To ensure imported food safety, federal agencies must focus their resources on high risk foods and coordinate efforts, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.

The report, submitted to the US Congress and obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, assesses how the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service are addressing challenges in overseeing the safety of imported food.

It also assesses how the FDA utilizes resources by working with other entities, such as state and foreign governments, and attempts to determine how the FDA is using its Predictive Risk-Based Evaluation for Dynamic Import Compliance Targeting system to oversee imported food safety.

US agriculture generates more than $1.5 trillion per year in economic activity and provides an abundant food supply for Americans and others. There are continuing concerns about the vulnerability of US agriculture to the deliberate introduction of animal and plant diseases by those wishing to harm American citizens.

“The big problem is money be spent to monitor food products being imported into the United States. So far, the budget for food safety is minimal when compared to other government programs. For example, politicians push for vaccinating millions of Americans against what they characterize as a deadly flu epidemic, yet they do not seem concerned over a very real threat to all Americans — contaminated food,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

Federal agencies also have been conducting vulnerability assessments of the agriculture infrastructure; have created networks of laboratories capable of diagnosing animal, plant, and human diseases; have begun efforts to develop a national veterinary stockpile that intends to include vaccines against foreign animal diseases; and have created new federal emergency coordinator positions to help states develop emergency response plans for the agriculture sector. However, the United States still faces complex challenges that limit the nation’s ability to respond effectively to an attack against livestock.

CBP, FDA, and FSIS claim they have taken steps to address challenges in ensuring the safety of the increasing volume of imported food. For example, CBP maintains that the system importers use to provide information to FDA on food shipments; FDA electronically reviews food imports and inspects some foreign food production facilities to prevent contaminated food from reaching U.S. shores; and FSIS employs an equivalency system that requires countries to demonstrate that their food safety systems provide the same level of protection as the U.S. system.

However, gaps in enforcement and collaboration undermine these efforts. First, CBP’s computer system does not currently notify FDA or FSIS when imported food shipments arrive at U.S. ports, although efforts are underway to provide this information to FDA for air and truck shipments.

“This is a problem we see with law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies and other government entities,” claims former police detective and Marine intelligence officer Sidney Frances.

“Whenever we see multiple government agencies involved in one single function, there will almost certainly be some kind of Snafu,” he added.

This lack of communication may potentially increase the risk that unsafe food could enter U.S. commerce without FDA review, particularly at truck ports. Second, FDA has limited authority to ensure importers’ compliance with its regulations. Third, CBP and FDA do not identify importers with a unique number; as a result, FDA cannot always target food shipments originating from high risk importers.

Finally, CBP faces challenges in managing in-bond shipments–those that move within the United States without formally entering U.S. commerce–and such shipments possibly could be diverted into commerce. FDA generally collaborates with select states and foreign governments on imported food safety. FDA has entered into a contract, several cooperative agreements, and informal partnerships for imported food with certain states, and some state officials told GAO that they would like to collaborate further with FDA on food imports.

However, citing legal restrictions, FDA does not fully share certain information, such as product distribution lists, with states during a recall. This impedes states’ efforts to quickly remove contaminated products from grocery stores and warehouses. FSIS has begun to make available to the public a list of retail establishments that have likely received food products that are subject to a serious recall. FDA is also expanding efforts to coordinate with other countries.

In particular, through its Beyond Our Borders initiative, FDA is pushing the US government to station investigators and technical experts in China, Europe, and India, to provide technical assistance and gather information about food manufacturing practices to improve risk-based screening at U.S. ports.

According to FDA, inspectors will analyze food shipments using criteria that include a product’s inherent food safety risk and the importer’s violative history, among other things, to estimate each shipment’s risk. A 2007 pilot test indicated that the system improved FDA’s ability to identify products it considers to be high risk while allowing a greater percentage of products it considers low risk to enter U.S. commerce without a manual review.

On Monday, October 19, top talk show host Glenn Beck will expose President Barack Obama’s latest power grab: control of the Internet. The show (aired on Fox News Channel at 5:00 PM EST) is a must-see for anyone interested in freedom and limited government, and it’s a welcome change from the Obama propaganda one gets from most news organizations.

However, on September 3, this writer exposed this stealth Obama-Congressional operation in a column worth reading to understand the danger American’s face when the government sets its sights on the last bastion of freedom of expression — the worldwide web. And, of course, they are using the problem of cyber crime to rationalize their takeover.

A Senate bill (S.773) if passed would give the President of the United States the authority to declare a “cyber emergency” and close down the Internet by disconnecting users.

In addition, it will require professional IT people to be certified by the federal government, something that angers many IT technicians and those who believe in the First Amendment. Americans are being deceived by the news media and their elected officials in Washington, DC and it’s Americans who will suffer from that deception, according to information technology experts.

This stealth legislation is being sponsored by the powerful and highly partisan Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and the liberal Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME), claim critics.

“The fact that a man [Rockefeller] who visited other nations to give them a heads up about our intentions [to invade Iraq] would now suddenly care about security is laughable,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

“But there is no laughing about a government that wants to control cyber space, the last bastion of freedom of speech in our crumbling democracy,” said Baker.

“What irks President Obama and the other liberal-left politicians is that fact that while they’re pampered by the mainstream news media, talk radio and the Internet are not in the tank for them,” he added.

During a White House announcement televised on Fox News, CNN and other news networks, Obama said he will appoint a cyber security coordinator—or Cyber Czar—for the critical infrastructure that all Americans depend on.

“We will ensure that these networks are secure, trustworthy and resilient,” he said. “We will deter, prevent, detect and defend against attacks, and recover quickly from any disruptions or damage.”

The cyber security office will orchestrate and integrate all cyber security policies for the government, the president said. It will work closely with the Office of Management and Budget to ensure agency budgets reflect those priorities, and, in the event of major cyber incident or attack, it will coordinate government response.

The cyber security coordinator will be a member of the national security staff and will serve on the president’s national economic council.

But Critics point out that any high-tech program that entails government intrusion should be carefully monitored by not only the US Congress but also private sector experts in cyber security and computer-based espionage.

“People went ballistic when they discovered the Bush White House authorized the interception of telephone and other electronic communications by intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and rightly so. Yet, I haven’t heard a peep from these same people who claim they are concerned with ‘privacy rights,’” said security expert and former NYPD cop Mike Fitzgerald.

“This may come back to haunt us as the first step down a truly slippery slope,” said former the Police detective and director of security.

“The technology involved is so complicated that it may take computer scientists to discover whether the government is protecting Americans on the worldwide web or spying on them. And what are businesses that rely on the Internet supposed to do if the President closes down the Internet?” asks Sam McCarthy a former police commander now a computer security expert..

The cyber infrastructure is not limited to the federal government. The office will work with state and local governments and international partners to combat cyber attacks, and also will work with the private sector to ensure an organized and unified response to future cyber incidents, Obama stated.

Experts agree that America’s economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cyber security, which also affects public safety and national security. However, most experts contacted said that cyber security should be the responsibility of the private sector not government officials.

“We count on computer networks to deliver our oil and gas, our power and our water,” said McCarthy.

“Computers help run public transportation networks from the skies to subways, he noted, and hackers have launched attacks on electrical grids,” he said.

Part of the Obama program is a national campaign to promote cyber security awareness and digital literacy. The effort also will be part of the president’s initiative to build a digital work force for the 21st century. However, according to security experts, Obama is seeking powers never before given to a President even during the height of the Cold War.

“Once Americans realize what’s happening it may be too late thanks to Obama’s supporters in the news media. Do a search and you won’t see stories about this power grab in the major media,” warns Baker.

The new law will provide $1.5 billion each year from 2010 to 2014 for schools, hospitals, roads, agricultural aid, roadwork and other development projects.

“This act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said

However, critics say they do not believe building schools and hospitals will do much to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that what appears to work in Iraq will work in Afghanistan, a nation that’s been war-torn for many years prior to the US-led invasion.

“This is the liberal-left strategy for fighting a war against terrorists: build schools and hospitals. In other words, increase the number of targets for the enemy — the Taliban and Al Qaeda,” said former NYPD detective and Marine intelligence officer Sid Franks.

“This strategy may have worked in Iraq, but the Afghan terrorists and radicals have been hardened by years of fighting warlords, Russia’s military and now the US. They don’t want our schools and hospitals and Obama just doesn’t get it,” said Det. Franks.

“As usual, when faced with a problem most US politicians believe throwing taxpayers money at it is the solution,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

Meanwhile, on the same day as Obama’s law-signing, terrorists attacked three security agency buildings in Pakistan today, including the Federal Investigation Agency headquarters and two police training centers in Lahore. In addition, a suicide car bomber struck in the northwestern city of Kohat, and a bombing in Quetta in the southwest of the country left more dead.

There were five terrorist attacks in less than 24 hours and at least 40 people have been killed in the latest Taliban attacks.

These attacks follow a rash of violence in Pakistan by an increasingly emboldened Taliban, including an attack over the weekend on Pakistan’s army headquarters.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad strongly condemned the terrorist attacks in Pakistan, vowing continued U.S. support to help Pakistan combat violence, according to Donna Miles of the American Forces Press Service.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Pakistan Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani following that attack to express personal condolences for those killed, while emphasizing continued U.S. support.

Mullen has made numerous trips to Pakistan during the past 18 months, and talks regularly with his Pakistani counterparts about their stepped-up counteroffensive against extremists.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today the United States is encouraged by the way the Pakistani government is “taking on the threat that exists in their country.”

“The Pakistani government looks like they are committed to taking the necessary steps to deal with this threat,” he said.

Whitman called the attacks particularly troublesome because, he said, they take their biggest toll on innocent civilians.

U.S. embassy officials in Pakistan expressed outrage today over the latest string of attacks.

