Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Free-for-All-Friday

Aired February 22, 2002 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The forces of terror increasingly refuse to respect the sanctity of innocent life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FREDERICKA WHITFIELD, HOST: Where should the killers on Daniel Pearl be brought to justice?

Also, a famous televangelist's outspoken view of Islam insenses Muslims.

eBay's 911 sales get a negative rating from New York's mayor.

And challenging the Olympics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Another protest from the Russian Figure Skating Federation. Are we even surprised?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Let the games begin. It's TALKBACK LIVE'S free-for- all Friday.

(APPLAUSE)

Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Fredericka Whitfield.

As you might have heard, there has been an arrest in the disappearance of seven-year-old Danielle van Dam in California. A news conference is expected at 3:30 Eastern and we'll be taking that live.

But before that, we will introduce you now to some of our guests. We need to get an update on the investigation into the killing of journalist Daniel Pearl. Those guests will be responding to that. CNN national correspondent Susan Candiotti joins us now. Good afternoon, Susan.

Apparently, the Pakistani authorities say they know the names of the people responsible for the death of Daniel Pearl. How is the State Department responding?

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, so far, we are waiting for an official response from the State Department. Earlier, the State Department continuing to call, of course, the murder of journalist Daniel Pearl an absolute outrage. Of course, now the Pakistani authorities are saying that they know the people who are responsible for this. It's quite another matter to try to track those people down.

And therefore, Fredericka, one of the things that's happening now, of course, is that the FBI is continuing to work very closely with the Pakistani officials and government and their investigators who are, of course, leading this investigation to try to track down who murdered journalist Daniel Pearl. As you know, the FBI, one of the things they are doing is analyzing this videotape for any kind of forensic evidence that they can locate, for example, looking for clues on the videotape itself that would give any indication as to where it was shot and when this videotape was made. There is no clue right now as to when Daniel Pearl was executed.

His widow has released a statement just earlier this day, in which she said her husband was forced to read a statement before he was brutally executed. One of the other things we know is happening, according to sources, is that there is a sitting grand jury at least one that is, has been looking into Daniel Pearl's kidnapping and now his murder. And, of course, it is possible that, ultimately, a grand jury could be used as an investigative tool, issue subpoenas, bring in documents, bring in this videotape, bring in witnesses. Ultimately, it is possible that charges could be made in connection with this case.

WHITFIELD: And, Susan, is there already talk coming out of Washington as to an extradition of those persons responsible when they are able to get them into custody in Pakistan?

CANDIOTTI: Certainly, that is something that is under consideration, but officially, the State Department refuses to comment on that one way or the other. But naturally, if charges do come about, it would be within the purview, if indeed an extradition could happen in some fashion, to bring those people responsible to justice.

The U.S. attorney general, John Ashcroft, said last night in a statement that it is the job and it is the will of the Justice Department to bring whoever is responsible for Daniel Pearl's murder to justice.

WHITFIELD: All right. Thanks very much. Susan Candiotti reporting for us from Washington. Thanks for that update.

I want to read from a copy of a written statement now from Pearl's pregnant wife, Marianne. In it, she says: "My hope is that I will be able to tell our son that his father carried the flag to end terrorism, raising an unprecedented demand among people from all countries not for revenge, but for the values we all share. Love, compassion, friendship and citizenship far transcending the so-called clash of civilizations." That response now coming from Marianne Pearl. She is the wife of Daniel Pearl, who now we have confirmation who is dead.

Now joining to us talk more about the Pearl murder investigation are Jane Chastain, an author, broadcast journalist and political commentator. She is co-host of the nationally syndicated "Judicial Watch Report" on USA Radio Network; Sam Greenfield, a stand-up comedian and talk show host on WEVD radio in New York; Lincoln Ware, a talk show host on WDBZ in Cincinnati; and Doug Stephan, host of the nationally-syndicated show "Doug Stephan's Good Day USA." Thanks very much for joining us, all of you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Doug, let's begin with you. I'm sorry, we are having -- I'm getting some correspondence from the control room. But, all right, we won't go to Doug. Instead, let's begin this open conversation, whoever wants to jump in first. This, obviously, is a heartbreaking report about the developments of Pakistani authorities now looking for the suspect and looking for the body of Daniel Pearl. Your initial thoughts? Whoever wants to go first.

