Chililng words.

I heard about this video on the radio this morning. This takes place at the University of California - San Diego. The student speaking is a member of the Muslim Student Association. David Horowitz is the speaker. The end of the clip is very chilling.




I don't know that words really do this justice. This is a real problem, and we must find a way to deal with it.

Airport (Lack of) Security

I continue to be amazed that we give terrorists an advantage when moving around our country. An outside observer might be shocked that nine years after the worst terrorist attack on American soil, we would continue to give terrorists access to the very weapon they used on September 11^th. We continue to fight terrorism with one arm behind our back when it comes to airline security. In an effort to be politically correct, we insult grandmothers, families, and business travelers while ignoring terrorists. "Ignoring" might not be the right word here. That hints that we have already identified the terrorists but have decided to do nothing about it. We haven't gone that far.

Both my wife and I have frequently traveled with infants. We have taken both my daughter and now my son on trips to see family members. Traditionally, when we get to the gate, we get "infant in arms" added to one of our tickets. If you are traveling with an infant under two, the infant doesn't need a separate ticket. Instead, they are allowed to sit in your lap. On a recent trip, the TSA agent kicked my family out of security because none of the tickets said "infant in arms". My wife and daughter stood next to the TSA agent while I went back to have the appropriate language added to my tickets. Once back, the TSA agent subjected my ticket to extra scrutiny, then subjected my wife and daughters tickets to this same level of extra inspection (even though he had previously approved them, and they stood next to him the entire time I ran back to the ticket counter). What a pleasant way to start a trip.

To some degree, I can understand the TSA agent's caution. After all, none of my family fits any profile of a terrorist, but you never know when we may. My 8 month old son did refuse to divulge any information to the agent after repeated questioning, so he went to the top of the "suspicious" list. If I could have gotten him on the "no-fly" list, he probably would have skated straight through security. If the New York City bomber is any indication, the no fly list will get you right though security.

There are a number of threads that connect 9/11 members, Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hassan, the attempted NYC bomber Faisal Hassad, underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and shoe bomber Richard Reid. For example: they are all relatively young, most of them are well educated, they are all Muslim, and most (if not all) received training in Pakistan. They do not all look Arabic. Do you see the beginnings of a pattern? Instead of exploring, and exploiting these similarities, we have decided to install cameras that allow TSA agents to see black and white (for now) nude pictures of little kids traveling in airports, and Mayor Bloomberg has decided New York City should install a vast array of closed circuit cameras. I wish Mayor Bloomberg the best of luck finding the money to pay for his new cameras.

The nude scanners also have their own set of problems. Recently, a TSA agent "lost his mind" after co-workers viewed him on one of the new full-body scanners. The other TSA agents viewed screener Rolando Negrin on the scanner and then subjected him to, "…daily ribbing about the size of the screener's genitalia." We are assured that, "…screeners in a separate room view images of the human body, private parts and all, with the person's face blurred." That appeared to fail as a precaution in this case. If the TSA won't protect the identity of their own, why should we believe they will protect the identity of your family?

Terrorists are still able to get on our airplanes, even after leaving the site of an attempted car bomb in New York City. We are told the New York City bomber was "amateurish", which is what we are told after each of these failed attempts. But what happens when one of these terrorists gets it right? And with the number of terrorists getting on our planes, with the heightened security on infants traveling on airlines, and with TSA agents going crazy because they look at each other's genitalia, who really sounds "amateurish"?

Are We Ready to Profile?

By now you've read or seen a variety of opinions on what we should do after the failed Christmas terrorist attack. I won't repeat all the details here. At this stage, it appears the intelligence community knew a little about the terrorist (enough to give him the codename "The Nigerian"), but not a lot. What we do know is there were holes in our system that allowed this man to have everything he needed to blow up a plane over a major U.S. city. His own mistakes, and the quick actions of private citizens are the only thing that saved us.


I have seen a number of reporters and pundits asking if we should update airport screening machines in response to this attack. Specifically, should U.S. airports install the new machines that allow a viewer to see everything under a passengers clothes. However, very few pundits seem to be discussing profiling. Why are we willing to punish innocent passengers by essentially strip searching them, but we won't suffer the potential embarrassment and hurt feelings of a few passengers and a few terrorists by profiling?


The Israeli's seem to profile with excellent success. I think we should really consider this. With the Christmas bomber, we had a Nigerian, paying for a ticket in cash, traveling without luggage. Surely that would have raised a few flags in the profiling process.


There will be the inevitable remark that profiling is racists. I am not arguing to profile strictly on racial lines. I am saying let's talk to Israel, and use another tool that could potentially catch terrorist as oppose to strip searching a vast group of passengers who have no intention of blowing up an airplane.

Terrorists in Civillain Courts: What Does History Say?

On Sunday, I posted a blog on why I thought President Obama and Attorney General Holder grossly misunderstand terrorism. We are told by the administration that our nation has a very successful history of trying terrorism in civilian courts. Seattle Dave even pointed in the comments for my post that three conservatives sided with the administration and said the following:

Over the last two decades, federal courts constituted under Article III of the U.S. Constitution have proven capable of trying a wide array of terrorism cases, without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards.

I thought it might be helpful to look at three high profile cases to see if this is really the case.