“The horrific injuries and loss of life witnessed in Lahore, Peshawar and Kohat today, along with those lost in the attack on the Pakistan Army General Headquarters, are another stark reminder of the amoral nature of those who commit such acts,” a statement released today declared. “These attacks will not deter the people of Pakistan from continuing in their commitment to a free and democratic society.

“The United States will continue to support the people and government of Pakistan in combating all forms of violence,” the statement continued. “We mourn the senseless loss of life and extend our condolences to the victims’ families, friends and community.”

There were five terrorist attacks in less than 24 hours and at least 40 people have been killed in the latest Taliban attacks.

These attacks follow a rash of violence in Pakistan by an increasingly emboldened Taliban, including an attack over the weekend on Pakistan’s army headquarters.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad strongly condemned the terrorist attacks in Pakistan, vowing continued U.S. support to help Pakistan combat violence, according to Donna Miles of the American Forces Press Service.

The embassy issued the condemnation of the attacks as President Barack Obama signed a law that provides $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan over the next five years. The funds are part of a comprehensive plan that recognizes the importance of confronting the root causes of extremism as well as extremists themselves, stated Miles.

The new law will provide $1.5 billion each year from 2010 to 2014 for schools, hospitals, roads, agricultural aid, roadwork and other development projects.

However, critics say they do not believe building schools and hospitals will do much to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that what appears to work in Iraq will work in Afghanistan, a nation that’s been war-torn for many years prior to the US-led invasion.

“This act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Pakistan Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani following that attack to express personal condolences for those killed, while emphasizing continued U.S. support.

Mullen has made numerous trips to Pakistan during the past 18 months, and talks regularly with his Pakistani counterparts about their stepped-up counteroffensive against extremists.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today the United States is encouraged by the way the Pakistani government is “taking on the threat that exists in their country.”

“The Pakistani government looks like they are committed to taking the necessary steps to deal with this threat,” he said.

Whitman called the attacks particularly troublesome because, he said, they take their biggest toll on innocent civilians.

U.S. embassy officials in Pakistan expressed outrage today over the latest string of attacks.

“The horrific injuries and loss of life witnessed in Lahore, Peshawar and Kohat today, along with those lost in the attack on the Pakistan Army General Headquarters, are another stark reminder of the amoral nature of those who commit such acts,” a statement released today declared. “These attacks will not deter the people of Pakistan from continuing in their commitment to a free and democratic society.

“The United States will continue to support the people and government of Pakistan in combating all forms of violence,” the statement continued. “We mourn the senseless loss of life and extend our condolences to the victims’ families, friends and community.”

The sentences resulted from a multi-agency federal investigation conducted in 2007 and led by the Homeland Security Department’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Mary Gurin, 38, of Carpentersville, Illinois, and Norinye Benitez, 26, of Franklin Park, Illinois, were sentenced on September 30 by U.S. District Judge Elaine E. Bucklo, Northern District of Illinois, for harboring illegal aliens for financial gain. Gurin, who pleaded guilty May 11 to the charge, was sentenced to 36 months in federal prison. Benitez received 12 months and one day of imprisonment following her December 12, 2008 guilty plea.

According to documents filed in court, Gurin owned Ideal Staffing, a staffing agency located in Bensenville, Illinois, that contracted with several companies to provide temporary employees for work done in and around O’Hare.

Between February 2006 and November 2007, Gurin knowingly employed at least 54 illegal workers and arranged for them to fraudulently obtain airport security badges by falsely certifying information on the security badge application forms. The badges allowed the workers to enter secure areas while loading pallets, freight and meals for companies doing business at O’Hare, including some commercial airlines.

At times, Gurin also knowingly distributed airport security badges issued in other names to the illegal workers, which circumvented the appropriate security screening process and allowed illegal workers access to secure areas.

The 54 illegal workers from Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador all faced state felony charges for possessing fraudulent identification in the form of an airport security badge. So far, authorities have recovered 34 fraudulent airport badges.

“These cases illustrate the need for ICE’s continued vigilance to protect our nation’s airports and other critical infrastructure,” said John Morton, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for ICE. “The defendants circumvented airport security and the screening process in the name of greed.”

According to court documents, Gurin supervised the work of Norinye Benitez, her office assistant. Under Gurin’s direction, Benitez assisted hiring between 35 and 40 illegal workers and fraudulently obtained airport security badges for them. Benitez admitted to falsifying information on employment forms for workers who did not have proper identification, and to knowingly hiring illegal workers who presented counterfeit documents. Benitez is herself an illegal alien and will be transferred to ICE custody after she completes her prison sentence.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the former editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

To subscribe to Kouri’s newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write “Subscription” on the subject line.

According to a criminal complaint, at a sensitive stage of the investigation, by questioning an imam about the suspect, the NYPD acted without informing their FBI counterparts.

At least one of the police detectives being singled out in the FBI’s complaint is assigned to the NYPD Intelligence Division and not the NYPD-FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). The Intel Division is responsible for organized crime, terrorism and other special projects and is not connected to the FBI-run JTTF.

The FBI complaint suggests the local cops may have tipped off Najibullah Zazi , a 24-year-old Denver airport shuttle driver, by towing, and then searching, a rental car he was using while in New York City. The police search succeeded in uncovering a laptop computer containing bomb making instructions on its hard drive.

The FBI contends this tipped off the suspect because during a telephone phone conversation with Ahmad Wais Afzali, Zazi stated the car’s removal caused him to believe he was being kept under surveillance.

Members of the JTTF and officials at One Police Plaza in Manhattan said they could not comment on the alleged friction between FBI agents and NYPD detectives and the department’s spokesman, Paul Browne, told reporters simply that “the NYPD and the FBI worked closely and successfully in this case and in scores of others.” He declined further comment as did Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

“While I don’t know the specific details of these allegations by the FBI against the NYPD cops, I do know from experience that the feds have a habit of blaming others when they fail while taking credit when others succeed in an investigation,” claims former NYPD Det. Mike Schwartz.

“I get worried when I hear stories like this one. It tells me that there are problems with the investigation and [FBI and NYPD] investigators are pointing fingers at one another,” Schwartz added.

Zazi, his father and Afzali were arrested over the weekend on charges they lied to the FBI but weren’t immediately charged with terrorism. According to affidavits filed in support of three criminal complaints, the FBI is investigating several individuals in the United States, Pakistan and elsewhere, relating to a plot to detonate improvised explosive devices within the United States.

Records from U.S. Customs and Border Protection reveal that, on August 28, 2008, Najibullah Zazi flew to Peshawar, Pakistan from Newark International Airport in New Jersey via Geneva, Switzerland and Doha, Qatar. CBP records further reflect that Najibullah Zazi traveled from Peshawar to John F. Kennedy International Airport, in New York City, on or about January 15, 2009.

According to the affidavits, on or about September 9, 2009, FBI agents observed Najibullah Zazi depart his residence in Colorado in a rented car. He drove to New York City, arriving the following day, and spent the night at a residence in Flushing, Queens (“the Queens Residence.”)

On September 10, 2009, New York City Police Department detectives met with defendant Afzali, whom the NYPD had utilized as a source in the past. According to the affidavits, the detectives questioned Afzali about Najibullah Zazi and others and showed him photographs of Najibullah Zazi and others. Afzali allegedly told the detectives he recognized Najibullah Zazi and several of the men in the photographs.

According to affidavits, on September 11, 2009, defendant Mohammed Zazi placed a call to Afzali which lasted approximately 20 minutes. That same day, the FBI intercepted a phone conversation between Mohammed Zazi and his son, Najibullah Zazi. An affidavit alleges that, during the conversation, Mohammed Zazi told his son that he had spoken to Afzali who had informed him about being visited by law enforcement and shown photographs. Mohammed Zazi told his son that Afzali would call him and he advised his son to speak with Afzali “before anything else,” according to the affidavits.

In the midst of this phone call, Najibullah Zazi allegedly received a call from Afzali, who discussed his meeting with law enforcement the day before. According to a draft summary of the transcription, Afzali allegedly stated: “I was exposed to something yesterday from law enforcement. And they came to ask me about your characters.” Afzali also allegedly asked Najibullah Zazi about his last trip to Pakistan and added, “Listen, our phone call is being monitored.”

According to the affidavits, in another intercepted phone conversation on Sept. 11, 2009, Najibullah Zazi told Afzali that his car had been stolen and that he feared he was being “watched.” Afzali allegedly asked if there was any “evidence in his car,” and Najibullah Zazi said no.

That same day, FBI agents conducted a legally authorized search of Najibullah Zazi’s rental car, which was parked near the Queens residence. During the search, agents found a laptop computer containing images of nine-pages of handwritten notes. According to the affidavits, the notes contain formulations and instructions regarding the manufacture and handling of initiating explosives, main explosives charges, explosives detonators and components of a fusing system. On September 12, 2009, Najibullah Zazi flew from La Guardia Airport in New York to Denver.

On September 16, 2009, FBI agents interviewed Najibullah Zazi in Denver. According to an affidavit, when he was asked about and shown handwritten notes regarding explosives found on his laptop computer, Najibullah Zazi falsely asserted that he had never seen the document before and stated he had not written the notes.

On September 17 and 18, Najibullah Zazi was further interviewed by the FBI in Denver. According to affidavits, Najibullah Zazi admitted in the interviews that during his 2008 trip to Pakistan, he attended courses and received instruction on weapons and explosives at an al-Qaeda training facility in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, of Pakistan.

The affidavits allege that, on September 17, Afzali was interviewed by authorities in New York where he falsely asserted in a written statement that he did not tell Najibullah Zazi or Mohammed Zazi that authorities had approached him seeking information about Najibullah Zazi. According to the affidavits, Afzali also falsely asserted that he never told Najibullah Zazi that they were being monitored on the phone and that he never asked Najibullah Zazi about evidence in his car.