LINCOLN WARE, WDBZ RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, you have got to bring them back here to the United States because if you don't, then every terrorist in any country will think he can do anything to any American and not have to come back to America to face, to face charges. So, you have got to bring him back here and no doubt about it, because I don't think they will get the trial that they need to get in Pakistan.

SAM GREENFIELD, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I think it's just the opposite.

JANE CHASTAIN, USA RADIO NETWORK: I disagree. I think that...

GREENFIELD: I think that the people -- I'm sorry. I think that the people who are in the Middle East now know that when we are crossed, we do something about it. I think it should be done there because frankly, I think they have something to prove to the United States, and I think justice there will be swifter and more brutal than it will be here.

CHASTAIN: I agree with Sam. I absolutely agree with Sam. However, there are some conflicting reports coming out on Pakistani law. And at this point, I am unclear as to whether someone who murders a non-Muslim can, in fact, get the death penalty. If we can be sure that someone found guilty of murder will receive the maximum penalty we impose here in this country, then I think we should let the Pakistanis handle it. Yes, they do have something to prove...

WHITFIELD: Well, Stephan, are you with us now?

DOUG STEPHAN, "DOUG STEPHAN'S GOOD DAY": Now I have a microphone.

CHASTAIN: ... and I think that we ought to give them the opportunity to prove it. If, however, a lesser penalty can be imposed, then I think we have to insist on extradition. WHITFIELD: Well, Doug, let's begin with you, in that the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, says that he -- his prayers are with the family. He is saddened by this murder. He says that perhaps this murder could be retaliation against his government for going after Muslim extremists. Do you believe that this could be a retaliatory act?

STEPHAN: Well, I think that there are probably -- there are a number of different arguments that you could put forth on this. I don't know that necessarily we have to worry about the trial. I think that that becomes circumspect. When you really get down to brass attacks (ph), you have to understand why this guy was killed. And in order to understand that, you have got to understand why he was over there.

Why did this man go there in the first place? He volunteered. His wife is about to have a baby. He really, probably, if he had thought it through, might have made a different decision. But there is such a thirst for information. There is such a lack of knowledge that is coming from our government about what is going on over there, the only way that we are going to get the information, I think, in the minds of a lot of people that are in the news business is to take risks, to take chances.

And so, this guy maybe isn't going to be the last one who is going to be put in harm's way because people who really want to get the story, people who really want to know what is going on are going to take chances because we can't get the information any other way.

WHITFIELD: Sam, how has this impacted, in your view, the work of the foreign journalist right now?

GREENFIELD: I think that when you are in an atmosphere that Mr. Pearl was in, when you know that you are going in among Muslim or any extremists, that there's a risk. I mean, this guy was, you know -- his death was useless and horrible. But that doesn't mean that he didn't know the risk going in. And I think Doug makes a great point. Had he thought about it, perhaps he would have said, maybe not. But then again, he didn't he was going to be betrayed by the guy who was taking him to the interview.

STEPHAN: Well, why did he take the risks in the first place? That's the question. Why did he take the risk?

GREENFIELD: Because that's who he is.

WARE: Journalists have that mentality that they are untouchable and that they can go into a war-type situation, and if they are journalists, no one will bother them.

GREENFIELD: I think that's not true.

STEPHAN: No. I think he was more daring than that.

GREENFIELD: I know journalists who have gone to East Timor at a time where people, regardless of who you were, where were you from, were getting beaten and gassed and hosed, and they knew the risk going in. It's their true journalism, it's their true sense of seeking the truth and the real answers that makes them know they are going in harm's way. These people didn't go in there naively thinking nothing was going to happen.

WHITFIELD: Let's find out what our audience has to say. Does anybody here believe that the death now of Daniel Pearl will, in any way, suppress the foreign correspondents' job, whether in wartime or peace? Anybody have a strong opinion about that?