Case One: The Blind Sheik

Omar Abdel Rahman, also known as "the Blind Sheik" was tried for terrorism in the 1990's. It was alleged that he was behind the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993. His trial was a very high profile event. He was not convicted of terrorism but was instead found guilty of "seditious conspiracy". This is an easier charge to prove in a court of law than terrorism. It was believed the Blind Sheik was involved in planning 15 bomb attacks through out New York.

The trial for the Blind Sheik is believed to have provided valuable intelligence for Al-Queda. Michael Mukasey, previous Attorney General, and a man who presided over the trial of the Blind Sheik, writing last month illustrated this with an example:

...the government was required to disclose, as it is routinely in conspiracy cases, the identity of all known co-conspirators, regardless of whether they are charged as defendants. One of those co-conspirators, relatively obscure in 1995, was Osama bin Laden. It was later learned that soon after the government's disclosure the list of unindicted co-conspirators had made its way to bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, where he then resided. He was able to learn not only that the government was aware of him, but also who else the government was aware of.

This is just one example of court evidence providing valuable intelligence to terrorists. The Blind Sheik's trial also had the distinction of getting the defense attorney in trouble. Lynne Stewart was a member of the Sheik's defense team, and was convicted of passing messages to the Sheik's followers in foreign countries inciting them to perform terrorist attacks.

Case Two: Zacarias Moussaoui

The alleged "20th Hijacker" also had a few intelligence problems. Moussaoui represented himself in court, made a mockery of the trial, and even verbally attacked the judge during the proceedings. Since Moussaoui represented himself, the prosecution had to turn over their case to the "defendants lawyer" under discovery. According to CNBC News, the government admitted they turned over classified documents to Moussaoui that he shouldn't have had access too. This is important because KSM has decided to represent himself in the upcoming New York trials.

Case Three: Ramzi Yousef

Like the Sheik,Ramzi Yousef was also found guilty of "seditious activities" in spite of being a known terrorists and in spite of being involved in terrorists activities. Once again, material presented in court helped our enemies overseas. From Michael Mukasey:

Again, during the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, an apparently innocuous bit of testimony in a public courtroom about delivery of a cell phone battery was enough to tip off terrorists still at large that one of their communication links had been compromised. That link, which in fact had been monitored by the government and had provided enormously valuable intelligence, was immediately shut down, and further information lost.

We have been told by President Obama, Attorney General Holder, some conservatives, and other officials that our court system can handle trying terrorist. We have been told they can do it successfully, and without putting our security at risk. In these three specific cases, that didn't happen. In these high profile cases the government was unable to prevent sensitive information from getting in the hands of our enemies. In these cases the government failed to prosecute terrorists in civilian courts, "...without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards."

Can we really expect the government to do better when trying the plotters of the 9/11 attacks?

Obama Doesn't Understand Terrorism

We learned two very important things about President Obama on Friday. The first, he has no understanding of terrorism. The second, he has no understanding of just how bad our deficit is.

Eric Holder announced that the five men accused of planning the September 11th attacks will be tried in civilian court in New York. This announcement was made while President Obama was in Asia, and unable to field questions about this decision. What Holder and Obama both fail to recognize is there is no good outcome that justifies bringing them to the United States to stand trial in a civilian court. I want to look at the best outcome Holder / Obama could hope for and why it shows a lack of understanding of terrorism and our deficit.

The "Best Case" Scenario

The best possible outcome from trying these terrorists in New York is that they will be found guilty, be sentenced to death and quickly executed. This is probably the exact same outcome if they were tried in a military tribunal. In the "best case" scenario, there will be no press coverage of the proceedings so there will be no live broadcasts of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed denouncing the United States and our "imperialist" invasion of the Middle East. This case also assumes that there will be no disruptions or attacks on the courthouse during the trial. We are told if this happens, our image will improve world wide. The same people who tell us this are the ones who told us electing Obama would improve our standing world wide. After almost ten months in office, Iran is closer than ever to getting a nuclear weapon, Chavez is expanding his influence into surrounding nations, we are belittling our allies in the press, abandoning them in Latin America and Eastern Europe (not to mention Israel), and our "new, better image" failed to land the Olympics for the President' s home town. I'm not sure this is going to help our international image.

A Lack of Understanding Terrorism

The New York Times Mark Mazzetti writes today:

Not long after he was rousted from bed and seized in a predawn raid in Pakistan in March 2003, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave his captors two demands: He wanted a lawyer, and he wanted to be taken to New York. After a nearly seven-year odyssey that took him to secret CIA jails in Europe and a U. S. military prison in Cuba, Mohammed is getting his wishes.

Who says we don't negotiate with terrorist? Captured on the battlefield? Wait out the administration, and maybe your dreams will come true.

The Obama Administration was accused of having a "pre-9/11 mentality" during the campaign. Their actions on Friday show this was an accurate charge. Civilian courts are not designed to try terrorist captured in the worlds hell-holes by our military. Our courts are use to miranda rights and constitutional protections. These are not guaranteed to military enemies. Al-Queda has declared a war against the United States since before 1996. Iran (acting through Hamas and Hezbollah) has been at war with us since at least 1979. These are self declared wars involving military actions against civilian and military targets. You do not defeat that by capturing a few of the enemies soldiers and trying them in court.