The affidavits further allege that, on September 16, Mohammed Zazi was interviewed by FBI agents in Denver where he was asked whether anyone had called him and told him about his son’s activities and any trouble regarding his son.

According to the affidavits, Mohammed Zazi falsely stated that he had never called anyone in New York other than his son and he had never received a call from anyone in New York. He allegedly revised his statement to say he had received one call from an individual who informed him that his son had missed his flight. According to the affidavits, Mohammed Zazi was later asked if he knew anyone by the name of Afzali and he said he did not.

The prosecutions are being handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of New York and the District of Colorado, with assistance from the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the former editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

To subscribe to Kouri’s newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write “Subscription” on the subject line.

One of the biggest fears advanced by myself and people who I have had the honor of working with in the quest to educate Americans on the threats and dangers posed by radical Islamists, is that the American people would soon forget the horrors of September 11th; that they would start to forget the sense of helplessness they felt as they watched the World Trade Center collapse into the streets of New York City, the carnage at the Pentagon and the despondency of rescuers demonstrated in a field in Shanksville. We all understood that there would be a waning of the immediacy felt in the aftermath of the attacks – immediacy of response, education and prevention – but we feared the encroachment of apathy to the grotesque loss of life and butchery foisted upon the American people on that day. We feared it because we all understood – and still believe today – that to abdicate vigilance to the threat of Islamist aggression is to set the stage for another catastrophic event.

In the days after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Liberal media (formerly referred to as the mainstream media) began to remove the images of the attacks from our television screens. Gone were the images of dust-covered people wandering the decimated streets of New York. We were no longer able to see the images of heroic firefighters and Pentagon workers frantically searched for people to rescue. And we were no longer provided the images of frustrated first responders – professionals trained to save lives – milling about the wreckage of an airliner in a field with no one to save. The media explained the removal of these images – these realities – by insisting it was done in the name of preventative tolerance; to quell any hatred, any catalyst for retribution toward the Muslim community.

The images of the most devastating attack to be perpetrated on American soil by a foreign enemy were replaced by a full-blown propaganda offensive designed to demand “tolerance” toward the American Muslim community. This propaganda offensive was employed not only by the media, but by our government. Leaders in Washington DC, including President George W. Bush (whom I respect and admire to this day) insisted that Islam was a “religion of peace” and that the terrorists who attacked our nation were a small, radical and violent faction of an otherwise peaceful religion. And as the message was repeated, the American people began to distance themselves from the feeling of vulnerability that embraced the country on September 11, 2001, the images of that day fading into the history books.

During the hours of the attack on September 11th, and over the course of the next few days, as we waited to see if any survivors would be found amongst the wreckage of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, many of our lives were changed forever. Many of us did the civically responsible thing and took the time to study the culture that gave birth to the fanaticism of al Qaeda and the ideology that harbors those who would champion brutal oppression, violent conquest and denial of Natural Law to all but their own in the name of religion. Some of us – including myself – came to understand that the ambitions of radical Islamists were far greater than simply striking out at “the Great Satan,” the United States of America. In fact, the goal of radical Islamists – be they Sunni or Shi’ite – was to establish a global caliphate as directed by their Prophet Mohammad; a caliphate that would encompass the world and bring all the people of the world to exist under Islamic Law; Sharia Law.

The quest to establish a global caliphate understood, the popular notion among the Progressive Left that the attacks were retribution for American policies in the Middle East was exposed as naïve, hollow and sometimes disingenuous rhetoric. Even Osama bin Laden’s 1996 and 1998 declarations of war against the United States, while calling for the withdrawal of American forces from the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia went further in conveying that jihad was the way to the global Caliphate and that the establishment of the global Caliphate was the path to Allah. Truth be told, the freedom and liberty valued by the United States and the West is simply a hurdle that radical Islamists have to navigate on their journey toward religious fulfillment. The hatred for Western culture held by radical Islamists, for those that value freedom and liberty, is not exclusive to the United States, as is evidenced by the terrorist attacks in Europe, the South Pacific, Asia, Africa and elsewhere.

Today, the US government has identified 72 terrorist organizations, with thousands of operatives, existing and operating within the borders of the United States. These organizations include al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Abu Sayyaf, Islamic Jihad, Jamaat al Fuqra and the Muslim Brotherhood, to name but a few. They have literally set-up offices in Boston, Chicago, New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Tampa, Washington DC and over 38 other cities around the country. The recent conviction of officials from the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, Texas – in which the Council on American Islamic Relations (a Saudi funded pro-Islamic lobbyist group) was named an unindicted co-conspirator – exposed the fact that many Islamic organizations disguised as “charities,” some with IRS 501c3 tax exempt status, are raising, laundering and funneling money back to the Middle East to support their terrorist organizations.

In our schools, the wrongfully accepted premise of separation of church and state is routinely violated on behalf of Islam under the guise of teaching tolerance. Some California schools even had the audacity to suggest that parents were outside of their authority when they complained about school children being made to be “Muslim for a day.” Would the schools mandate that students be “Catholic for a day” or “Jewish for a day” or “Protestant for a day” we could be certain that the American Civil Liberties Union would unleash all of its resources to stop said action.

CAIR, it has been found, routinely initiates lawsuits on behalf of Muslims in pursuit of preferential treatment. From cab drivers refusing to take fares that carry liquor, to prayer rooms and foot baths being constructed in public places using taxpayer monies, to receiving contractual obligations from private employers that agree to special treatment in the workplace, CAIR has facilitated the preferential treatment of the American Muslim in American society. Through it all, the voices coming from within the American Islamic community who decry such unwarranted preference are muted by the deafening silence of the majority of American Muslims who selfishly refuse to address not only the inequity of status that taxes the rest of American society in deference to their religion, but the violence perpetrated in the name of their religion.

To add to the complexity of the situation, the United States is experiencing a diminishing birthrate among our people. Conversely, the Muslim birthrate in the United States greatly surpasses the birthrate of Americans. Left to the singular device of reproduction the US population – as well as the world population – will be consumed by those who practice the Islamic religion through simple demographics in a few generations. By the sheer power of their numbers, Islamists, including those who wish to establish a global caliphate, will be able to inundate and monopolize any democracy on the face of the earth and no political maneuver, no procedural end-around and no amount of military might can overcome this inevitability.

Meanwhile, President Obama has adopted the strategy of extending an “open hand” of peaceful engagement to rulers and despots like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria’s Bashar Assad and the Afghan Taliban – tyrants who routinely use the “fist” of totalitarianism and the ideology of radical Islam to not only attack the West but to destroy their own people. To date, this open hand has been met with indifference at best and indignation in the least.

Here at home, Attorney General Eric Holder, in one of the most transparent acts of political persecution, has chosen to investigate the Central Intelligence Agency for inappropriate behavior in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques when questioning radical Islamist terrorists captured on the field of battle. Newly released information has validated former Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that these techniques garnered critical information that prevented additional attacks on American soil.

Further, both President Obama and Attorney General Holder – along with the Progressive Left – are doing everything in their power to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and to introduce terrorists into the US legal system, a system routinely manipulated by the ACLU and CAIR.

It can be argued successfully that the US government and the American people are not doing all we can to win the battle against radical Islamist aggression. In fact, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to argue that some within the inner workings of Washington DC actually champion the advancement of Islam in the United States.

On this, the eighth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, we need to rededicate ourselves to understanding the threat that radical Islam presents to We the People of the United States and to the people of the West. We need to take the time to read the Quran and the Hadith – in tandem – so as to realize, first-hand, the violent and oppressive tenets of the Islamic religion, the tenets embraced by radical and fundamentalist Islamists. We need to call on the American Muslim community to lead the charge against these violent and oppressive tenets, to confront the demons within their own religion and to bring about a reformation of their religion so it can exist peacefully with the many different people of the world.

Only when these things come to pass will we as a human race be able to face down and conquer the evils and barbarity of radical Islamists. Make no mistake, radical Islamists are at war with the world. They have said as much in the past and they continue to say as much today. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Why do we refuse to listen to what they are saying?

From their graves, the 3,017 souls lost on September 11th, 2001 and the many lost in radical Islamist attacks around the world, beg for justice. It is our duty as human beings to hear them and to defeat radical Islam wherever it exists.

In memory of those lost on September 11, 2001.

Let’s immediately dispatch the moralistic protestations of liberal-progressives that any degree of rough interrogation of terrorists, even to save thousands of lives from planned attacks, is unconscionable. Liberal-progressives grow weak-kneed contemplating the confinement and interrogation of a few hundred terrorist thugs, while aggressively murdering millions of babies.

President Obama supports the slaughter without judicial due process of babies via abortion, which is reminiscent of the an earlier pagan worship of the god Molech, requiring the sacrifice of infants. At the same time, the President’s fellow liberal-progressives hold street demonstrations and candle-light vigils to protest execution of vile murderers and rapists and to protest incarceration of criminals. These are pagan rituals oozing from the gospel of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that private property was the root of all evil and, in particular, the cause of crime and wars.

So-called abortion rights have always been a big rallying point among liberal-progressive-socialists. Support for abortion is, on the flip side, support for sexual promiscuity, called free love in earlier generations. Abortion and sexual promiscuity are viewed as social weapons to destroy the Judeo-Christian moral foundations of our constitutional government, opening the way for full socialization of the economy.

A society that looks to government for all its daily needs and is educated to moral relativity is a society with no way to restrain the enlargement of tyrannical ambition.