Yeah. OK. What's your name? Lebaron (ph), what do you think?

LEBARON: I don't think that him going over there was a problem. I think that the situation which he was going into was a problem. And now how this will relay in all the other situations involving in that area is going to be a distraction. Because while we are looking for the killers of this one person, who knew the situation, what about the killers of all the people that died in the World Trade Center that did not ask for this and that did not know that a plane was going to come into their job, you know, that morning.

So while we are chasing down these guys, what about the situation with all the people that are being chased out of Afghanistan?

WHITFIELD: What about now the difficulty of actually trying to apprehend a suspect? Does anyone have any strong feelings about whether there is indeed going to be a significant problem that the Pakistani government is going to face in trying to widen the net? Already they have one person that they believe is a primary suspect that they have in custody. What are your thoughts?

GREENFIELD: The Pakistani government says they know these people's names.

WHITFIELD: Right.

GREENFIELD: Well, we also know the name of Osama bin Laden, but we haven't gotten him either.

WHITFIELD: Correct. They are not in custody yet.

GREENFIELD: These people...

(CROSSTALK)

GREENFIELD: ... going, hi, arrest me. They are hiding, I would assume. So we got to find somebody to rat on somebody.

WHITFIELD: So what is it going to take? Lincoln, what is it going to take? I mean, how in the world is the Pakistani government going to get the cooperation, how is the U.S. going to be able to extend a helping hand, if there isn't the cooperation on the ground?

WARE: They won't get it, because right now, you know, America's hated around the world, especially that part of the world, and these guys will protect him just like they are protecting Osama bin Laden. So it's going to be tough.

STEPHAN: I think we're kidding ourselves. If we think that we are actually going to go over there and find these people, I think we are kidding ourselves. We're building false hope as far as the family is concerned of Daniel Pearl, as far as the American public is concerned.

If you really think that these guys -- unless we put up some wildly large amount of money to find these people -- and that hasn't worked with Osama bin Laden, so what makes you think it is going to work here. You are not going to find these people!

WHITFIELD: OK. We're going to continue this...

CHASTAIN: I think the Pakistani government has a much better chance under President Musharraf of finding these people than we did in finding Osama bin Laden. I mean, at this point, I think they are our best hope. They do have something to prove, and I think they will bring them to justice.

STEPHAN: But I think we are missing the bigger story, and that is what I started with. I think this going to be something that will be continuing. We'll see more of this, because more journalists feel they have to go get the story, because we have got this new office of whatever it's called to keep the information from the American public and for the rest of the world, managing the news, the Pentagon is managing the news, falsifying news. So you are not getting any information. In order for us to us get information, we got to go to over where the information is being made, and that is going to put more people in harm's way.

WHITFIELD: But -- and Lincoln, let's try and continue this conversation in a moment, because right now we're going to go to another topic for a second. We are going to kind of shift gears. President Bush says the people who killed Pearl can not be friends of Islam or Pakistan, but a noted evangelist doesn't always agree on Mr. Bush's views on Islam. And you'll hear more about that coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Welcome back. Televangelist Pat Robertson doesn't mince words when it comes to Islam. During an airing of the "700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network, he said Islam, quote, "is not a peaceful religion that wants to coexist. They want to coexist until they can control, dominate and then if need be destroy," end quote.

Needless to say, the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee is outraged. Lincoln, let's begin with you. Should they be?

WARE: Well, you know, somebody should stick a Bible in Pat Robertson's mouth. Here's a guy that blamed the 9-11 on the gays and the lesbians, the abortionists and the liberals. So you know, can you take this guy seriously what he says? Time after time again, he steps on everybody's toes except his own. WHITFIELD: And the same time he has significant influence on the American people, he's a pretty prominent religious leader.

GREENFIELD: I think he's become irrelevant. I think he's completely irrelevant. I think when he starts talking about tornadoes coming to Disney because it's gay weekend, I think when he uses people's money to fly to Africa to look at his diamond mines -- I think just because he went to Yale and Harvard people think he's smart. You can get out with gentleman C's. He's irrelevant, he's a bore, and he's an insult to people of true faith.