In a court of law, KSM and his co-conspirators will be allowed to speak, and may make sudden outbursts just to get attention. They may be allowed to cross examine their accusers, their lawyers will probably challenge the way they were handled since their capture. Their lawyers are almost certain to move for a dismissal of charges based solely on the reported torture in the media. To avoid this, the Bush Administration, working with Congress and the Supreme Court, created a legal military tribunal system to deal with terrorist captured in foreign lands.

During these trials, how much testimony or evidence will be discussed that might provide intelligence to our enemies? If these trials are covered in court, do we really think the Amerian audience will be the only one watching? What might be revealed in an open court that might jeopardize soldiers and agents in the field?

KSM and at least one other of the terrorists Holder and Obama want to try in New York have admitted guilt and have asked to be executed. Eric Holder says he hopes to seek the death penalty. Why should we waste the money a New York trial will cost when we can arrive at the same verdict with a military tribunal. Which brings up...

A Lack of Understanding of Our Debt

The President seems to have no idea of the cost a trial in New York for the masterminds of the September 11th attacks will cost. The O.J. Simpson circus cost an estimated $9 Million in the 1990's. I expect by the end of the day, the trails for these five will total $100's of Millions. How long will a trial of this nature go on? months? years? This would represent a great target for terrorists like the one from Fort Hood, or Al-Queda. During the entire time, the courthouse, judge, prosecutor, jurors, and defendants will need security. Is there anyone that thinks this will be free?

The defense lawyers are likely to seek any sort of delay or extra trail they can get. How long can this trail be delayed? Anyone associated with any of these special sessions or pre-trail events will need security. Any location will need extra security. What if the defense lawyers successfully lobby to put the soldiers that captured these men on the stand. How much will it cost to get them to and from New York?

Finally, A Worst Case Scenario.

What if the worst happens. Michael Goodwin writes today"

The worst-case outcome is frightening. The beasts who helped kill nearly 3,000 Americans could walk free, while the brave agents who protected the country get locked up.

What if our courts declare some sort of mistrial and order these men set free? Forget whether they would be freed here in the United States or flown back to other countries. If any one of these five is set free by a civilian court, we will give a terrorist who helped plan the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil his freedom. Could any political stunt by the President really be worth this possibility? Could you imagine a photo op with KSM walking around Ground Zero? What about a terrorist being set free while an agent or soldier is locked up pending a trial on their techniques for capturing these terrorists?

There is a real chance that future generations will look back at this decision as Obama's biggest mistake. I am afraid the President and his Attorney General just took one giant step towards making us much more vulnerable to other terrorist attacks. And they did it to what is going to be a huge tax payer burden.

A New Gas Tax

I am usually against any increase in the Federal Gas Tax. My default position on any tax increase is to oppose it until I know more about it. However, I have been stopped cold by a new purposed gas tax increase. Charles Krauthammer writing in the January 12^th issue of the Weekly Standard argues for a "Net-Zero Gas Tax". I have read this article a few times now, and I believe Mr. Krauthammer may be onto something. I wanted to discuss it here because I would like my readers opinions on the plan.

There are a number of reasons to support a gas tax. Typically, any substantial increase in a gas tax is usually government's way of trying to get the people to use less gas. Depending on your political stripe, you may support this in the name of a cleaner environment, or as a way of lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Europeans already have a much higher gas tax than ours. According to Mr. Krauthammer, our federal gas tax is about 18.4 cents on the gallon. In Europe, the fuel tax is closer to $4 per gallon.

The Net Zero gas tax is different from most tax porposals. Mr. Krauthammer argues for an increase in the federal gas tax of one dollar. This is a pretty big percentage increase and would make gas prices jump up to around $2.83 or so for a national average. This is typically not the type of behavior one expects in an economy where new stimulus packages are dreamt up and voted on every other week. However, Mr. Krauthammer couples his tax with a corresponding reduction of $14 per week in the FICA tax. This reduction is to hit the books the week before the extra one dollar gas tax rolls out. Why a $14 reduction? The average American buys 14 gallons of gas per week. By letting that average American keep the extra $14 in his pay check, he has the money for the additional federal gas tax. The net zero tax is designed to be revenue neutral. The federal government gets the same money it has been getting. However, Americans can now chose to continue to buy the same amount of gas each week, or cut back some and have a little extra money.

Are there challenges to this? Sure, and Mr. Krauthammer has a solution for many of them. What about people on welfare or social security? They would get an extra $14 on their weekly checks. What about truckers who buy much more than the average 14 gallons of gas each week? Institute some sort of exception or credit for them to keep the new tax from hitting them so hard.

What I see as the brilliance of this proposal is that it doesn't hurt most Americans and it could potentially cause many Americans to change their driving habits. Many of us are still driving like gas is $4 a gallon. If this tax were enacted soon, we could keep those driving habits and potential get a little money for it. Both parties can claim this as a victory. Democrats love new taxes, and can say this one is to fight global warming. Republicans can say this is a way to cut our oil use, thereby hurting heavy oil countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia. Both parties get a feather in their cap, we might do some good, and the tax becomes one we can decide not to pay by driving less.

The only way out of our economic problems are with creative new approaches. The Net Zero Gas tax is a creative approach worth looking at.

Thank you, Mr. President

Sept 11, 2001 shocked our nation. We knew very quickly that we had been attacked on U.S. soil by terrorists. At the time, most everyone believed it was only a matter of time before the next attack. Seven years later, we haven't had another terrorist attack like we all feared.


