By Nick Dial

Terrorism and the media have had a long-running relationship. In an imperfect world, they are, in fact, the perfect couple. The media needs terrorism to boost ratings, make money, and drive headlines. Terrorism needs the media to project fear, destruction, promote their message, and provide the ability to effect the globe through 24/7 news cycles that broadcast their horrific acts free of charge.

When it comes to terrorism, the media acts as a “force multiplier.”  A force multiplier is something that increases a group’s ability to become more powerful without increasing the size of the group. For example, if you have a squad of 4 men armed with rifles, they are a formidable force against that of fellow men. Give these same men rocket launchers and grenades on top of the rifles they possess and they have now become 3 times more powerful with the ability to engage vehicles and targets that before would have been out of their ability. The media serves a similar purpose with terrorism. The media acts as a force multiplier by taking a single act and magnifying its effects by broadcasting it for all to see.

The media, in the past 10 years especially, has allowed terror cells to use our living rooms as a stage to act out their agendas. The shocking broadcast of Daniel Pearl and his beheading laid the foundation for more gruesome acts to be carried out, filmed, and televised. A terrorist once made the comment, “I would rather kill one man on camera, then a hundred men off camera”-Unknown. This statement pretty-well sums up the relationship between terrorism and the media. To carry out an act on camera provides the group to “capture” a horrific moment forever, and save it for later use, as if it were a weapon that can be used over and over again. John R. White, author of the book Terrorism and Homeland security, States the following, “terrorism becomes more horrific to create better drama. News film is constantly replayed, giving the illusion that attacks are repeated time and time again,” (2008).  The media is considered by many terror groups a weapon, and will use it to the best of their abilities. Constantly, the media will be placed in the middle between the two as opposing forces use the media as a battleground of rhetoric and accusations. For example, in 2001 a U.S. Army helicopter crashed, and immediately the Taliban tried to claim responsibility for the event. The U.S. military however, publically denied that the Taliban played any role what so ever in the loss. An example of such action is shown below:

“An exchange of claim and counter-claim took place between Washington and the Taliban after the regime said it had recovered wreckage from a downed US helicopter inside Afghanistan.

Taliban fighters posed for television pictures next to aircraft wheels which the Taliban regime claimed had been taken from the wreckage in Helmand province, close to the southern city of Kandahar. The Al-Jazeera network showed the pieces of wreckage that the Taliban said were stenciled with words written in English.

But the Pentagon dismissed the claims, saying that none of its helicopters had been lost inside Afghanistan. The only helicopter crash, it said, was the accident in the early hours of Saturday when a Black Hawk, on standby for search and rescue for a Special Forces operation, came down inside Pakistan. Two US personnel were killed in the crash, which officials say may have been caused by a storm of dust created by the helicopter’s blades” (Buncombe, A, 2001.

This paragraph serves as a perfect example of how the media, becomes a virtual battle ground to sway public opinion and perception, as the old saying goes “those who control the media, control the war”-unknown.

Media is a central factor in any war, especially terrorism. Another factor that plays a critical role in war and terrorism as well is funding. Funding is the blood line that makes waging such actions possible, after all money makes the world go round, and funding is exactly what provides terrorism with the logistical capabilities needed to continue its agenda.

Funding for terrorism comes from several areas. Perhaps one of the largest areas of controversy is that of Islamic charities in the United States. According to the Washington post, The U.S. Government has linked many charities to supporting and funding terror groups and their activities.

“Charities based in Northern Virginia and sponsored by the government of Saudi Arabia invested millions of dollars in a company suspected of funding al Qaeda and the Islamic Resistance Movement, the government alleged for the first time yesterday.

An affidavit made public in federal court in Virginia contends that the Muslim charities gave $3.7 million to BMI Inc., a private Islamic investment company in New Jersey that may have passed the money to terrorist Islamic groups. The money was part of a $10 million endowment from unnamed donors in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, according to the affidavit filed by David Kane of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement”(Farah, D, 2003).

Many of these charities have been shut down and their accounts frozen as a result. This continues to be an ongoing problem with terrorism and its funding.

The other major funder of terrorism is that of state sponsorship. For example, Iran fights a proxy war with both Israel and the United States through funding terror via an umbrella base organization. By terror groups being satellite attachments to Iran, they can receive funding through non direct means. For example groups may meet in a mosque for a sermon, but while there they are in reality conducting business for terrorism backed by Iran. This allows Iran what is known as “plausible deniability”. In the public eye they can play the game of not being involved, but the back scenes show a different story.  An example of how an umbrella organization functions can be seen below.