CHASTAIN: I'm not sure how much time that Pat Robertson has spent studying the religion of Islam, therefore I think perhaps we are putting too much emphasis on what he said. But after 9-11, all of us are curious about Islam. In fact, we need to know more about this religion.

We have had a number of Islamic scholars on our program, men who have devoted their entire career to studying the Koran and the related books. And they are very divided. And here's what I find, they break up into two camps. There are those that feel, as Pat Robertson does, that it's a violent religion and that those who practice it and lead Islam are bent on destroying the non-Muslim world.

However, others point out that Islam is very divided. There are many branches of Islam, many different sects. What they all seem to agree on -- and this is important -- is that although the majority of Muslims worldwide are peace-loving people, it seems that the predominance of mosques here in this country are related to the radical sects.

And here's what I think needs to happen. I think we need the leaders of each of the mosques here in this country to come out and make a definitive statement, either denouncing the terrorist acts or supporting them. We need to know where they stand, and those that refuse to do this -- and by the way, the statement needs to be in both languages, in English and in Arabic so it can't be (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

GREENFIELD: Do you think that you can get someone from any church in this country to agree with another church of the same sect in this country?

CHASTAIN: No, but I think that...

GREENFIELD: Well, then, what are you doing?

CHASTAIN: I think that since many of the mosques over here are related to the radical sects, that in fact are sponsoring terrorism, encouraging terrorism, that we need to know where they stand.

GREENFIELD: But you are asking for total uniformity. You are asking for total uniformity. Every mosque get in together, that's not going to happen.

CHASTAIN: No, not at all. What I'm asking for if they don't come out and denounce terrorism and these terrorist acts, then I think we have a responsibility to close their mosques and see...

GREENFIELD: And who -- oh, so we close them down when they don't respond? Who writes the statement for them? Who writes it for them?

CHASTAIN: I mean, they write the statement.

GREENFIELD: Oh, OK.

WARE: That's going to change everything. I mean, there are some Christians who are just as violent as some of the Muslims you are talking about.

GREENFIELD: Timothy McVeigh.

WHITFIELD: And, you know what? We have a caller on the line who would love to jump into this conversation. Jonathan from Ontario, what are your thoughts?

JONATHAN: Hi. I'm a student here in Ontario, in university. And they teach us in the university that you have to look at an issue and try to analyze it from both sides. It just seem kind of silly to say Islam is a violent religion based on one group or one small section of the religion and how it acts. I mean, if you take that example, Christianity isn't that great either because you have people like Jerry Falwell running around. So, come on.

(CROSSTALK)

CHASTAIN: Jerry Falwell isn't encouraging anyone to go and murder anyone. Jerry Falwell isn't encouraging anybody to go out and murder innocent civilians. Come on.

WHITFIELD: So, Jane, you made an interesting point right off the top. You talked about the fact that only until recently have people in America become suddenly interested in trying to understand, better understand the religion of Islam. So, Michael, here in the audience, do you feel like when you hear a Pat Robertson make a comment such as this, that Islam is the religion of evil, how much damage is he doing when there already is a pervasive sense of ignorance about the religion of Islam?

MICHAEL: Well, I don't know about the part about it being a religion of evil. And one of the comments that was made by one of the panelists is that it is not monolithic. But if you look at historically and politically, what has happened in the history of Islam, Islam has historically conquered by force. Just like in some early Christianity through the Crusades, we also did that as well.

One of the problems on Pat Robertson is he's a lightning rod for public opinion and he knows that. And, sometimes, maybe it's better that he just be a little bit quieter. One of the panelists said that Pat Robertson made the comment that gays and others were responsible for 9/11. That was Jerry Falwell, by the way, who happened to have been on his show. Pat Robertson didn't make that comment.

(CROSSTALK) GREENFIELD: But he concurred and issued a simultaneous apology.

(APPLAUSE)

WHITFIELD: All right. The bell is ringing. Time is up on this free-for-all Friday, at least for this topic. We have to move on to the next topic. So up next, is there something wrong with wanting a souvenir from 9/11?