Plots have been foiled over the last seven years. Some of them have been very public. There are untold numbers that have been foiled without the public ever hearing about them.


The number one job of the President is to protect the citizens of the United States from her enemies. The future will judge President Bush. Today, we should all pause and thank him for the job he has done over the last seven years.


Thank you, Mr. President.

Habeas Corpus (Part Two)

In my last post, I began describing potential consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumedine v. Bush. This is the case where the Supreme Court ruled that enemy combatants held on foreign soil are guaranteed habeas corpus rights. These same rights are denied to military service members and illegal immigrants. Today, I wish to illustrate two more problems with this decision, or unintended consequences and I wish to offer my humble solutions to fix this decision.

I spent some time in my last post talking about the precedent of the Supreme Court. Previous courts have held that the writ of habeas corpus doesn’t apply to enemy combatants captured in a time of war. This court has disregarded precedent of previous Supreme Courts, and its own decision in 2006. If the court is willing to throw out precedent, does this open the way to a Roe v. Wade challenge? The only reason most people give to leave that decision alone is because it has become law of the land, and is now legal precedent. The Supreme Court has shown it is willing to ignore precedent and Roe v. Wade defenders should be worried.

This decision also infringes on the constitutional separation of powers. Our system is designed to give the other branches of government the ability to reign in a branch that abuses its powers. The President created a system for dealing with enemy combatants, the Supreme Court said that system was wrong and needed to be fixed with the help of Congress. The President worked with Congress and Congress passed laws on how prisoners would have their cases reviewed at Guantanamo. The two branches of government elected by the people worked together to find a solution. This doesn’t sound like the rouge actions of one branch. The Supreme Court has decided that it can rule the other branches of government wrong. Five un-elected justices decided they could determine war time policy better than the elected representatives of the people.

How do we fix this? Believe it or not, there are a number of ways. Here are my solutions, from band aid fix to serious fix. The more deliberate the solution, the harder it would be. My first solution is the easiest to do. Congress can now pass laws that detail how court proceedings for foreign combatants are to be carried out. For example, Congress could say that in cases involving enemy combatants, the combatant has no right to review classified information or to interview the soldiers that captured them.

Secondly, Congress could legislate what court (or courts) might have jurisdiction over trials involving enemy combatants challenging their designation. If only one or two courts had jurisdiction, only a handful of judges would need to be trained on dealing with military cases in time of war. Perhaps Congress would decide that these cases can only be tried by FISA courts.

Finally, and my personal favorite, Congress has the ability to change the number of Supreme Court justices. The U. S. Constitution does not spell out the size of the Supreme Court. We have nine justices now, we have had ten in the past, and the original court was set up with six. Congress could pass the Judicial Reconciliation Act of 2008 (named by me) and double the size of the court. 18 justices cuts the amount of power any one judge wields in half. This would be tough to do (it would literally require an act of congress) but would send a clear message to the court, and would reign in some of the more “activist” members.

Like Roe v. Wade, in the court has imposed its own views of how the law should be written, and not how it actually is written. The Supreme Courts job isn’t to create new rights. The Supreme Court is to rule on standing laws. The Supreme Court failed last week. I hope Congress and the President can clean up the courts mess.

Habeas Corpus (Part One)

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that enemy combatants held at the U. S. base at Guantanamo have the right to challenge their status in Federal court. The 5 – 4 decision has been hotly debated. The decision of Boumedine v. Bush grants writ of habeas corpus to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield in a time of war. These combatants are not U. S. citizens and most have never set foot in the United States. The decision also ruled that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional. This is largely being reported as a defeat for President Bush. I believe it is much more ominous than that, and you might not realize why.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, and this decision is no different. In order to understand the future problems with this decision, we need to examine its past. After 9/11, the Justice Department believed the Supreme Court would stand by precedent and not apply constitutional rights to enemy combatants held outside the United States in a time of war. Turns out, the Supreme Court isn’t really worried about precedent. Remeber this, we're going to revisit it later.

In the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, the Supreme Court ruled that military tribunals set up by President Bush were not in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. However, the court also ruled that if the President wanted to proceed with trials in Guantanamo Bay, the President should get Congress to pass laws with direction for how the cases are going to be handled. This is exactly what Congress did.

As John Yoo wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “[u]ntil Boumediene, the Supreme Court had never allowed an alien who was captured fighting against the U. S. to use our courts to challenge his detention.” He goes on to say:

In World War II, no civilian court reviewed the thousands of German prisoners housed in the U. S. Federal judges never heard cases from the Confederate prisoners of war held during the Civil War. In a trilogy of cases decided at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court agreed that the writ did not benefit enemy aliens held outside the U.S.

What does this decision mean? Being a fan of the "Law of Unintended Consequences", I thought I would speculate on some of the possible outcomes of this decision. One outcome I have heard debated in a number of sources is: What do U. S. forces do with people captured on the battlefield? Many believe the U. S. Military is now going to have to collect evidence, and mirandize enemy combatants. Imagine this, a soldier is fighting for his life, bullets are flying, and he see’s someone come around the corner with a Soviet RPG. Does he have to read this person their Miranda rights before deciding to fire or not?

