Qaida officials to assist in the planning of 9/11. He also traveled to Trinidad and Guyana, where virulent al-Qaida cells have been established. The following month, he obtained an associate's degree in computer engineering from Broward Community College.

During this time, he managed to get passports from Guyana, Trinidad, Saudi Arabia, Canada and the United States, according to Williams. He also began to adopt a number of aliases, including Abu Arifi, Jafar al-Tayyar, Jaafar At Yayyar, Ja'far al-Tayar, and Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan (the name that appeared on his official FBI file). He traveled to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where he met with Ramzi Binalshibh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and other members of the al-Qaida high command. He also spent considerable time within al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan, where he received training in explosives and special operations.

Following 9/11, el-Shukrijumah was reportedly singled out by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to spearhead the next great attack on America. One plan was for a nuclear attack that would take place simultaneously in seven U.S. cities, leaving millions dead and the richest and most powerful nation on earth in ashes.

"Muslims should leave America," said Dawood. "We cannot stop our attack just because of the American Muslims; they must realize that American forces are killing innocent Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have the right to respond back, in the same manner, in the enemy's homeland. The American Muslims are like a human shield for our enemy; they must leave New York and Washington."

Mir, the journalist, has reported previously that al-Qaida has smuggled nuclear weapons and uranium into the U.S.

"I am saying that Muslims must leave America, but we can attack America anytime," he said. "Our cycle of warnings has been completed, now we have fresh edicts from some prominent Muslim scholars to destroy our enemy, this is our defending of Jihad; the enemy has entered in our homes and we have the right to enter in their homes, they are killing us, we will kill them."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52018

________________________

Osama's biographer says nukes in U.S.
Border used to smuggle WMDs inside America, says source

Posted: May 24, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Source WorldNetDaily.com

"Al-Qaida has smuggled tactical nuclear weapons and uranium into the U.S. across the Mexican border and is planning to launch a major terrorist attack using a combination of nukes and dirty nukes, according to an interview with Osama bin Laden's biographer, Hamid Mir, in WorldThreats.com.

The information confirms reports previously published in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin and in a new book by Paul L. Williams, "Dunces of Doomsday."

"I came up with this conclusion after eight years of investigation and research in the remote mountain areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I traveled to Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan and Russia and met dozens of people," Mir said. "I interviewed not only al-Qaida operatives but met scientists and top U.S. officials also. I will have the details in my coming book. At least two al-Qaida operatives claimed that the organization smuggled suitcase nukes inside America. But I have no details on who did it. But I do have details about who smuggled uranium inside America and how."

Mir claims his information is based not only on what al-Qaida operatives, including bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, told him, but also upon his own independent research as a journalist. Mir says his upcoming book, a biography of bin Laden, will disclose al-Qaida's nuclear attack plans.

"As far as I know, they smuggled three suitcase nukes from Russia to Europe," Mir says about al-Qaida. "They smuggled many kilos of enriched uranium inside America for their dirty bomb projects. They said in 1999 that they must have material for more than six dirty bombs in America. They tested at least one dirty bomb in the Kunar province of Afghanistan in 2000. They have planned an attack bigger than 9-11, even before 9-11 happened. Osama bin Laden trained 42 fighters to destroy the American economy and military might. Nineteen were used on 9-11, 23 are still 'sleeping' inside America waiting for a wake-up call from bin Laden."

Mir said al-Qaida operatives told him that tactical nuclear weapons were smuggled over the Mexican border before Sept. 11, 2001.

Mir said again he believes al-Qaida may use its nuclear arsenal after the U.S. attacks Iran in an effort to stop its nuclear weapons program.

"This is my opinion," he says. "No al-Qaida leader has ever admitted that they are working with Iran. I also think that, maybe, the Iranians will organize some attacks inside America and you will accuse al-Qaida."