(Diagram from “Terrorism: An Inconvenient Truth” By Nick Dial)

Terrorism has been, is, and will continue to be an ongoing battle. The media and funding are both key factors and critical for it to sustain its survival. While in a free society the media cannot be controlled, the largest thing that can and must be targeted is that of terrorism funding and its bloodline. The United States needs to continue to expand efforts to stop the flow of American currency into the coffers of terrorists. Whether people want to acknowledge the fact or not, every time we fill our gas tanks we fund terrorism. Terror sponsoring states continue to sell the United States oil, and gas being a essential element to modern  living, forces us to indirectly fund terror every time we purchase gasoline. One major step in the right direction choke off such proxy funding of terror is to break ground here, on our own soil, here in the U.S. By utilizing all of our resources, natural gas and most importantly, OUR OIL, we would not only strengthen our national security, we will make money doing it.

References

Buncombe, A. (2001). Us denies taliban shot down helicopter in afghanistan. Retrieved from

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-denies-taliban-shot-down-helicopter-in-afghanistan-632369.html

Farah, D. (2003). U.s. links islamic charities, terrorist funding. Retrieved from           http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A17354-2003Aug19&notFound=true

White, J. (2008). Terrorism and homeland security (sixth edition). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth cengage learning.

By Nick Dial

Recently Arizona passed into law a new bill, 1070. This new bill has brought on an onslaught of controversy, rumors, myths, and nonstop attacks.  The problem is, when you listen to the outlandish statements made by those who oppose this new law, it quickly becomes evident that they themselves either did not read the bill and have no understanding for how the law works in practice or they are simply ignoring the facts and dishonestly exploiting the issue for political gain.

Recently President Obama made the statement that if you “looked liked an illegal immigrant, and if you didn’t have your papers and you took your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed,” (2010). This statement coming from a sitting president is shocking. My first question is this; tell me, Mr. President, what does an illegal alien look like? I wasn’t aware that in the United States illegal aliens were labeled as one race over another. Are there not illegal immigrants that may be Canadian, Asian, or European? The fact that now the President is insinuating the Latino race as the Poster Child for what an illegal immigrant looks like, should be troubling and offensive to all Latino people of this nation. In a debate where the word “racism” often gets thrown around, you must ask yourself, who are the ones really making race a focal point? It’s certainly not a law that only focuses on legal status. Nowhere in this bill does the law make any reference to race or skin color in any way.

President Obama’s statement also demonstrated that he either has no understanding of how law enforcement works, or he is choosing to ignore the facts and push misinformation to drive more hysteria in support for his political position on this issue. By stating that you may be “harassed” by simply going out in public is both false and inflammatory. To have the leader of our nation spread such misinformation on legislation when Obama himself is a sitting legislator displays gross negligence on his part as the representative of this nation.

To clear up some of the myths about this bill being spread by activists on the left, let’s take a look at the popular talking points being repeated.

Myth: Hispanics will be randomly stopped by police when they go out in public.

Fact: This could not be any less true. A police officer must conduct themselves as they always have, and have probable cause for their stop. Citizenship status is not a primary infraction and therefore does not constitute probable cause for a stop. It is a secondary infraction. An officer may stop a car for a traffic violation,  then later find the driver has no legal status or identification. At this point an arrest may result after further investigation. This is no different than a drug charge. You don’t look at a car and say, “hey, they have drugs.” Once the vehicle is stopped, however, there may be other factors that indicate further probable cause to look for; drugs for example-an odor being emitted from the vehicle.

Myth: You will be questioned without just cause. What is considered reasonable suspicion?

Fact: Reasonable suspicion is very uniform in its application. If an officer pulls a vehicle over and the driver does not speak English, has no driver’s license, no state ID, no social security number to give, at this point there is ample reasonable suspicion for the officer to investigate further.  The officer would then run a name and date of birth check to see if any DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) records show. If this comes back blank with no record, there is probable cause to detain the individual to investigate their legal status.

Myth: you will now have to carry “papers” on you to prove citizenship.