Today’s howl against rough interrogation methods used to obtain vital information from Al Queda terrorists similarly arises from the religion of socialism (which, however, obviously didn’t deter liberal-progressive-socialists like Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Adolph Hitler). Liberal-progressive-socialists in the United States, in fact, clamorously supported the murderous actions of Lenin and Stalin all through the 1920s and 1930s. Among them were Soviet-supporting Communist Party USA screenwriters like Dalton Trumbo, who is the subject of a current adulatory retrospective on Public Television. See The Friends of Dalton Trumbo on the Commentary website.

Liberal-progressives regard rough interrogation of Al Queda terrorists with horror, because they see those terrorists as victims of capitalism, who were deprived of their fair share of earth’s wealth by capitalist greed. As academics following 9/11 told us, the structure of our constitutional government prevented social justice, in this country and elsewhere. 9/11 was what we deserved. We therefore have no warrant for Gitmo detention or CIA interrogation methods.

President Obama’s plans to subject CIA agents and ultimately Vice President Cheney and President Bush to criminal prosecution reflects both that Rousseauian distaste for private property rights and the socialist faith that a one-world government will harmonize all of the world’s diverse peoples and transform them into homogenous, benevolent, happy campers.

Even the arch-liberal Washington Post has published a story wondering, by implication, whether where President Obama lost his marbles: How a Detainee Became An Asset.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

Americans are incessantly told that those other nations are currently much happier with it and feel less threatened by it under the headship of an avowed leftist like Obama. While such an appraisal is quite believable, it does not follow that this translates into an elevated respect from those nations. In fact, the historical truth is completely to the contrary. America and its leaders ignore this to the imminent peril of the nation.

When all of the platitudes of burgeoning “international good will” are stripped away, nations ultimately function as competitors. Few cases of genuine international altruism exist, and the overwhelming majority of international relations are pursued by each nation from the perspective of its own best interests.

A fiscally and diplomatically weak but sustainable America poses the least risk of exerting influence on other nations, and is thus much more appealing to them than when it is strong and purposeful. Under the Obama Administration, America has lost significant sway with the rest of the world, which is just fine with every foreign entity that seeks to gain dominance and power. As long as the United States, with its rampant consumerism, can continue to enable the world’s economic engine on terms dictated by the other nations, they can reap monetary benefits from it while ignoring and even deriding its values and interests.

However, this cycle cannot continue indefinitely. During every previous period in which the United States retreated into such a weak and vulnerable position, its enemies eventually recognized the moment as their opportunity to strike a blow against this nation. And that pattern is currently being repeated with disturbing predictability.

From the earliest days of Jimmy Carter’s single 1977-1981 term as president, it became glaringly obvious that the criminally naive Georgia peanut farmer, despite having served as Governor, was completely lacking in the necessary moral and philosophical convictions or spine to stand against any foreign adversary. Carter backed down in the face of Soviet expansionism in Cuba and at one time or another had pandered to virtually every dictatorial regime on the planet.

As a result, Iran’s Islamist “revolutionaries,” spoiling for an opportunity to saber rattle in front of the world on the heels of their ouster of the Shah, were emboldened to attack the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November of 1979, holding its staff as hostages for well over a year and humiliating this nation for the impotence of its responses the entire time.

Likewise, though the 9-11 attacks were carried out in the early days of the George Bush Administration, plans for the event were formulated during the tenure of President Bill Clinton. And, as a telling precursor, bin Laden pulled off several smaller but escalating assaults throughout the 1990s. Clinton’s deplorable and embarrassing conduct as Chief Executive, along with the dangerously reckless games he openly allowed cabinet appointees and their underlings to play with America’s security, created a “window of opportunity” that enticed America’s enemies to strike.

Now, with Barack Obama regularly displaying his contempt for real America, accompanied by his efforts to weaken its intelligence apparatus and its military, alarming signs of similar brewing storms are on display. The former rise and fall of Libyan ruler Muammur Qaddafi, and most significantly his current resurgence as one of America’s most outspoken and active antagonists, are stunning examples that can not long be ignored by America and the West without eventually reaping dire consequences.

Once a raging anti-American terrorist leader and instigator, Qaddafi made no attempt to hide his support and involvement in several attacks against the West during the 1980s, such as the 1986 bombing of a German discotheque in which 220 people were killed, including two Americans. Yet Qaddafi lost much of his enthusiasm for those murderous exploits after Ronald Reagan authorized a massive air strike against the Libyan capitol of Tripoli, which yielded direct hits on Qaddafi’s own residence.

In the wake of that event, the Libyan ruler generally retreated from the world scene, completely losing his previous zeal to wreak death and destruction through terrorist activity. Qaddafi’s seeming regression into passivity appeared absolute on the heels of America’s capture of Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein in late 2003. Shortly afterwards, Qaddafi brokered a deal with the Americans whereby he promised to abandon his program of developing a nuclear bomb in return for the promise of non-interference by the Americans.

Despite rampant media derision, the “Bush Doctrine” of categorizing other nations as either allies or enemies of America, had been a stunning success. But now it is being undone.

In response to Scotland’s outrageous release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber who in 1988 planted a bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103 killing 270 people, Barack Obama insipidly offered a statement of disagreement, and an admonition to Libya not to treat al-Megrahi’s return to that country as a major event. But having eroded the status of America to that of a “paper tiger,” Obama was apparently unaware that his own office would be similarly diminished.

Despite Obama’s pleas to the contrary, upon al-Megrahi’s arrival in Libya, the Lockerbie bomber was given a “hero’s welcome” with Qaddafi a major player in the event. Obama’s version of America no longer rates or receives respect from Libya or the rest of the world. Yet according to the liberal media, we are to be encouraged that those nations “like” this rendition of America much better than when it was a true world super power.

Qaddafi, once thoroughly defanged by the magnitude of western might, now aspires to take his place beside Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has clearly lost his fear of America’s resolve or its capabilities to preserve and protect itself. As the Obama agenda rolls forward, expect more of the same contempt, with increasing ferocity, from other regional despots throughout the world.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Cheney has had the entire liberal cabal up in arms, ever since his May 21 speech to the American Enterprise Institute in which he bluntly warned of the dangers posed by Obama’s naive and ideologically driven decisions relating to the terror war. Cheney flatly explained how those policies are putting America at risk. Worse yet, at least from the liberal perspective, ever since his commentary, Cheney’s popularity among the American people has risen dramatically. Consequently, the Democrats view him as a bigger danger than Al Qaeda or a nuclear Iran.

One might expect that, in response to Cheney, Panetta might have simply expounded on the new and improved safeguards implemented by Obama and his cronies since inauguration day. Instead, he sought to vilify Cheney’s very motive for speaking out, despite the irrelevancy of that motive as a factor in accurately assessing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Obama’s “security” program. But Panetta and his puppet masters clearly revealed their highest priority as the need to undermine Cheney’s personal credibility in the process.

Worse yet, such extreme defensiveness, and the scenario to which it alludes, likely reveals a prevailing nervousness within the Obama Administration to the effect that, in the event of a terror strike, Cheney’s warnings might stick. This is a political liability that Obama knows he and his cabinet could not afford. And the magnitude of the response, indicating that they are already in “damage control” mode, is proof that the Obama facade is indeed in the initial stages of collapse.

Recalling events throughout the past sixteen years that led up to the current state of affairs, it is obvious that liberals view any and every situation primarily, perhaps exclusively, from the standpoint of its potential for political gain or loss. Bill Clinton, throughout the 1990s, was wholly indifferent to the burgeoning Islamist threat, only addressing them, on those occasions when he did so, from a perspective of their usefulness to distract America from his other personal problems.

Thus, “retaliatory” cruise missile strikes were ordered against empty terrorist camps on the same day Monica Lewinsky testified before Ken Starr, captured terror “suspects” were dealt with in the judicial swamplands of American courts, and no coherent plan was ever devised to neutralize the emerging danger. Even more deplorable were the actions of Clinton Administration officials such as Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, who did not merely ignore the problem but, at the behest of Clinton, erected barriers to any effective analysis of intelligence information that might have alerted the right people to the imminence of the attacks that did indeed result.

In a similar manner, Obama’s first five months have been an unqualified disaster, not just on the security front, but in every aspect of his governing. Once an observer gets past the “hope and change” platitudes, and weighs real outcomes against the empty promises that were offered in such profusion on the campaign trail and during the transition period, it is impossible to assess Obama’s tenure as anything else.

The entire “bailout” ruse of last October, for which Obama and his party eagerly took credit at the time, has completely failed to produce any of its promised results while costing current and future taxpayers dearly. The bailout sequel, fraudulently presented as an “economic stimulus,” has likewise proven to be every bit as much of a pork-laden sham, and an abomination to every citizen who ever held the Constitution in high regard.

Administration ventures into the auto industry, replete with the predictable squandering of billions of taxpayer dollars, are proving to be just as dismal of a failure. Car companies that had been hit hard by high gasoline prices and the recession are now being completely strangled by meddling bureaucrats who know nothing about building automobiles, but are fanatically devoted to a leftist political agenda.

Gasoline supplies for those cars remain precarious, owing to the fact that Congressional Democrats and Obama refuse to open American territories to oil exploration and drilling. So despite the government’s subsidization and takeover of the formerly private auto industry, its prospects for future prosperity are slim to none.

At the onset of a summer that, in many regions of the country, has been one of the coldest on record, the American worker and businessman is being strangled and starved as his livelihood is being subordinated to phony allegations of “global warming.”

The hideous face behind the mask of socialized medicine, that “unholy grail” of the liberal agenda, is beginning to be revealed to the public. Massive costs, restricted coverage, and ultimately, rationing of services that will seriously degrade the quality of care received by Americans, ultimately degrading their health and even their lives. As a result, it is no longer resonating with the public as it did when presented in flowery campaign speeches, adorned in those banalities of “hope and change.”