Asked why al-Qaida hasn't used nuclear weapons it already possesses, Mir said: "They are waiting for the proper time. They want the U.S. to be involved in a mass killing of Muslims, so that they will have some justification. That is what I was told by a top al-Qaida leader in the Kunar Mountains of Afghanistan."

Mir made similar comments in an earlier interview with G2 Bulletin.

Hamid Mir's credibility skyrocketed when he accurately predicted in G2 Bulletin last month the imminent release of a new recorded communiqué from bin Laden through al-Jazeera, the Arabic TV network. Two days later, bin Laden's tape was the focus of international news coverage.

"If you think that my information and analysis about bin Laden's location is correct," said Mir, "then please don't underestimate my analysis about his nuclear threat also."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50341 

Entry #572

Comments

1.
JAP69Comment by JAP69 - September 17, 2006, 11:08 am
Some pretty heavy info there.
And we got people in this country worrying about how the Gov't is getting info to deal with this.
I was in a nuclear division in the military and I beleive every word up there.
2.
JAP69Comment by JAP69 - September 17, 2006, 11:13 am
The naysayers in this country better wake up and fast.
Info like this makes my spine tingle.
WHEW
3.
konaneComment by konane - September 17, 2006, 11:34 am
PC BS is going to get many of us civilians killed and that responsibility all be foisted on pacifist liberals shoulders when it's said and done.

Yes, chills me to the bone, too.

Saw McCain up with Steph running his mouth, posturing. Almost threw up .... turned the tv off. I certainly WON'T vote for him ... too much of a wuus.

It's all about grandstanding, power plays, and to heck with the rest of us so long as they win points with the press for stonewalling the inevitable which is stomping some terrorists @$$, no holds barred, which will end it.
4.
MADDOG10Comment by MADDOG10 - September 17, 2006, 11:37 am
I believe all that was said in the news report, but all they've suceeded in, is installing more fear in the people of the U.S.. What it does'nt say is that there is equally all of that and more being planned for the terrorist in their own country.
42 were trained just for this? And 19 of them were wasted in the 9/11 attack? leaving 23 for future attacks? please...!
As of right now all of the terrorist and their familys are being secretly targeted for anililation. The U.S. and it's allies are sitting on their laurals, waiting for another attack.
And also don't think for a moment that a snipers bullet could'nt take out Bin Laden at any given time...! I'm not saying drop your gaurd, but relax a little, more is being done than you realize.
5.
konaneComment by konane - September 17, 2006, 12:09 pm
Maddog, thanks for the assurances!! I know in my heart there is and has been a lot of intelligence and military activity going on in the background we're not aware of and probably will never be aware of until/if declassified.

When stuck on stupid arguments about surveillance and interrogation are offered up as policy, just that .... stuck on stupid. When liberal judges are shopped as was done regarding the current flawed ruling, again stuck on stupid bigtime.

However, the current circus show allows the public to clearly see who has their best interest and safety as their uppermost concern .... and it's NOT the chattering classes.

Never for a moment did I believe that 9-11 was the only attempt on US soil, and further feel that our being in Iraq is used as an excuse by terrorists and liberals, but has no real bearing on anything terrorists didn't have already planned years in advance.
6.
ToddComment by Todd - September 17, 2006, 1:02 pm
JAP69 is right, this is some heavy info.

I honestly don't understand the morons who are doing everything in their power to undermine the war against those terrorist bastards. Maybe they think Washington, D.C. will be nuked when they are back in their home districts on recess, so they won't be blown up.

I think comments like the "42 fighters" are bs-laden, as we know at least one (the "20th hijacker") was stopped. So now they're down to 22, I suppose. ;-)

I absolutely believe that the terrorists are cheering for the liberals to get their way on every issue. Think about it: every single thing the liberals fight for is something that helps terrorism succeed.

The liberals don't want a fence, they want to a guest worker program. End result? The number of legal immigrants skyrockets. The number of illegal aliens and legal immigrants overstaying their visas skyrockets. Illegal aliens pouring over our borders continues at the same rate, as border enforcement is ignored.