Fact: Legal immigrants are already required to carry their green card. In most states you must carry a form of ID and if an officer asks for your identification on a stop, you must give it to them. Arizona’s law is no different then what is already on the books.

Myth: This law will lead to racial profiling.

Fact: This is another empty claim with no logic attached. Most police officers conduct themselves in a professional manner and are careful  not to violate a person’s civil rights. The idea that somehow a new bill will cause racial profiling is an empty one. This statement is based on the assumption that officers who racially profile would only do so if it were “in the rules.” Racial profiling is illegal, and whether or not an officer participates in such acts is the choice of that individual. This law will no more encourage the officer who chooses to profile anymore then racial profiling being illegal will discourage it. This is like the empty argument stating that making guns illegal to carry will rid gun crime. If you’re a criminal, you don’t care about the law hence the title “criminal”, and will carry a weapon anyway regardless of what the law states. The same concept applies to the corrupt officer.  Ethics come down to the individual, not what a law may or may not do. They will either  profile, or they won’t; a bill won’t change that practice.

Myth: Most illegal immigrants only want to work; the real problem is drug crime.  This bill does nothing to help fight the drug problem.

Fact: While this bill is not focused specifically at drugs, it does aid in the cartel drug problem in a large way. Illegal immigrants who come here to work depend on an economic system that caters to their illegal status. Their ability to find work, employment, earn an income and maintain a place to live is necessary for their survival. This bill makes it illegal for an undocumented alien to seek employment. It makes it unlawful for an employer to hire an illegal and unlawful to rent a home to an illegal. The end result of this will become a natural weeding- out process. The people who are truly here to work, will leave on their own merit. They will have no other choice because you must be able to provide income and shelter for families to live upon. They will either go back home or simply move to another state that is lax on immigration law. In 2008 E-verify for employment and immigration sweeps by Sheriff Joe Arpio made Arizona a more restricted place for illegal aliens to reside. Since 2008,  an estimated 100,000 illegals  have left the state. The natural result of this will make law enforcement more effective when fighting drug and cartel crime, because people who are only in AZ to work will have to relocate, leaving behind the criminal elements. Illegals who are here for sinister reasons, i.e. to traffic, push drugs, and run cartel errands will not need to relocate. They do not rely on legitimate work to provide an income. The lack of a general population of illegal aliens to blend in with may even result in cartels moving operations in cities and states that do not have such strict laws. Because the general population would move away, this leaves their operatives exposed for tracking and apprehension. It is much harder to blend in as just another landscaper looking for work when all the legitimate workers have moved away to other states where they can still obtain work. This will greatly aid both ICE and local law enforcement in combating cartel activity and tracking down operatives for such operations.

Bill 1070 is in place simply to enable our local law enforcement with the power to enforce laws that often get neglected on the federal level. For example, one night I was driving my patrol car when I was almost T-boned. A vehicle had run a stop sign. I pulled the vehicle over and found a man who did not speak English and had no Drivers license or State ID on him. He had no DMV record, and was not a legal citizen. This man had an alcohol level of .218, and was extreme DUI. After processing, I contacted ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement). They told me they did not have the man power to send and could not pick the man up for detainment. Being local law enforcement, we had no authority to hold the man based on his citizenship and had to let him go. Do you think he showed up for court? Of course not, now this man was released back into the public and is once again  a potential threat to public safety. Had the man became intoxicated again and killed someone in a fatal accident, people would have screamed at how the system failed, and the police failed to do their job. The reality was. we did not have the tools in place to detain the man. This very situation happened in San Francisco in 2008 when an illegal alien, Edwin Ramos, gunned down a father and two sons. Edwin was found to have been arrested several times without being turned over to immigration. If California had a law in place like Arizona’s recent passing of 1070, this horrible crime may have been prevented.