Others believe our forces will simply not capture terrorist on the battlefield. They argue it will be more effective to simply kill the bad-guys where they find them. I don’t think this is very accurate. Our soldiers are warriors and have behaved honorably in combat. I believe it is much more likely that they will simply turn any captured enemy combatants over to the police and secret police of the country they are in. If we capture an Iranian officer in Iraq, we turn him over to the Iraqi Army and ask to sit in on the interrogation. If this happens, does the combatant receive better treatment in Iraq than he would have received in G’itmo?

What if we capture Osama bin Laden? Sen. Obama has said he believes that the terrorist should stand trial. For those of you old enough to remember the O.J. trials, imagine a similar fiasco with the mastermind of 9/11 at its center. Do you believe the bin Laden fortune and the money of the clerics in Saudi Arabia can afford a good attorney? Democrats and Liberals are always big on our international image. Imagine how we look if Osama is found not guilty in one of our own courts. Perhaps he could even stand trial in a court in New York.

I will leave you with that mental picture until tomorrow. Come back tomorrow for a few more problems with this decision, and my humble recommendations for how to fix it.

New School in the Neighborhood

I was flipping through the local paper this evening and found an article I thought I would share. There is a new charter school opening up in Atlanta that I am thinking of enrolling my daughter. The school, The Academy of St. Urban, is a non-denominational Christian school. In addition to the curriculum required by the State of Georgia, there are classes on the Bible and Christian history, as well as a "rigorous Latin program." The school is housed in the same building with the Catholic Society of Georgia, has a cathedral attached to it, and the Christian faith plays a very central role in the school. It is named for Pope Urban II, who was the Pope at the time of the First Crusade.

The school is very proud of the core Christian values taught at the school. Another selling point is that it is also a charter school. That means that it receives tax payer funding. According to the paper, in the 2006 to 2007 school year, The Academy of St. Urban received $65,260 from the state. I get the financial benefit of sending my daughter to a public school, with the education of a private school. What could be better?

It's too bad this school doesn't really exist. Well, at least not how I described it here. In fact, the above is based on an article by Robert Spencer discussing a new Islamic charter school in Minnesota. The K-8 school, Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, has two campuses in Minnesota, is housed in the same building as the Muslim American Society, and has a mosque attached to it. The school offers a "rigorous Arabic language program", a carpeted space for prayer, and serves halal food. The charter school is considered a Minnesota charter school and really did receive $65,260 from Minnesota tax payers in the 2006 to 2007 school year.

If you're still not at least a little uneasy, the Muslim American Society has documented ties to foreign terrorist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2006, during the "Flying Imams" episode, a number of people pointed out ties between prominent members of the Muslim American Society and Hezbollah and Hamas. And the St. Urban reference wasn't random either. Tarek ibn Ziyad is most famous for conquering what would become Spain in the year 711.

I am pretty sure the ACLU would be upset about my fictional school. Robert Spencer points out they haven't made a peep about the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy…

Quick Notes, Issue Two

Welcome back to another issue of the critically acclaimed Quick Notes. Once again, here are a few bullet points for your general information, enjoyment, and to spur your mind:

Approval Ratings – Bush 34.3 %, Congress 25.0 %.

Waterboarding—A retired CIA agent has spoken publically about the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah. Zubaydah was the first “high level” Al – Qaeda terrorist captured after September 11^th. During the interrogation, the CIA decided that Abu Zubaydah was not going to cooperate with conventional interrogation methods. The interrogators asked and received permission to waterboard him. According to the retired agent, Mr. Kiriakou, Abu Zubaydah broke in about 35 seconds. From that moment on he was described as cooperative. Mr. Kiriakou said that the intelligence gained from this terrorist directly lead to the saving of American lives.

This is as close as we (hopefully) get to a real world example of the “ticking time bomb scenario”. In this case, I think the CIA did the right thing. And while we are speaking of waterboarding…

What did she know, and when? It turns out that Democratic and Republican law makers were briefed in 2002 on waterboarding. The list of those present include current Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Washington Post article that broke this story said that the reaction of Mrs. Pelosi was not recorded. However, the reaction of those briefed ranged from muted acceptance to encouragement to go further. This sounds like a far cry from the indignant outrage the Speaker uses in today’s world to discuss this same topic.

Omaha. The shooter who killed eight last week before killing himself said he was going to be famous. To date, it seems the media is willing to go along with his plans. Just as the Virginia Tech shooter wanted fame, so to did this disturbed individual. The media needs to stop releasing the names and photos of these people. While it may not stop all of them, taking the “famous” incentive away from these murders seems an easy step to take.

New York to Issue Driver's License to Illeagl Aliens

This is the first line from a CNN article covering New York’s plan to give illegal aliens valid drivers license: The Bush administration and New York cut a deal Saturday to create a new generation of super-secure driver’s licenses for U. S. citizens, but also allow illegal immigrants to get a version. My first response: What?!

It seems what my high school Drivers Education teacher, and my license examiner told me is incorrect. Both of them informed me many times that driving was a privilege and not a right. However, the Governor of New York and his administration have argued that in New York it is the other way around, people (both citizens and illegal aliens) have the right to drive. Governor Spitzer is wrong. Driving is a privilege that is earned, not something that is freely given out. In many states, certain traffic violations can remove that privilege. However, the Governor believes that if you break the law to get into our country, you should be given a license.