Despite Leon Panetta’s shameless finger pointing, it must be remembered that the Democrats, his party, were the ones who sought to brazenly exploit catastrophe, whether natural or man-made, as political ammunition. From the Oklahoma City bombing to the Mississippi River floods to Hurricane Katrina, liberals can be counted upon to infuse their political message into any occasion of human suffering.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel characterizes this as good strategy and the proper exploitation of an opportunity. Despite having been appointed as the nation’s intelligence chief, as a liberal Panetta’s first devotion will be to the political apparatus of his party. So it should come as no surprise that Panetta would expect similar behavior from a political rival.

Many on the right are waiting for the American public to find their way past the fraud of the liberal press, and awaken to the abysmal realities of the Obama/Democrat agenda. No single event would do so more quickly than another major terrorist attack. And the Obama White House is sensitive to the dire significance of such a possibility, if only for fear of its political fallout.

What if national security has been as thoroughly compromised by this Administration as the free market? Leon Panetta, by his excessive and inflamatory words, has shown his awareness of the dangerous game that is being played with the country’s security by blinded liberal ideologues. Americans should read between the lines and be very afraid.

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Radio talk show host and former US Justice Department official Mark Levin shocked many listeners when he reported that President Bill Clinton gave nuclear technology to the Iranians in a harebrained scheme.

He said that the transfer of classified data to Iran was personally approved by then-President Clinton and that the CIA deliberately gave Iranian physicists blueprints for part of a nuclear bomb that likely helped Tehran advance its nuclear weapons development program.

The CIA, using a double-agent Russian scientist, handed a blueprint for a nuclear bomb to Iran, according to a new book, State of War by James Risen, the New York Times reporter, claims the plans contained fatal flaws designed to derail Tehran’s nuclear drive.

But the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists, the book said.

The operation, which took place during the Clinton administration in early 2000, was code named Operation Merlin and “may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA,” according to Risen.

It called for the unnamed scientist, a defector from the Soviet nuclear program, to offer Iran the blueprint for a “firing set” — the intricate mechanism which triggers the chain reaction needed for a nuclear explosion.

He had been told by CIA officers that the Iranians already had the technology detailed in the plans and that the ruse was simply an attempt by the agency to find out the full scope of Tehran’s nuclear knowledge.

But, contrary to orders not to open the packet, he added a note which made it clear he could help fix the flaws for money.

Risen states in his book, “It’s not clear who originally came up with the idea, but the plan [to give Tehran nuclear blueprints] was first approved by Clinton.” This is just another chapter in the Bill Clinton saga of giving weapons technology to enemies of the United States. He’s provided missile technology to the Chinese, which increased the accuracy of their ballistic missiles, and he provided nuclear technology to the North Koreans that eventually enabled them to develop nuclear weapons.

Risen said the Clinton-approved plan ended up handing Tehran “one of the greatest engineering secrets in the world, providing the solution to one of a handful of problems that separated nuclear powers such as the United States and Russia from rogue countries such as Iran that were desperate to join the nuclear club but had so far fallen short.”

Mark Levin, director of the Landmark Legal Foundation, said that thanks to Clinton Iran was able to “leapfrog one of the last remaining engineering hurdles blocking its path to a nuclear weapon.”

Ironically, Risen’s own newspaper, the New York Times, has declined to cover Mr. Clinton’s Iranian nuclear debacle — concentrating instead on his book’s dubious claims that the National Security Agency was first authorized to commence domestic wiretapping by President Bush, according to NewsMax and talk host Levin.

“Don’t hold your breath waiting for the elite media to create a frenzy over this story. They will never hurt either Clinton with such a damning report,” says former intelligence officer Sid Francis.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

To subscribe to Kouri’s newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write “Subcription” on the subject line.

According to testimony given to the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee by General Peter Pace, the former US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hamas has joined Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda in the Triple Frontier Zone in Latin America where the borders of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay converge.

There the Islamic terror groups train recruits, gather intelligence on targets, launder money and sell drugs. There is evidence that these terrorists and narco-terrorists will soon migrate north into the United States. He cited terrorism reports indicating terrorist groups are active in Canada and Central-South America.

ATTACKS ON US SOVEREIGNTY

Border Patrol agents began to voice what many believed were legitimate concerns about “armed incursions” into the United States from Mexico-based assailants. They reported that heavily armed Mexican army units and federal police, called federales, had infiltrated US territory and fired upon them, in some cases. Mexican drug lords had put prices on the heads of American law-enforcement agents strung out along the border. Where was the outrage by our political leaders and the mainstream media over this blatant violation of our national sovereignty?

Last year I reported on armed Mexicans entering the US causing National Guard troops to retreat because they had limited, if any, rules of engagement. The federal government attempted to suppress the information of this incursion and violation of US sovereignty.

Many of our political leaders and most in the news media ignore these violent attacks on our national sovereignty while more and more Americans are saying, “This has got to stop!”

Some security experts had high hopes that President Bush would bring up the border security problem during his meeting with then Mexican President Vincente Fox. It never happened. Quite the opposite occurred. The two leaders discussed ways of relaxing immigration restrictions including a de facto amnesty program. Now with President Barack Obama and the Democrat Party in charge of two branches of government, observers believe even less will be done to secure our borders.

Putting aside terrorism, the lack of border security contributes to crime. In Los Angeles, a look at outstanding arrest warrants for homicide reveals that over 90% are for illegal aliens. Examination of all LA felony arrest warrants (murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.) shows that 65% are for illegal aliens. The Manhattan Institute estimates that 350 killers managed to escape back into Mexico and the Mexican government refuses to extradite to the US to stand trial. In another study, a sample group of 55,000 criminal aliens committed 700,000 criminal acts.

And our northern border with Canada has many law-enforcement leaders even more concerned. Canadian security experts concede that there are several radical Islamist groups active in their country. In fact, Hezbullah’s largest headquarters is located not in the Middle East but in Toronto. One Canadian intelligence officer claims that his country’s immigration policy is more lax than US policy and their politicos more liberal when it comes to refusing to restrict illegal aliens from entering Canada.

If these killers aren’t afraid to target or kill cops, then who in America is really safe from terrorists, murderers, rapists and other offenders; and anyone wishing to address the problem is labeled a racist or xenophobe. Americans can probably count on one hand the number of congressional leaders who will even debate the issues of illegal immigration or border security.

What sense does it make to inspect shipping containers in New York seaports while ignoring the vulnerabilities existing on our borders?

NUCLEAR SMUGGLING

In a previous column, I reported on how easily it was for undercover investigators to sneak radioactive material — to be used for “dirty bombs” into the US.

The undercovers were successful at both borders 100% of the time. Yet, the White House, Congress and the news media ignored the subsequent report from the Government Accountability Office about the undercover operation that proved we could not prevent weapons of mass destruction from being smuggled into the US.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is on his Middle East apology tour.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the former blog editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Recently, the editors at Examiner.com appointed him as their Law Enforcement Examiner. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

If you wish to receive Kouri’s emailed law enforcement and intelligence reports, write to him at COPmagazine@aol.com. Simply write “Free Subscription” on the subject line.

It was for this reason that when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson postulated of the likelihood that disaster had befallen this nation since it had turned its back on God (read: embraced liberalism), the media immediately became hysterical, castigating both men for daring to engage in such a discussion.

While the substance of the specific connection proffered by Falwell and Robertson might not be provable among unbelievers, the events of the past week give cause to reconsider their basic premise. A country that is weak and chaotic within will be susceptible to enemies from without. And the absurdities of America’s present discourse indicate that the mindless confusion of the political left and its continuing decisions to put political interest above the well being of the country have permeated all levels of the government.

Consequently, America’s defenses are disintegrating and the probability of a strike from some evil adversary increases by the day. In light of the vehement post 9-11 liberal denials, and the unconscionable willingness of individuals such as Sandy Berger to erase crucial evidence in order to escape culpability, a clarion call sounded before the next terrorist incident might be more effective than finger pointing after the fact. Sadly, the twisted priorities among liberals necessitate such a course.

The left is currently outraged over an incident involving Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but not the fact that she has been caught flagrantly lying about her knowledge and tacit approval of the “waterboarding” of terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Rather, they are incensed that she was the butt of a bad joke made by CBS sportscaster David Feharty, who sought to highlight her treacherous undermining of the United States military.

Of course the Feharty incident required immediate action, and resulted in liberal calls for an apology, along with the customary demands for his removal from the airwaves. A bad joke, if told by somebody on the right and aimed at a prominent liberal Democrat, is certainly a matter of national importance necessitating instant contrition, penitence and blood atonement.

Meanwhile, the real issue of national consequence involving Nancy Pelosi, on the rare occasions when it is even mentioned, is handled with extreme delicacy by Democrat mouthpieces and their minions on the nightly news. Yet the significance of the affair, and more specifically the proof it represents of Pelosi’s effort to rewrite the record of past events for the specific purpose of gaining political advantage, is absolutely defining among those who care about national security and the ability to wage the still very real war on terror.

Pelosi misrepresented the facts, denying any knowledge of the intense interrogation of terrorist prisoners, thereby assuming the moral “high ground” on the issue. Her professed indignation, phony as is ever the case among liberals, was only intended to rally the liberal anti-war base among the electorate. In the process she undermined the mission of America’s military and intelligence gathering apparatus, while boosting the morale of Islamists throughout the world who regard all of America, including Pelosi and the people of her district, as their mortal enemies.

Pelosi is tap dancing now, having been caught in blatant fraud. Yet neither she nor those who joined in her duplicitous charade are receiving the universal condemnation they deserve. Ultimately, this lack of denunciation speaks volumes.