Liberals want to stop the government from listening to international calls to and from terrorists, calling it a "domestic spying program". The ring leader of all liberals, the New York Times, proudly put a stop to the technique when blazed the headline "BUSH LETS U.S. SPY ON CALLERS WITHOUT COURTS" on its front page. The program has been successfully used to thrwart terrorism, but the New York Times did not see the merits of keeping the program secret, so they told the world. Liberals everywhere cheered this "courageous" decision by the Times. End result? The USA lost one of its key methods for identifying terrorism before it takes place.

Liberals stopped the government from working with SWIFT in Brussels to identify terrorism wire transfers. The ring leader of all liberals, the New York Times, was BEGGED by the President to keep the program secret, as it has been successfully used to thrwart terrorism, but the New York Times did not see the merits of keeping the program secret, so they told the world. Liberals everywhere cheered this "courageous" decision by the Times. End result? The USA lost one of its key methods for identifying terrorism before it takes place.

The liberals run around saying "THE PORTS ARE NOT SECURE!" but won't put up a fence. When asked what they WOULD do, they start talking about all the TERRIBLE THINGS! that Bush has done. Would anyone like to tell me what the liberals' plan is to make the ports more secure? How much money are they willing to spend for it? Are they willing to cut back on some domestic give-away programs in order to beef up security spending? What's that? They want to raise taxes to pay for it? Of course, all those questions cannot really be answered, with the exception of the "taxes" question, because raising taxes is the only thing that liberals do consistently.

The liberals say we need to "get Bin Laden", yet if they actually got Bin Laden, they would like to try him in a USA court, run by a liberal judge, who would put the whole "show" on TV, expose every government secret, be used as a recruiting tool for Al Quaeda, and would result in Bin Laden achieving hero status, and the world mocking the USA.

Liberals are enfuriating because they seem to look at everything through some kind of reality-changing glasses. Their anger at our president and more than half of the citizens of this country is completely misplaced. Instead of directing their anger at the terrorists, their always-guilty consciences nit-pick this country and her leaders, and find fault with everything we do. It is a cancer on our society.

It is not as if the President is always right! In fact, I disagree much more often than I'd like with his decisions. The government does indeed do bad things at times, and they can be downright doofuses occasionally.

But remember the "United We Stand" lip service the liberals said after 9/11? When it comes to the war on terror, that is where "United We Stand" is the most important, and that is where the liberals show they didn't mean what they said. The liberals' motto might as well be "United We lose Power", because that is the way they act.

People can argue all day about education, taxes, social security, elections, judges, etc., but when it comes to the war, the liberals' actions are directly causing us to lose power and lose battles. They don't pick their fights, they fight everything. Can it possibly be true that every single action George Bush takes is wrong? These are the same people who said every action Ronald Reagan did was wrong too, and look at how wrong they were in that case.

I hope everyone reads the articles you posted Konane, because they are important, and I believe mostly true.
7.
konaneComment by konane - September 17, 2006, 1:23 pm
I have every faith in unencumbered intelligence and military ...... have minus-zero faith in liberal grandstanding which pimps for terrorists.

Just hope we don't have to get our @$$ blown off to prove them wrong.
8.
Rick GComment by Rick G - September 17, 2006, 11:23 pm
Since this news is common knowledge, even to the point of making it to a lottery forum blog, what is our government doing this very minute to protect us? I haven't heard a word from Homeland Security or our Government.

Either this story is total bull or our Government is not warning us of extreme and imminent danger.    Which way is it? You can't have it both ways.

If this story is true, why is the President not on the television this minute warning us of this and raising the terrorist threat level?