I have read numerous articles on this subject over the last few days, and almost all say the same thing. The new id’s that New York wants to give away are suppose to be more secure, and these ID’s should make it harder for terrorist and those who want to harm us to travel in the United States. However, New York wants to give these new super secure driver’s licenses away to law breakers.

The new super secure driver’s licenses could allow illegal aliens to get jobs, get social services, get an education, and vote. Wait, you may not have caught that last item. These new illegal alien driver’s licenses would allow illegal aliens to vote. While these new ID’s will have a special “not a valid federal id” note, the New York Board of Elections says it will be more difficult to combat voter fraud under the Governor’s plan. The Board says it is unusual for the polling officials to check immigration status if the voter shows up with a valid driver’s license. Could this be the real reason the Governor is behind this issue?

If you happen to be searching for an issue that Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on, this is one. Many of the top Republican candidates have criticized this plan, some more harshly than others. However, according to the L.A. Times coverage of the Democratic debate, “…five of the seven candidates indicated they would support states issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.” Mrs. Clinton has flipped back and forth over the course of the debate as to whether she would support illegal alien driver’s licenses or not.

Driving is a privilege, ask any State Trooper. The Governor of New York wants to give a secure form of identification to someone who broke the law entering the United States. The Governor of New York is risking providing criminals with identification, encouraging voter fraud, and allowing terrorist easier movement in the United States under this clearly boneheaded idea.

Ahmadinejad's 2007 U.S. Tour

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran will be speaking at the United Nations next week. I am not comfortable with the thought of our government allowing him to travel to the United States. However, as part of our treaty to host the U.N., we have agreed to allow those who the U.N. calls to speak into our country. What I am more outraged about is Ahmadinejad’s current plans to speak at Columbia University and to visit Ground Zero.

Columbia University was contacted by an Iranian Ambassador and asked to allow the President of Iran to deliver a speech at the University. The President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, will introduce the man who has denied the holocaust and who has threatened to wipe Israel from the face of the planet. The University describes this as an, “…opportunity for faculty and students to engage the President of Iran.” Mr. Bollinger said he told the Iranians that Ahmadinejad would be introduced with, “…a series of sharp challenges…” on the issues facing Iran. I am sure the thought of facing the President of Columbia University has frightened the man who has given the proverbial finger to the world while he seeks a nuclear program for Iran. Mr. Bollinger also says, “It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.” Mr. Bollinger has extended this courtesy to a man who is responsible for killing Americans. At the same time, Mr. Bollinger has refused to extend the same courtesy to the ROTC program. While he will allow someone such as Mr. Ahmadinejad the “freedom of speech,” at Columbia University, in 2005 Mr. Bollinger helped defeat an effort to bring the ROTC program back to Columbia. Terrorist and tyrants are apparently welcomed at Columbia University, but not those who would defend against them.

If this doesn’t sound like a PR coup for Iran, then the President’s next stop on his agenda will. The President of the country that helps fund and organize Hezbollah will visit Ground Zero. Think of how these two events will play on Arab television. President Ahmadinejad will be shown addressing a group of America’s Youth. This image will fade to scenes of Ahmadinejad touring the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

So that this doesn’t sound like a simple partisan issue, I thought I would close with statements from a Republican Presidential candidate and a Democratic Presidential candidate. Both quotes come from WABC in New York by way of Matt Drudge:

“Under no circumstances should the NYPD or any other American authority assist President Ahmadinejad in visiting Ground Zero. This is a man who has made threats against America and Israel, is harboring bin Laden’s son and other al-Queda leaders, is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero – hallowed ground for all Americans – is outrageous.”

-- Mayor Rudy Giuliani

“It is unacceptable for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who refuses to renounce and end his own country’s support for terrorism, to visit the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation’s history.”

-- Senator Hillary Clinton

We have agreement on an issue that truly should be offensive to all Americans.

American Congress for Truth Blog

I have written about Bridgette Gabriel on this site before. She is a Christian who grew up in Lebanon as the country was invaded by Muslim fanatics. I reviewed her book, Because They Hate, and I still believe it is a very important book that everyone should read.

Mrs. Gabriel now heads up the American Congress for Truth. This group is dedicated to warning the West about the growing threat of radical Islam. After I read her book, I went to the site and signed up for email notifications. These notifications are typically quick articles about radical Islam.

I received an email in the last couple of days that announced a new blog for American Congress for Truth. I have added it to my link list and encourage everyone to visit the blog. Already, they have a wealth of information on the site.

Help Protect John Doe

The House and Senate Conference Committee on Homeland Security has been debating an amendment that should enjoy support from both the right and left. The amendment has been called the “John Doe” measure because it is designed to protect people when they report suspicious activity from being sued. The post 9/11 mantra of “If you see something, say something,” should be protected and encouraged.

This measure came about in response to the six “flying imams” who were taken off a Northwest Airlines flight last year. I wrote at the time that the actions of these imams were suspicious, and may have been done simply to get a reaction. After protesting in front of Northwest and after calling the passengers on the flight racist, the imams decided to attempt to sue the unknown passengers that reported them. I have said all along that I felt this was a planned attempt to weaken security at airports and to make passengers question whether they should say something about suspicious activities. Remember, these imams were causing a disturbance on the plane; they weren’t simply sitting in their seats and minding their own business.