By their silence, all who refuse to decry her devious behavior identify themselves as collaborators in it. The legions of pious liberals, including Barack Obama, who castigated the Bush Administration over the whole interrogation controversy, now identify themselves as fellow accomplices in a seditious game in which the security of this nation is treated as purely secondary to the real goal, which is political advancement.

In the process, they have gravely undermined a critical effort to gain vital intelligence from America’s enemies. And if the nation’s weakened ability to gather such information means that terrorists can inflict more mayhem on our homeland, it will merely amount to “collateral damage.” War is Hell.

Were the Pelosi controversy the only incident of dangerous mishandling of the terror war effort, it would be bad enough. Sadly, much worse is occurring at even higher levels of the government. The Obama Administration continues to seek political mileage from its vilification of the Bush White House and its handling of the terror war.

The release of highly sensitive information regarding CIA interrogation procedures constituted an act of betrayal, not only of that organization, but also of the entire nation that has benefited from the intelligence gained from captive terrorists. This was another calculated decision by Obama, in which the possibility of a future terrorist incident was weighed against the political mileage he might gain by making his predecessors look bad on the nightly news. Again, the fate of innocent Americans has been relegated to a distant second-place behind the political opportunism the situation represents.

Recently, New Yorkers briefly relived the horror and fear that was visited on them in September of 2001, as Air Force One made some unannounced low altitude fly-bys of the Statue of Liberty and Ground Zero in order to shoot a few White House publicity photos. Perhaps the citizens of the Big Apple, along with the rest of the nation, ought to apply the episode as a grim reminder of what once was their fate at the hands of Islamists consumed with hatred and willing to stop at nothing to act on it.

The Washington circus being conducted by the Democrats over the past few weeks should be viewed against last week’s terrifying moments in New York, and the stark reality they recalled. The entire dispute over interrogation techniques, release of information, and the willingness of Democrats to thoroughly pervert the record of events revolves around people who, unlike the pilots of Air Force One and its chase planes, took aim at those buildings as a means of wreaking unimaginable havoc and slaughter on Americans on that terrible day.

Pelosi and Obama want to remake terrorists into sympathetic characters. America should demand something better from its leaders.

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

To people like O’Leary, America’s security and nuclear secrets were only of secondary consequence, if even that. She believed that the differing security classifications would be injurious to the sensibilities of those employees with lesser security clearances. So she scrapped the system in preference to a single-color badge that did not identify the clearance level of its bearer. During this time, vital design plans of the W-88, America’s most sophisticated nuclear warhead, were leaked to China.

Meanwhile, Clinton crony Bernard Schwarz of Loral Space Systems was “legally” divulging rocket technology to the Chinese. Thus he ensured that if they intended to, they could build missiles capable of delivering those improved warheads to American soil. Bill Clinton defended the actions of Schwarz in ludicrous terms, claiming bogusly that the information would be utilized by the Chinese for “peaceful” purposes, such as the development of space launch vehicles.

Of course Clinton and his minions knew full well that this response was fraudulent to its core, and was only intended to placate media lapdogs who did not want the episode to look bad on the evening news. The answer might have assuaged the perennially ignorant, but every engineer with even an elementary grasp of rocketry knows that the technology necessary to put a satellite into orbit is identical to that needed to lob a warhead onto the next continent. Only the targeting information of the missile is different.

In fact, up until the development of the Saturn series of moon rockets, every major launch vehicle in America’s space fleet was an ICBM, modified to only the slightest degree. Yet on such a flimsy basis, America taught Communist China how to construct functional ballistic missiles by which they may someday wage nuclear war against us.

It is telling that, in the upheaval following North Korea’s launch of its own ballistic missile during this past weekend, dictator Kim Jong-Il attempted to defuse the provocative action by offering the identical claim, that the missile test was only intended to launch a satellite into orbit. Forget his past zeal to develop a functional nuclear bomb, or the possibility that he may in fact have succeeded in testing such a device. His reassurances of “peaceful” intentions should be sufficient to allay our fears until the other shoe (or something far worse) drops.

Worse yet, Kim’s transparent ploy may succeed. The toothless response to his action by the rest of the world, and in particular the United States, sends an undeniable signal to him, along with every other aspiring tinhorn dictator on the planet, that the great nation states of the past order no longer possess the will to take real corrective action. And with Barack Obama’s disgraceful and embarrassing pandering to the Europeans and Muslims during his G-20 visit, he has made it clear that this nation no longer possesses its former resolve to prevent proliferation and aggression by such regimes. On the contrary, Obama publicly offered his regrets for decisive past actions that deterred and prevented the ascendancy of many dangerous aspiring tyrants during the past century.

According to the press, collegiality and even love now abounds among nations that excoriated the United States and its former President, George W. Bush, only months ago. In wonderful contrast, they extol America for its openness and professed willingness to sit down and talk with adversaries. At least that is the picture that Obama’s leftist cohorts want the general public to receive. Unfortunately, the truth is far less rosy. And the likelihood of a day of reckoning for all of this foolishness is far greater.

Despite media coverage that portrays Obama’s European visit as a resounding success, he was unable to garner any significant European commitment to the Afghanistan theater of the terror war. Empty words from the European leaders should apparently be a sufficient response to empty words from the chief of a watered down America.

In a manner reminiscent of the humiliations of the Carter years, America’s prestige has begun to plummet among the world community. Of course world leaders are quick to express their preference for the current situation. A diminished America represents less competition, both economically and diplomatically, to their own aims and aspirations.

Sadly, this situation is being heralded by the Obama Administration and the liberal media as a great gain for this nation. It is anything but. In a world of inherently hostile, and often barbaric entities that are constantly vying for power, American vulnerability is entirely likely to be perceived as a window of opportunity for those who would raise their own international standing by tearing this nation down, just as was the case among the militant Islamists during the last decade, culminating in the attacks of September 11.

Governing cannot be indefinitely conducted from a mindset that ignores ramifications and consequences. Though the backlash may not be immediate, in the face of a unilateral disarmament, and the substitution of resolve with passivity, it is inevitable. The Obama Administration, in its current governing and diplomatic mode, is reverting to a mentality that is even more myopic and dangerously shortsighted than that of the Clinton years. Obama’s sycophancy towards European leftists and Middle Eastern Muslims during his recent trip abroad cannot be construed as anything else.

The blindly idealistic intrigues of the Clinton Administration played well on the nightly news, at least until their awful consequences became apparent. Not having learned the painful lesson, America has embarked on that path once again.

Barack Obama and his fellow ideologues believe their Ivy League intellectualism is sufficient to build a bridge to the Seventh Century. But to the practitioners of a religion that only understands strength and force, this manner of pandering only represents weakness. As such it is essentially entreating the world for a repeat of the attacks on America.

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Publisher: IUniverse Inc, New York, Bloomington | Pages 380 | Paperback: US$ 17.95 | Kindle: US$ 7.96

 

Divided in eight chapters, after recounting the ongoing, often-contradictory, debates surrounding the true nature of Jihad and what Muslims fundamentally believe about their creed in the first two chapters, the book establishes, in the next, an ideal paradigm of Jihad with compelling references from the Quran (God’s words), as well as from the examples of how Prophet Muhammad had himself applied those divine commands of Jihad. With great insights and analyses, this book makes it crystal clear that the paradigmatic model of Jihad is overwhelmingly violent; and that it lies at the heart of Islam, as it says, “Violent Jihad is the heart of Islam; without it, Islam would, most likely, have died a natural death in the seventh century itself” (p. 79).

It clearly identifies, in this ideal model of Jihad, three major strands of Jihadi actions, namely forced conversion, imperialism and slavery—all of which are commanded by God (Allah) and practiced by Prophet Muhammad. In accordance with the Muslim belief that the command of the Quran and actions of Prophet Muhammad are eternal in nature, it goes on to demonstrate in subsequent chapters (Chapter 4–7) with compelling historical documentation that, those commands of Jihad were perpetuated by later Muslim holy warriors and rulers; and that this practice continues to this day, although in severely suppressed forms in Muslim societies.

In these latter chapters, the book first gives clear outlines of the Quranic commands of forced conversion, imperialism and slavery and their ideal models set by Prophet Muhammad. Thereafter, each chapter goes on to anecdote extensive historical examples of these practices exercised by Muslim invaders and rulers over the centuries. The tales recounted in these chapters entail mindless brutality perpetrated, in the name of Jihad, by Muslim invaders, which involved mass-slaughter of the vanquished, their mass-conversion at the point of the sword, the enslavement of mainly women and children in mind-boggling numbers, and the imposition of brutal imperial rule involving crushing economic exploitations and horrible persecution of non-Muslim subjects.

The chapter on Islamic imperialism also recounts how Muslim invaders have deliberately destroyed rich cultural heritage of many great civilizations of the pre-Islamic days as their God-ordained duty that “the vestiges of the pre-Islamic jahiliyah age must be replaced by the perfect religious, political and cultural civilization of Islam” (p. 164). The practice continues today, such as the destruction of Bamyan Buddha statues by the Taliban and attacks on similar structures of pre-Islamic heritage by fundamentalist Muslims in many Islamic countries.

The stories recounted mostly from Islamic sources are harrowing, heart-wrenching, jaw-dropping. Muslims from all over the world must read this book. They will be shocked by the scale of brutality their ancestors suffered at the hands of Islamic invaders—opposed to their false notion that Islam came to liberate them from tyranny, oppression and sinful religious practices. They will feel remorse and pain for the sufferings of their ancestors. No less pain would be felt by non-Muslim readers—say, those from India—whose forefathers suffered much more for their refusal to embrace Islam.