The outcry against Arizona’s new law is not only silly, but is a complete demonstration of ignorance of the already existing laws of this nation. Before the passing of bill 1070 it was already illegal to be in Arizona illegally. The only difference was it was an offense and a felony on the federal level. Now, it is both a federal offense and state offense. It is nothing more than mirroring the federal law and providing our officers with the tools necessary to keep Arizonians safe. This is absolutely no different than many other laws already on the books. For example, it is a federal offense to rob a bank. However, it is also a state offense to rob a bank. If you rob a bank in any state, you will face both federal and local state charges for the crime. You can even be charged both locally and federally in two different court systems and no, this is not the same a double jeopardy.  Just like it’s both a federal and state offense to rob a bank and is illegal. Arizona’s new immigration law has made being in Arizona illegally both a federal and state offense. The question can be asked, “What’s all the fuss about?” The real answer is simple- enforcement. Illegal aliens and their supporters have long lived comfortably in the United States relying on the complacency and lack of enforcement of the federal government to thrive. Now that a border state like Arizona has made a stand to enforce the law the federal government chooses to ignore, they have no more economic collusion that came with sanctuary policies. They are angry because in Arizona, the gravy train has made its final stop, and the tax payers have had enough. There will be no more free meals; no  more living in comfort while law abiding immigrants patiently wait for their legal papers to enter this country the respectful and correct way. The message here is that we reward those who follow the rules, and tell people who cut the line and break the rules to get in the back. The first step has been taken and hopefully, many other states will soon follow.

By Nick Dial

The moon is non- existent. The darkness is so dense one could feel claustrophobic as it closes in around them. Sgt. Henderson checks his watch, 0315 hours. His surroundings look surreal as he peers through his night vision cope. The landscape around him is alive with the eerie green hue of his night vision. The locusts are busy at work, making a droning ambient noise that reminds the rest of the world of their presence. Sgt. Henderson checks his watch again. “Three more hours, and then I can go home,” he thinks to himself. Suddenly the locust stop and the surrounding area is cast over with an unsettling calm. Just as Sgt. Henderson thinks how odd, an unmistakable sound arrives; engines. Sgt. Henderson continues to peer through his night vision scope when he sees them. Two pickup trucks driving in tandem, the trucks are blacked out and hard to see with the naked eye. Sgt. Henderson calls in an order over the radio. Suddenly vehicles move up and block the path of the two trucks as armed operatives advance. The operatives surround the trucks yelling orders to exit. The occupants exit the truck with their hands in the air, they are quickly zip tied and secured. Inside the trucks Sgt. Henderson and his team find Ak-47’s, water, maps, bails of marijuana, and what appears to be a storage container about 4 feet by 5 feet in size.  Upon opening the container, they are horrified as they see the interface of a sophisticated nuclear device. The only identity of its origin is text which appears to be Russian.

Does this sound like a page from a war novel? In reality these kinds of raids take place every month along the south border of the United States and Mexico. So far, there has not been a nuclear device discovered, but this is a very threatening possibility that needs close attention. There have been Terrorist operatives apprehended on the northern border, but the border on the north is more controlled then the south. While we have a better idea of what is coming across the United States northern border, the United States southern border still remains a “no man’s land.” Many arguments have been made in favor of illegal immigration, but the facts behind illegal immigration need to be closely examined. Illegal immigration is a direct threat to the safety, health, and economic security of every legal American resident.

In a post 9/11 world, radical ideology and terrorist threat has become a reality in our daily life. With financing to back their agenda, and modern technology coming to the front lines on terrorist behalf, this issue must be looked at thoroughly. In testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on February 16^th, 2008 Admiral James Loy, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security testified:  “Several al-Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons” (Lansbaum, 2008). James Loy also stated, “The convergence of terrorist threats, a nuclear weapon black-market, a porous national border and escalating illegal immigration is finally attracting the attention the growing crisis deserves. Unfortunately, the attention is being paid by terrorists, not by the U.S. government.” After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was reported that 85 of 135 small Nuclear weapons were missing. It would not take much effort for terrorists to successfully insert sleeper cell operatives into this country. There is a very large network of human trafficking rings set up to help achieve such a task. With threats such as this, time is of the essence. According to research originating from Pepperdine University, the Mexican Government has openly printed manuals promoting and explaining how to illegally enter the United States. Analysts at Pepperdine state the following; “The Mexican government’s recent publication of a comic-book style pamphlet on how to safely cross the border is a direct affront to the country’s relationship with the United States”(M. Overbeck, 2008). President Vincente Fox, former president of Mexico regarded illegal immigrants as “heroes” for having left Mexico into the United States, and then sending money back to support the Mexican economy. With an undermining southern neighbor promoting illegal immigration, Al-Qaeda has had half the work done for them. A door has been provided; they only need to literally walk through.