After the imams announced plans to file suit, lawmakers quickly passed measures in both the House and the Senate to protect people who report suspicious activity. However, Democrats in the House and Senate Committee tried to block this measure from part of a new homeland security bill. Senator Pat Leahy spoke against it for some time on the floor. Luckily, concerned members of both chambers have been able to keep the measure in the bill thus far. However, these same Democrats are now talking about limiting the number of amendments to this bill so they can target the John Doe measure for removal.

Today, Fox News reported that TSA officials have issued an alert to be on the lookout for terrorist attempting a dry run with explosive components. The TSA sites increased seizures of improvised components as one of the reasons to issue the alert. One example given was of a device that was seized in San Diego. The device consisted of a checked bag with two ice packs wrapped in duct tape. The gel had been removed from the packs and replaced with clay.

It would appear the terrorist mean what they say when the promise to attack us on U.S. soil again. Why would any elected official, Democrat or Republican, want to put our citizens at risk by not protecting them? Shouldn’t concerned citizens be protected when they are making a good faith effort to alert law enforcement and protect themselves and others? Why would we allow lawsuits that may make people cautious about reporting suspicious behavior? I simply can’t see any reason someone in our government would be against this measure.

The Evil we face in Iraq

Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett have both talked about a story from Michael Yon's blog over the last couple of days. On Mr. Yon's blog, he lists a few other news sources that have run with the story. I was unable to find any of the big named media groups (except Fox News) on his list. This story needs to be reported and repeated until every American can repeat it word for word. Here is the part everyone is talking about:

The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man's words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, "What did he say?" Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

We are currently engaged in a war with enemies who are as evil as anything we have ever faced. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas are all cut from the same cloth that made the Nazis and S. S. of World War II. Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden are kindred spirits cut from the same cloth. Democrats and some Republicans have been playing at being at war. It is time for America to realize exactly what it is up against.

This morning the New York Daily News ran an editorial by Senator Robert Byrd and Senator Hillary Clinton. The editorial is a great example of 9/10 thinking. I think it says a lot about a Presidential Candidate when she writes and editorial demanding we withdrawal from Iraq when there are atrocities like the one above being committed by our enemies. It says a lot about Mrs. Clinton that she would write an op-ed piece and share the byline with a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Mrs. Clinton and every Presidential candidate should proclaim that the United States will not allow this type of evil to attack Democracies.

This morning, after repeating the story of these families, Bill Bennett said that we must stay in Iraq even if we lose ten times as many soldiers as we have lost. I agree. We must commit this country to winning Iraq as if our own continuation depended on it. Democracies must protect other Democracies. As Dr. Bennett said, we cannot allow people like this to occupy the same planet as we do. Democracies must also protect mankind from the kind of evil that would commit this evil against another person. If the full plight of the Jewish people had been known during WW II, no one would have argued to withdraw from the War. How can we as sane people discuss withdrawing from this one, knowing what Al-Queda is likely to do when we leave?

A Call for an Islamic Reformation

A plot by six foreign borne Muslims to kill as many soldiers as they could at Ft. Dix was stopped today. The FBI attributed the victory to a video store clerk. The clerk was asked by one of the men to copy a video that showed many of the conspirators firing weapons and talking about jihad. The clerk contacted the FBI. Three of the Muslims were illegal immigrants and two had green cards. The plot had been in the works for some time, and the six had acquired a map of Ft. Dix and were purchasing weapons for their attack. Based on the detailed complaint filed by the FBI, there is no doubt these men thought they were acting in accordance with Islamic Jihad.

Most articles I have read end with the following paragraph:

"If these people did something, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law," said Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer who represented scores of detainees after the 2001 attacks. "But when the government says `Islamic militants,' it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous."

"Don't equate actions with religion," he said.

Not all Muslims wish harm to the United States and her citizens. I reviewed a book in February entitled American Islam which discusses how different Muslims in America see themselves and their faith. It also discuses how their lives have changed since 9/11. However, to ignore the violence that some Muslims in the world feel Islam dictates they use in the name of Allah is to ignore world events today. It does not help that many feel unable to safely discuss Islam without being labeled a racist or being painted as a target by certain Muslim groups. However, if Islam and the West are going to continue to co-exist, there must be a Reformation within Islam.

Is Islam a religion that endorses violence against Israel, Judaism, Americans, or even other sects of Islam, or is it a religion that has simply been misunderstood and manipulated? Muslims must come to terms with how they wish their religion to go forward. Will Islam continue to be used to kill untold numbers, silence dissent, kill and beat women under the term “honor killing”? Will Islam become the true religion of peace where Mohammad’s message can be taught and discussed without fear of violence? I can not answer these questions; this is a Reformation that must be lead by Muslims and come from Muslims.

The Real Problem in Iraq?

I am enjoying my time away with my family. However, sometimes, I need my political fix. During one such time, I found this article from The Art of Peace. David discusses a few points I have talked about in previous post. At the end, he says that he hopes I respond to this because a few of my original post are now deep in the archive. As fate would have it, his post is now in his archive as well. I thought that vacation time would be the perfect time to respond to his post.