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

WHITFIELD: For sale on eBay, September 11 memorabilia, commemorative items auctioned to the highest bidder, pins, posters, t- shirts, books, tapes and artwork, just about anything you can think of. But it seems New York's mayor thinks eBay is profiting from mass murder. He sent eBay a letter calling the sales morally repugnant and legally objectionable. We called eBay and we were told it already screens objectionable items and has pulled several of those off the market.

However, eBay points out many of the items are being sold by people affiliated with the city of New York. So, you know, does that make it OK? Sam, does that make it OK? They have set the conditions.

GREENFIELD: I live in New York and my question is when will it be OK? People are selling paintings of the Twin Towers. Some people are deeming that repugnant. People sell FDNY and fire department hats. Is that repugnant?

You know, the public -- I'm a free-market guy. Let the public dictate what is sleazy. They won't buy it. They will buy it otherwise. Is it in bad taste? Yes. If you are going to eliminate everything that has bad taste, there's going to be 11 cable channels. So let's calm down and let the market set its own rate and we'll decide what is sleazy or not.

WHITFIELD: But how incredibly offensive this is to the survivors, the victims of September 11.

GREENFIELD: You know something, there's nothing that couldn't hurt them now. There's nothing that doesn't pinch at their soul. The unfairness and the brutality of that attack makes it very clear that this is a pain that is going to be ongoing. But that aside, this is a constitutional right to sell this. Is it disgusting? Yes, but, so?

WARE: This is America.

GREENFIELD: I mean, you know, if you have got to reach a point, you know -- and by the way, a second mayor in a row who is dictating First Amendment abrogations, second mayor in a row.

WARE: I mean, this is America. Americans will sell anything people will buy. They will sell their toenail clippings if people will buy them.

WHITFIELD: Well, Jane, that's exactly a point that one of the members of the audience said. You know, obviously, there's a market for it so that's why it's out there, to be bought.

CHASTAIN: Well, but, you know, I don't think wanting, for example, a painting or a picture of the Twin Towers isn't somehow a reflection of bad taste. I think that perhaps what the New York mayor is concerned about is that someone outside the city of New York may profit. Yes, I think that the head of eBay has a responsibility to screen out items that are truly in bad taste. But I agree, I think the free market will decide.

WHITFIELD: OK.

GREENFIELD: And if a guy from New York sells something to a guy from, say, Cincinnati and the guy from Cincinnati turns around and sells it, the guy from New York isn't culpable. It's still free market.

WHITFIELD: All right. We have got someone on the phone. Josh, what are your thoughts on this? Are you offended?

JOSH: No, I'm not offended. I think that the profit that...

WHITFIELD: OK, Josh, we have going to have cut you off there. I'm sorry. We are going to have to go to Bill Hemmer in the newsroom for an update on the investigation of Danielle van Dam.

(INTERRUPTED FOR CNN COVERAGE OF BREAKING NEWS)

WHITFIELD: Welcome back.

Well, let's talk about the Olympics now, where a 16-year-old skated her way to an upset and took home the gold. And the Russians and the South Koreans are now protesting.

Joining us from Salt Lake City is CNN's Carol Lin.

Hi there, Carol.

CAROL LIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Fredricka.

Yes, it's been incredibly controversial here. Today, we confirmed that the Russian Sports Federation in fact filed its protest with the International Skating Union.

And what they are saying is: Hey, you did it for the Canadian pair skaters. Now do it for us.

Irina Slutskaya did a magnificent performance, according to the Russian Sports Federation, and they want Irina to get a second gold. So, in other words, give the gold to Sarah Hughes, but also give one to Irina. Well, they said the precedent was set with the Canadian pair skaters. And the ISU is in fact reviewing it. But they are saying that, you know what? We are not really sure that this is going to qualify, because, frankly, Sarah Hughes' performance was magnificent. She's the first woman to actually land two triples in a single performance ever at a Winter Olympics Games.