Muslim or Non-Muslim, everybody from India to Central Asia, to the Middle East, West Asia, Africa, Eurasia, Europe and even the United States will quickly able to realize how Islam had affected—nay, terribly brutalized—their ancestors by the instruments of forced conversion, imperialism and slavery, which they may be unaware of.

These ideal practices, enshrined in the doctrines of Jihad, were practised well into the 20^th century. Most interestingly and convincingly, this book makes it very clear that those Jihadi commands of Islam are not dead; Muslims still practiced them in one form or another—one may look the treatment of minorities in Muslim countries, say in Saudi Arabia. In Malaysia, non-Muslims are discriminated against to support Muslims from the toil of non-Muslims, the major taxpayers. These practices are, however, severely subdued, because, as suggests this book, that Muslims do not have power; and that international obligations, such as to the United Nations, to uphold human rights of all their citizens undermine Muslim nations’ mistreatment of their non-Muslim citizens.

On the basis of many ongoing examples of forced conversion (in Pakistan, Egypt etc.), expansion of Islamic imperialism or rule (creation of Pakistan, independence of Kosovo) and effort to do so (Kashmir, Chechnya, Mindanao, Thai South), plus the ongoing practice of slavery in some Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, Mauritania etc.) and its intensification in the Sudan etc., this book makes abundantly clear that these cardinal commands of Jihad, eternal in nature, are very much alive. If Muslims gain power, say by changing demographics such as through their unbridled procreations—forced conversion, imperialism and slavery will most likely intensify as the book concludes:

The radical Islamic movements have been gaining fast ascendancy in the Muslim world, while the Sharia laws creeping into the legal system bit by bit even in the West. It remains to be seen whether or not the central professions of Jihad—forced conversion, imperialism and slavery along with economic exploitations and social disabilities of non-Muslims—return to the world-stage with its medieval glories.

This is a profound statement, which may sound ridiculous to many. But if read this book carefully, they will give a second thought before dismissing the statement as preposterous, if at all.

This is a book everyone—Muslim and non-Muslim—must read, as the topic discussed profoundly affect a greater majority of the world population today, while it will, undoubtedly, affect the now-unaffected in a century if not in a few decades. Most of all, every politician and community leaders must read it in order to grasp the unbelievable resilience inherent in the doctrines of Jihad, which will make them realize the depth of the threat, posed by surging Islamic radicalism to the future of global humanity.

Huntington made a shocking statement in his Civilization Clash thesis in saying that “Civilization seems in many respects to be yielding to barbarism… a global Dark Age possibly descending on humanity”. Huntington puts multiple civilizations at fault for this likely downfall of the civilized humanity. If none else, the resurging radical Jihadism, which lies very much at the heart of Islam, would most likely make his prediction as reality. Read this book and grasp why.

If Muslims read this book, it will solve much, if not all, of today’s problem of Jihadi terrorism and Islamic intolerance, simply because they will find little reason to sacrifice their life for a fraudulent, violent and inhuman creed. They may feel the urge to leave this religion altogether.

Loaded with information of encyclopedic proportion, both theological and historical, on the spread of Islam, its practice of forced conversion, imperialism and slavery wherever Islam went, this book is a one-top reference for the academicians, scholars, researchers and writers of Islam.

Although there are a few ignorable typos and it comes without an index, the book is absorbing, engaging: readers, having interest in the issue, would feel like reading it cover to cover. In assessing the book, Germany-based sociology Prof. Sami Alrabaa comments, “[I] found it fascinating. It is one of those few books which everybody, Muslims and non-Muslims, must read…”, while Pakistani-born writer Amar Khan says: “before start reading it, finish your work, because once you start reading, it will not let you move.”

Guantanamo has held 129 Saudi captives. 113 of the Saudi captives have been set free or transferred to Saudi custody. Most former captives were held, for a time, at the Care rehabilitation center. The center is described as a humane facility. The intent of the center was to re-educate and re-integrate into mainstream Saudi society. It employed counseling, lectures, and generous financial assistance upon graduation.

The program was described as successful. It was held up as a model, and the United States encouraged neighboring countries, like Yemen, to set up similar rehabilitation and reintegration programs.

Then in January 2009, two former Guantanamo captives, and alumni of the rehabilitation program, Sa’id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri (ISN 372) and Abu Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi (ISN 333) appeared in a threatening Al Qaeda video. Said Jabir identified himself as the second in command of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. Up until this video became public the Saudi government had claimed the program was a complete success.

The two men were among the men listed on the most wanted list. It has been reported that eleven former captives are on the list. The Saudi government hasn’t officially identified the former Guantanamo captives in any English language press release; however, reporters and researchers have identified eight former Guantanamo captive on the list, in the English media.

In addition to Abu Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi and Sa’id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri the other six former captives identified in English language media are: Adnan Al-Sayegh (ISN 105), Yusuf Al Jebairi Al Shahri (ISN 114), Othman Al-Ghamdi (ISN 184), Turki Mashawi Al Aseery (ISN 185), Murtadi Muqrim (ISN 187), Jaber Jabran (ISN 188).

The transfer of Abu Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi and Sa’id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri is widely used as an example of the difficulties in distinguishing which captives no longer posed a threat, and could safely be sent home. All the review boards of these men had recommended that they continued to pose a sufficiently serious threat to the U.S. and that they should remain in U.S. custody.

Six of the eight former Guantanamo captives who ended up on the Saudi’s most wanted list following their release from Saudi custody were transferred in spite of all their review boards recommending their continued detention.

Of the 300 former captives transferred from Guantanamo since authorities started conducting formal reviews in 2004 three quarters were transferred after officers sitting on a board or tribunal had recommended their transfer. Of these eight men only Adnan Al-Sayegh and Jabir Jabran were sent home because officers sitting on the annual review boards had recommended their release. Adnan Al-Sayegh’s repatriation to Saudi custody was authorized on August 16, 2005, and he was repatriated on May 19, 2006. Jabir Jabran’s repatriation was authorized on June 26, 2006, and he was repatriated on February 21, 2007.

The other six men, transferred from U.S. custody to Saudi custody in spite of the recommendations of their review boards, were all transferred on November 9, 2007. There were thirteen Saudis repatriated that day. Eleven of the thirteen men repatriated that day were repatriated in spite of all their review boards recommending their continued detention.

Sources:

• Saudi most-wanted list includes former Guantanamo captives
• Mansour Al-Shihri and Khaled A-Shalahi “Names keep climbing on infamous terror list“. Saudi Gazette, February 8, 2009
• Donna Abu-Nasr “Saudi suspects seeking to revive al-Qaida“. Associated Press, February 7, 2009
• Mshari Al-Zaydi “A Clear Generation Gap in Saudi Most Wanted List“. Asharq Alawsat, February 6, 2009
• Turki Al-Saheil “Al-Qaeda Using Iran as Base of Operations“. Asharq Alawsat, February 5, 2009
• Paul Schemm “11 former Gitmo inmates on Saudi wanted list“. Associated Press, February 4, 2009
• Robert Worth “Saudis Issue List of 85 Terrorism Suspects“. New York Times, February 3, 2009
• Carol Rosenberg “Saudi ‘most wanted list’ includes freed detainees“. Miami Herald, February 2, 2009
• Nancy Durham “Attempting to rehabilitate Riyadh’s jihadists“. CBC News, January 28, 2009
• Bobby Ghosh “Can Jihadis Be Rehabilitated?“. Time magazine, January 27, 2009
• Andrew O. Selsky “U.S. Defends Transfers as Ex-Detainees Vow Terror“. Washington Post, January 27, 2009
• “Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video“. Agence France Presse, January 25, 2009
• OARDEC “Consolidated chronological listing of GTMO detainees released, transferred or deceased“. Department of Defense, November 25, 2008
• Nancy Durham “Can therapy ‘cure’ terrorism?“. CBC News, January 14, 2008

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Folks, this is the kind of sickness we are facing with the world wide Jihadi assault on civilization. Here we have the heartwarming story of kindly grandma Um al-Mumenin. She’s just the local little old lady that all the kiddies love, that’s all. She bakes cookies, loves the kids and instructs all the local young ladies on the fine art of suicide bombing. Yep, she’s an all around community organizer, she is. But, before she takes up the important instruction of all those girls eager for martyrdom, she arranges to have them raped so that later when she recruits them they are mentally “prepared” to feel that suicide bombing is the only way to regain their lost “honor.”

Ain’t she just the cutest lil’ ol’ thing?

Samira Jassam, 51, was arrested by Iraqi police last week and confessed her part in organizing the rapes of more than 80 young Iraqi women that would later be gathered up and encouraged to become suicide bombers to “escape the shame” of having been raped.

In a video confession, she explained how she had mentally prepared the women for martyrdom operations, passed them on to terrorists who provided explosives, and then took the bombers to their targets.

This is the sort of corruption that liberals and Barack Obama do not understand. In order to further “Jihad” these people are willing not only to kill themselves and others, but to rape even their own women in order to destroy their mental balance so that they are more easily brainwashed to become suicide bombers.

Word has also come out of investigations into other Jihadi suicide bombings and like attempts that rape seems to be a favorite weapon of “persuasion” for would be suicide bombers of male and female gender alike.

The Sun is reporting that young male Jihadi recruits are being raped by older Jihadis to break down their mental barriers to killing themselves. The boys are sexually assaulted and then told that the only way to regain their “honor” is to blow themselves up taking unbelievers with them.

The intense social stigma and fear of more gay sex attacks leaves Muslims prepared to die.

The warped new tactic was revealed by a reformed Algerian militant. Abu Baçir El Assimi said: “The sexual act on young recruits aged between 16 to 19 was a means to urge them to commit suicide operations.”

A 22-year-old had suffered sexual injuries before being shot dead on a suicide mission in Tademaït, Algeria, three weeks ago. Samples taken from his body are being analysed in a bid to identify his torturer.