This is either fear mongering or total lapse in security. There is no other answer, no middle ground, this is black and white. Either the government issues a higher threat warning with details or arrest those responsible for this fear mongering. You can't have it both ways. If you can write about it and it can be substantiated then I, as an American citizen demand details and proof. If these are empty, unsubstantiated words to inflame the American public, the propagator should be
prosecuted just as strongly as they prosecute airline travelelers who say "bum" and are thrown in jail for saying "bomb".
9.
TenajComment by Tenaj - September 18, 2006, 2:22 am
What I find interesting about it - is that the most fearful always use words heavily coated with a hatred for liberals.
10.
konaneComment by konane - September 18, 2006, 9:36 am
Did anyone listen to the president's last speech saying to the effect "they want to kill us and are planning more attacks"???? Believe it's been said clearly for anyone who can hear.

As far as heavily coating hatred for liberals .... no sticking with issues and verifiable actions of those who left us wide open to be hit and hit again without doing squat about it.

Let the blame squarely sit on those who are fighting tooth and toenail FOR terrorists by revealing methods by which they have been tracked since technology was developed early on in the 60's under Kennedy and refined forward.

It's always a free pass if a Democratic president does domestic spying such as Clinton did for business reasons, but not fine after we've been attacked on US soil due to his negligence, and a Republican is in office trying to clean up the mess.

If there is a mushroom cloud on US soil or news of a dirty bomb, the responsibility IS on the shoulders of who allowed it to get this far by not taking out bin Laden or any of their known terrorist cells prior to 9-11, and who is stonewalling intelligence now ........... LIBERALS.

The door swings only one way if a Democrat is in the White House.
11.
ToddComment by Todd - September 18, 2006, 9:40 am
Tenaj, that's because liberals have a lot to do with tearing down the things that protect us. It's all documented fact, and all the emotional postings in the world cannot change the facts.

Rick, The President and his staff have been saying this stuff for years now, so I'm not sure what you mean. Every time they raise the security level, liberals, the mainstream media, as well as a few liberals posting on these "lottery forum blogs" claim that it is for political reasons.

You should really be directing your comments to the liberals in government, whose only line is that "we have to get Osama". (Last week Nancy Pelosi even contradicted the liberal talking points, and seemed to say there was NO way to be safe any more, when she made the startling comment that even if we caught bin Laden, we would be no safer than we are today, and that we are "5 years too late".)
12.
konaneComment by konane - September 18, 2006, 9:58 am
Actually Todd we're 10 years too late because that's when Mansoor Ijaz was contacted by the Sudan to try to get Clinton to take bin Laden.

Mansoor Ijaz has done extensive writing about that but was IGNORED by the 9-11 cOmission, but with the "fox in charge of the hen house" they were able to re-write history to their liking.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200403230855.asp
13.
ToddComment by Todd - September 18, 2006, 10:53 am
Konane,

You are allowing the facts to get in the way of the emotional arguments! ;-D
14.
konaneComment by konane - September 18, 2006, 11:10 am
Just can't help myself!!!!!!!!!!
15.
Rick GComment by Rick G - September 18, 2006, 11:37 am
Some people insist on making this a liberal vs. conservative issue. It is not a political issue. It is an American issue. Our security is of the utmost importance to everyone in this country. When are we going to take the politics out of it? When are we going to quit pointing fingers behind us and start working on solutions today as a team? This divided house will be conquered if we let it.

Quite frankly, when I see the words conservative and liberal I stop reading. This isn't an issue that you can neatly package your thoughts about along "party lines".
16.
justxploringComment by justxploring - September 18, 2006, 12:30 pm
I notice that names like Kennedy and Clinton are used when blaming the "Liberals" for allowing terrorists to infiltrate or attack our country. Between Kennedy and Clinton there were at least a few Republican Presidents. Let's see...off the top of my head I count Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush (George HW) and now George W. Terrorism isn't something that starts and ends with an American presidential term. In 1983 a suicide bomber killed 241 American soldiers in Lebanon. Reagan declared Iran as an enemy of the United States. Ever hear of the words â_oIran-Contra?â__ Along with his Vice President, George Bush, Reagan stood in front of our nation in 1985 warning that terrorists in many nations want to destroy everything we cherish. In his speech he said, â_o...of these states are united by one simple criminal phenomenon -- their fanatical hatred of the United States, our people, our way of life, our international stature."