I'm going to try to find my earpiece right now, because we had an echo earlier, Fredricka. But, basically, we don't think that it's going to change the standing. In fact, we think that the ISU is probably going to keep the ruling in place. But the Russians have been complaining about officiating throughout the Winter Games.

WHITFIELD: So, Carol, can you hear me right now?

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: ... is going to help me find my earpiece. Hang on one second.

If you have got some other guests, you might want to go to them.

WHITFIELD: OK, what we're going to do is, we're going to take...

LIN: I got it.

WHITFIELD: OK? All right.

Can you hear me OK now, Carol?

LIN: Yes I can. Thanks.

WHITFIELD: OK.

So the Russians are contesting last night's ice skating competition. On what grounds are they saying that Irina Slutskaya deserved a gold, at least to share with Sarah Hughes? On what grounds are they making this argument?

LIN: Right.

You know, Fredricka, when you look at the scoring for both of the women, you see how close it was. I mean, on some of the actual judging discrepancies there, it may have been off by like point-one here or there.

Specifically, they are complaining about a 5.6 judgment that an Italian judge gave Irina Slutskaya on her presentation, which is a measure of her artistry. And this is where the subjectiveness comes in, Fredricka. Basically, what they're saying is, that Italian judge doesn't know what he is judging. He is basically saying that Irina skated a beautiful performance, that she was incredibly artistic, and it was not a 5.6. It was higher than that.

And so that's what they are taking to the ISU.

WHITFIELD: OK. We have only got a few more hours in which to try to resolve this, at least before the Games are over. But, Carol Lin, thanks very much for updating us from Salt Lake City. And we are going to continue this discussion with our audience and, of course, with our panel of guests who have been joining us throughout the show. But we are going to take a break right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Well, welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out."

American Sarah Hughes takes home the gold last night in figure skating, but the Russian IOC says the silver medalist, Irina Slutskaya, deserves a gold as well. More specifically, the Russian IOC representative is saying -- quote -- "Stop making toys of our athletes."

Doug, are they making mountains of a molehill, or do they have a point?

STEPHAN: Well, here we have the same situation that exists in every other arena.

We have a wonderful circumstance here where we had an opportunity to bring the world together, to have people show that politics, the boundaries that have been set up by politicians could be broken down by athletes. But yet the media and the way these people, these corrupt officials have handled this thing, it's become a big bore.

It really -- what we have got here is a wonderful, classic picture of a girl in the 11th grade who is so graceful, who is so wonderful. Whether she was the greatest skater there or not, she has the finesse. She deserves a gold medal just for the way she handled herself during that thing last night.

And all these other people, that ridiculous French woman who started all of this, and then everything that has tumbled down since then has created this situation that is nonsense already.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Speaking of judges, Jane, real quick, is this going to be the Olympics remembered for judging

(CROSSTALK)

CHASTAIN: Fredricka, I have a way to solve this problem. I think we ought to just have the Olympic Committee mint a whole duplicate set of gold medals for the Russians. Give them one in every contest, so they can stop crying and go home happy.

(APPLAUSE)

WHITFIELD: All right, thanks, Jane.

Lincoln, you got 10 seconds or less.

WARE: I think everybody now, we need to get computers to do the judging now, because every time somebody thinks they should have won a gold medal, they are going to expect one. Get computers to do the judging.

WHITFIELD: OK, Sam you have had a lot of airtime already, so you've got five seconds left.

GREENFIELD: For 40 years, the Russian used professional athletes. We used amateurs. Now we're using our professionals. They're taking the measure of it. Lay off the stoley, Mr. Tough- sportski.

WHITFIELD: Oh, boy.

All right, thanks very much you all. Thanks very much for joining us on "Free-For-All Friday." Thanks to our guests. Thanks to our audience here and all of you watching at home.

I'm Fredricka Whitfield. You can see me on CNN weekends, Sunday and Saturday.

And tune into TALKBACK LIVE on Monday, when our new host -- there she is, Arthel Neville -- makes her debut. And that should be a whole lot of fun. So we're thrilled to have her here at CNN.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com