What sort of religion encourages the rape and death of its own children?

Democrats cannot conceive of this sort of corruption of the soul employed for religious control and power over a people. So, instead of facing reality, they bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the enemy is really “just like us,” after all. We cannot prosecute these sorts of people as if they were terrorists without potential for good deep down in the souls, goes the left’s thinking. Why, they are “just like us” aren’t they?

But, is there any western culture that has raped its own children, both mentally and physically, in order to turn them into automatons that will blow themselves up? Is there any such tradition in western history and culture?

So, while the Muslim world’s new friend, Barack Obama, makes his plans to abandon the war on terror and to treat all terrorists as if they are simple criminals, grandma Um al-Mumenin and her kind will be preparing more attacks for which Barack’s “laws” have no way even to address much less prevent.

I feel safer already.

Release Them and They Will Come… Right Back to al Qaeda. Now Even MORE Proof of Obama’s folly!

Obama has long said he wants to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He even made a play that he will do so by signing an executive order that says he will close the facility in one year’s time… or in one year he will address the closing of the place, which ever you believe he actually said in that order.

But even during the same week that the president has made this big show of fulfilling the campaign promise of closing Guantanamo, though he has not yet actually done so, we have seen several recently released terrorists that have appeared on videos admitting that they are back inside al Qaeda and ready to attack the west all over again.

Releasing these terrorists back into the world is simply a means of repatriating terrorists to their friends to return to their activities as terrorists as opposed to rehabilitating them away from such. The Economist reports that even the Saudis have been embarrassed to find that ex-Guantanamo detainees simply rejoin their terrorist buddies once released.

The Kingdom has had a program whereby ex-detainees are supposedly rehabilitated, given government “pensions” that pay their way for having been “rehabilitated.” Yet, the two recent detainees had quit the “rehabilitation” program and rejoined al Qaeda, mocking the program as they went.

Yet, to the chagrin of the Yemeni and Saudi governments, as well as of an Obama administration that wants Guantánamo closed, the two Saudis in the video happen to be graduates both of the tropical island jail and of a vaunted Saudi rehabilitation programme. The Saudi authorities had freed them last year. Reunited with their families, they had benefited, as had several hundred other repentant jihadists, from state pensions designed to ease a return to civilian life. But the pair vanished a few months ago. In the video they vilify the Saudi counselling programme as a trick, and vow to pursue jihad. Nasir al-Wahishi, the new “emir of the Arabian Peninsula”, a Yemeni, to whom they have sworn loyalty, was himself one of 23 al-Qaeda suspects who escaped from a prison in Sana’a, the Yemeni capital, in 2006.

It also looks like Yemen is back in the business of harboring and supporting terror training camps as al Qaeda has produced new videos showing new facilities in that chaotic region.

Interestingly, The Economist proves that George W. Bush’s efforts in Iraq hurt the terrorists badly. Saying that, “The group has suffered sharp setbacks in such places as Iraq, Lebanon and especially Saudi Arabia, where it has not mounted a serious attack since 2006,” The Economist shows that al Qaeda has been materially hurt in those areas. It cannot be denied that in each of the states that The Economist mention have seen intense efforts backed by George W. Bush’s policies that came down heavy on al Qaeda.

Bush’s policies have worked, but we seem to be on the verge of reversing them all with the new administration blundering into office. Obama seems poised to make us all more vulnerable and to look the other way as al Qaeda reconstitutes itself with the welcome support of Yemen.

What will Obama do? Will he crack down on these new terrorist training camps in Yemen? Will he really close Guantanamo and release over 100 Yemeni and Saudi jihadists so that they can rejoin al Qaeda? Will he pull troops out of Iraq and give a Qaeda the breathing space it needs to revitalize there?

What will Obama do, indeed?

I reminded him that it was a qualified no I gave him. Of course every American wants his president to be successful on every count that will benefit the country. No true American wants to see a monumental, destructive, Carteresque failure in the White House. My liberal co-worker is correct on that count. No one wants the next Buchanan, who, Nero-like, fiddled while Washington D.C. and the country burned. We want them all to be Reagans, Washingtons and Lincolns.

But, that is just it, isn’t it? We want them to do what is best for the country. That is what we mean by “success.” And, when you get right down to it, opinions vary of what “best” means. I do want Obama to be successful on what would be best for this country, absolutely. Unfortunately, there is little that he campaigned on that would be good for this country.

Now, let’s look at the very phrase this is all predicated upon. “I want Barack Obama to succeed.” Or, similarly, “I don’t want Obama to fail.” Both being the same premise. But, let’s face it, the devil is always in the details, isn’t it? What does “fail” or “succeed” even mean? Do I want Barack Obama to succeed in turning this country into a weaker, more communist copy of France? Hardly. But if he did succeed at that, it would be a success of a sort — especially should that have been his goal.

But I don’t want that sort of success.

Conversely, when I asked my liberal friend if he wanted Obama to “succeed” in a way that made him an even more conservative copy of Ronald Reagan, he nearly chocked to death trying to get a decided and vociferous “no” out of his own mouth.

He wouldn’t want that sort of success.

So, the game-saying of wanting Obama to “succeed” is a meaningless exercise. On one hand every American wants the new president to succeed. But at what? That is the key question. We, each of us, want Obama to succeed at what we think is good for the country. So, right off the top the question itself is trope or even tripe.

Now we arrive at where I stand on Obama’s relative “success.” I did not vote for the man. I do not support his socialist ideas. I stand four-square against his votes for infanticide, his votes to gut the Constitutional right to self-protection, his vague ideas of nationalizing various industries, his intention to enlarge government to unheard of proportions and his softening on terror producing countries. And since these are the things his entire life’s career point to as probable goals to “succeed” upon during his presidency… well, I want him to fail. And I want him to do so spectacularly. If Barack Obama is but a Trojan Horse for communism to push its nose under and into the tent, I want him to fail in the attempt.

Simply put I want these ideas to fail miserably because success for them would mean the destruction of this country. So, wishing Obama to succeed would be hoping for the destruction of my country if success means the accomplishments of goals like I mention above.

Needless to say, if he should accomplish the opposite of my laundry list of evils above, well, that sort of success I would heartily welcome.

The upshot is, we as conservatives and Republicans should want Barack Obama to fail if he is to strive for the wrong things. It’s not unAmerican, or even relatively impolite to say so, either.

This is all not to say that Republicans and conservatives should treat Barack Obama in like manner as the ignorati of the lunatic left have treated George W. Bush. We should give Obama a fair hearing, agree when it’s appropriate, disagree when it isn’t and fight tooth and nail when we know we are right. We should eschew the sort of DailyKos, Huffington Post or DemocraticUnderground style of hate so prevalent with the left. But we should not go wobbly. Principled and firm opposition is called for, as always, cooler heads should prevail.

But, we should not wish Obama “success” just for the sake of success. Nor should we let our guard down in some foolish bid to force the left to appreciate us for our civility. Civility is a reward in and of itself. It isn’t a gift to the enemy.

So, here’s hoping great failure for Obama on all the things he should fail on and success with those things that are right and good for the United States of America.

Last Thursday, Barack Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, admitted during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing that he supported renewing the part of the Patriot Act that allows for the FBI to seek records from businesses, libraries and bookstores as the policing agency investigates suspects in this country. For years we’ve seen news agencies and opinionists rail against the expanded power of the FBI to search such records. But, now with Obama’s AG announcing in his confirmation hearing that he agrees that the FBI should have this power, all anti-Bush administration voices are silent on the matter that had them so exercised for 6 years.

Since 2002 the debate has raged about the efficacy and Constitutionality of the Patriot Act with the power of the FBI to search bookstore and library records coming in for special condemnation. Even as the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the law, right to privacy groups, the media and anti-Bushies have pointed to this particular policy and cried Orwell or worse.

USA Today talked about the situation in 2002. Not unexpectedly, the American Library Association has been worriedly writing of this business for years. Some librarians have even forced the FBI to jump through hoops to seize computers during investigations. And, of course, the ACLU has fought the provisions, too.

Over the years many challenges to the library and bookstore search power have been made and thus far the law has withstood the onslaught. As a result, the Bush administration has been accused of indulging any manner of imperialist, unconstitutional, Orwellian motives.

Holder publicly announces his support for the hated library search provision yet we are met with silence from the very people that made Bush out to be the most evil man in history for his support of the same power. This is the sort of news that would have made its way around the Internet at least 10 times by now if it were a Bush administration official saying so. Yes, now we get silence.

Where is the condemnation of Eric Holder on this issue? Where is the ACLU to demand Obama ditch Holder? Where are the many Huffington Posters and DailyKossacks railing against this junior Orwell, Holder?

The newspapers are strangely silent, though I did see this reported in the San Francisco Chronicle. Olbermann and Matthews, still nursing their tingles, seem to have turned away from this story. Maddow and the DailyKos seem to have lost their voices over it.

It makes one wonder if their conviction is informed by courage and principle or convenience? Are they only to rail against an FBI that intrudes into bookstore and library records when it is Bush’s FBI? Are they suddenly not so worried about their claims of invasion of privacy and unconstitutionality when they feel the FBI is about to become their FBI?

And where are the multi part stories from the Old Media? Where are the stern voices and grave concerns of The New York Times or the L.A. Times that Eric Holder and Barack Obama are about to continue the Bush outrages against the average American’s privacy?

It is, of course, highly doubtful that such stories will materialize. After all, the Old Media are fully prepared to give Barack Obama a pass on the same sorts of things that they claimed made Bush into Bushhitler and Vice President Cheney into the Dark Prince, Darth Cheney.

In the real world is it spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y. In the Democratic Party we call it business as usual.

(Photo credit UPI.com)