So what happened? That was more than 15 years before the WTC attacks! Well, let's see. Reagan sold weapons through privately funded parties to our enemies like Iran, Libya (sound like..I forget the what we called it in high school history..was it â_oTreasonâ__ or something?) so they could then sell them to the people in South America. You see, there were guerrillas trying to overthrown the government and of course he wanted to make sure the pro-American side won. Well, no sense in getting into the whole Ollie North thing, after all catchy terms like â_oIran-gate and Iraq-gateâ__ are old news. But it's amusing to me that the Right Wing fanatics who blame everything on the â_oLiberalsâ__ and the â_oDemocratsâ__ seem to have these lapses in memory. But why not? After all, President Bush pardoned everyone in 1992.

I've said it before â_" terrorism is very real. It's not A Right issue or a Left issue unless, of course, you're talking about who will be Left after this whole thing is over. Even if we stop assigning blame to whatever president, agency or other group dropped the ball before 9/11, George Bush has had 5 years to figure it out. He invaded Iraq looking for WMD while Al Qaeda & bin Laden got lost somewhere in one of his many caves. So what happened to Afghanistan? Last time I heard, they are producing more drugs than ever before and the Taliban has spread its forces into Pakistan. According to the San Francisco Chronicle today:

"Five years later, U.S. and NATO troops are fighting a resurgent Taliban at the highest scale since the government was toppled in November 2001. Bin Laden remains at large, opium production is at a record high, and Afghanistan resembles a feudal hodgepodge of fiefdoms run by warlords instead of a centrally governed nation of 31 million people."

As soon as the politics stop and we unite, maybe we can get something meaningful accomplished. I always thought the "War on Terrorism" was universal.


17.
konaneComment by konane - September 18, 2006, 12:46 pm
Can't you read or do you have a comprehension problem??????????

I said "tracked since technology was developed early on in the 60's under Kennedy and refined forward. "
18.
konaneComment by konane - September 18, 2006, 11:29 pm
Rick G,

Once upon a time in a land far away back in the 60's the two parties were divided between concerns for the working person and business, trying to strike a balance between the two to keep the economy producing.

Both parties were concerned with national defense against their common enemy, the Soviet Union. After seeing Nikita Kruschev's speech on a visit to the US yelling "We will bury you!" .... while pounding his shoe on the podium he was taken very seriously because the Soviets had nukes and his finger was on the button.   

It didn't matter much which party was in charge because you could sleep at night knowing you knew you were protected as well as possible.

There were plenty of conservative Democrats very much like Sen. Zell Miller in those days. However, people like him who had the nation's national security uppermost in their minds have either retired because the party left them, or are being kicked out like Senator Leiberman.

The current Democratic Party is owned and bankrolled by Soros bearing no resemblance to the heart of the party I grew up with. It's motivated by US appearances to the world, not by securing the nation or protecting anything. The new Democratic party is bowing to "world opinion" .... that opinion designed to weaken our power both financially, militarily and put us under control of the writing-in-corruption UN which has Sharia laws incorporated into its "rules." The UN wouldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag which has been shown by history.... and further doesn't recognize terrorists as terrorists.

Boils down to who's running the show. Soros runs the Democratic party which is so far left it's falling off the face of the earth .... and I don't trust national defense in their hands, especially at a time of war and most especially a war of this nature prosecuted by 5th century savages.

To terrorists the only persons worthy of being alive are the ones who bow to the god they worship.

It is a matter of liberal and conservative, conservatives are proving by action they intend to continue fighting terrorists as they should be fought, to protect the US and its interests.

Perhaps definitions have changed so much over the past 15 years they merit re-considering.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.