I have stated a few times on my blog that the Democrats are bordering on treason with some of their rhetoric. I honestly feel that in their desire to defeat a President who can’t be re-elected, they would rather loose the war in Iraq than give any credit to President Bush. I cite the recent votes for Surrender by Democrats in both the House and Senate as evidence of their desire to beat Bush. David makes the argument on his site that if the country would be better off leaving Iraq, maybe it isn’t really treason but something closer to insight.

David points out that we will probably need to be in Iraq for many generations to come if we are going to truly do the job we have laid out that needs to be done. I agree with David. I believe under the right circumstances, we may be able to remove a large portion of our force from Iraq within the next two to three years. However, we will probably need some force in Iraq and the Middle East to help Iraq for the next ten to twenty years.

David says if Americans aren’t ready for that type of occupation, “…it is because George W. Bush continually told people things would be easier and quicker than they could reasonably have been expected to be.” I disagree with David. President Bush has stated time and time again that the War on Terror is going to be long and difficult. In some speeches he has said that this will be a war that the next President will have to fight as well. I believe the reason people want us out of Iraq and may not be prepared for what we have to do in Iraq is only partly the Democrats fault. The real problem is that we as Americans want results now. We aren’t patient, and we believe that any war should be wrapped up in a few months.

This attitude is more dangerous than anything the Democrats have done. We as Americans must either change our attitude or accept the fact that we are no longer a Superpower. A Superpower is only a superpower if it can project its power throughout the world. If we truly are a “Paper Tiger” as bin Laden has said, if we don’t have the attention span to go the distance for a democratic alley, then we have bigger problems as a nation than who our President is our which party is in power.

Book Review: Because They Hate

I have seen many reports and specials on the Middle East that feature commentary by Brigitte Gabriel. When I heard about her book Because They Hate, I wanted to read it for two reasons. First, I have always been impressed with her knowledge of the Middle East and her understanding of militant Islam. Second, I wanted to hear the story of someone who grew up in the Middle East and I was curious how that might affect her thoughts on what is happening in the Middle East today.

Because they Hate is an incredible account of a Christian growing up in Lebanon. She describes her life before Militant Islamic Fanatics came to her country and started killing Christians in the mid 1970’s. The first attack on her city destroyed her home and almost killed her. She describes how her family was able to survive the constant attacks by Muslims and some of the ordeals her family survived.

One of the tactics Mrs. Gabriel describes was designed to kill Jews in Israel and Christians in Lebanon. The Muslims would set up weapons in a Christian area, fire at Israel and leave. Once their rockets hit Israel, Israel would return fire, hitting the Christian area. She also described what life was like hiding from snipers, and trying to dodge bombs while hoping the Americans would come to their rescue. When a UN peace force was later placed in Lebanon to secure peace, she didn’t feel there was any difference from before the UN force arrived.

Mrs. Gabriel would survive the war in Lebanon and go on to anchor a prominent news show in the Middle East. She details how that changed her life. She was given access to news stories from around the world, without any Arabic spin put on the stories. She would compare the information she was given with what was being reported throughout the Middle East. Sometimes the difference was like night and day.

Because They Hate is also a warning to the United States and the West. Mrs. Gabriel warns that terrorist and Islamic religious authorities say they want to destroy our country and they will succeed if we don’t start taking them seriously and act accordingly. She argues that many Islamic Scholars are teaching hate towards Israel and the United States. Some of this teaching is even occurring on our campuses here in the United States.

As cliché as it may sound, I think all Americans need to read this book. This is an account of a woman who has seen first hand the terrible face of Islamic fundamentalist. Her native country was destroyed by the same people who would like to attack us. She wrote this book as a warning to the United States. She is now an American citizen and doesn’t want the same fate to happen to our country as it did to her native country.

Was Islam involved in the Utah shootings?

As authorities, the media, and family members search for a reason for the brutal murders at a mall on Monday, Robert Spencer points out a fact I haven’t heard covered anywhere else. Sulejmen Talovic killed five people and wounded four in a Salt Lake City mall before police shot and killed him. The new piece of information is that Sulejmen was also a Bosnian Muslim.

We may never know what caused Sulejmen to do what he did. However, if we can understand what led to it, maybe we can prevent it from happening again. Does it matter that he was Muslim? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. However, Robert Spencer reminds us of a few things that have happened recently in the United States:

Ismail Yassin Mohamed stole a car in Minneapolis and, after he rammed the car into other cars, he stole a van and continued to hit random cars. Reportedly he said, “Allah made me do it.”

Ommed Aziz Popal killed one and injured fourteen during a drive through San Francisco in August of 2006. He targeted people in crosswalks and sidewalks. He initially identified himself as a terrorist.

Naveed Afzal Haq killed one and injured five more in July of 2006 at a Jewish Center in Seattle. Before he started shooting people, he said, “I’m a Muslim American; I’m angry at Israel.”

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove an SUV onto the University of North Carolina campus trying to kill people but instead injured nine. At a court appearance he said he was, “thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah.”

From what I have seen, the authorities are not labeling these as terrorist incidents. However, all five incidents involved Muslims killing or trying to kill people here in the United States. In some of the cases, these people even invoked Allah. Does it matter that these people were Muslim or is it a freak coincidence? The authorities should be looking into the Muslim connection. What was being taught at the Mosque where these individuals were attending before they started their rampages? These incidents alone don’t mean that Islam is involved, but we would be foolish to dismiss the connection out of some sort of political correctness fear.