Terrorist threats due to open borders are obvious but one threat of illegal immigration many may have not considered is health security. Health security is also an issue of the utmost importance. With a thriving community and people interacting with each other, personal hygiene and disease control is a top priority. Great achievements have been made in this country eradicating once common diseases such as tuberculosis.  This feat, however, is at threat of being set back generations through an uncontrolled influx of host that carry disease across the border. With legal entry, immigrants must undergo a thorough medical examination to ensure no threatening disease is released into the United States. Illegal immigration by-passes this process leaving the residents of the country completely at the mercy of what communicable diseases the illegal brings into the country. Dr. Laurence Nickey, director of the El Paso health district, states the following; “Contagious diseases that are generally considered to have been controlled in the United States are readily evident along the border … The incidence of tuberculosis in El Paso County is twice that of the U.S. rate. Leprosy, which is considered by most Americans to be a disease of the Third World, is readily evident along the U.S.-Mexico border” (L. Nickey, 2008). Dysentery along the border is also several times that of the United States (2008).  Because of this issue, the reality of major health epidemic is very real. “Super Bugs” a strain of bacteria which do not respond to antibiotics are becoming more prevalent. It is crucial that possible health disasters, which were mostly something of the past in the United States, do not come back into commonality.

Once an illegal immigrant crosses into the United States, U.S. taxpayers and private hospitals pick up the tab for ill and diseased illegal aliens.  Because the influx of illegal aliens, many hospitals and facilities along the Border States are being forced to close their doors. It’s only a matter of time before the problem migrates to the rest of the country. Los Angeles County supervisor Michael D. Antonovich states “What is unseen is their [illegal aliens’] free medical care that has degraded and closed some of America’s finest emergency medical facilities, and caused hospital bankruptcies: 84 California hospitals are closing their doors” (Antonovich, 2008).  This is mainly due to uninsured illegal immigrants seeking medical attention at hospitals for everyday things that would normally be addressed by a family doctor. At a hospital, by law the hospital must treat a patient, and cannot turn anyone away. According to Federation for illegal immigration reform “Immigrants are often uninsured and underinsured. Forty-three percent of non-citizens under 65 have no health insurance. That means there are 9.4 million uninsured immigrants, a majority of whom are in the country illegally, constituting 15 percent of the total uninsured in the nation in the mid-1990s  The cost of the medical care of these uninsured immigrants is passed onto the taxpayer, and strains the financial stability of the health care community” (2008). This issue is one that is bleeding community’s dry of all medical financing. The counties are literally going bankrupt.

The effect of Illegal immigration on the economy is another impact many do not fully understand. Economic security is the bloodline to maintain a standard American lifestyle. More and more jobs which were traditionally held by U.S. citizens, such as construction, are being snatched up by illegal immigrants. People are losing their jobs due to the inability to compete in the market. According to Immigrationcounters.com, a site that actively updates various effects of illegal immigration, the number of skilled jobs taken by illegal immigrants to date is 10,667,935 (2008). These jobs normally would be held by American citizens with fair wages and coverage such as workers compensation. Due to the ability of an employer to pick up workers for far less, these jobs for Americans are almost lost completely.  Many argue that illegal immigrants take the jobs that Americans do not want. It has been found however that when illegal immigrants are removed from those jobs, many Americans get in line to take their place. For example, ICE agents seized 595 plant workers suspected of being in the country illegally. Several workers, who did not identify themselves, said they were working and trying to keep the plant operational in the wake of the sudden loss of co-workers (Kemp, 2008). Hundreds of job applicants lined up, eager to take advantage of the sudden job openings at the plant located in Jones County, where the unemployment rate is 6.3 percent (Kemp, 2008). Law maker Terril states “There is no job that an American citizen is unwilling to do,” he says. “They’re just not willing to do it at the wage rates that are being paid to illegal aliens,” (Terril, 2008). As the facts above show, the notion that illegal immigrants do the “jobs Americans don’t want” just is not true. The opposite has been the outcome, jobs open up and Americans want them.

The threats to the United States and her citizens due to illegal immigration are real and grave. This country must wake up before it is to the alarm of a health epidemic, an economic employment crisis, or a smuggled nuclear weapon detonating in a major city. US citizens must stand up and demand action.  The policies of the past 30 years have done nothing to solve this growing issue. Times have changed, and so have the dangers associated with the times. Our southern border has become an interstate of corruption, danger, disease, drugs, oppression, and legal employment depression. It is time to bring in the big stick…..with a mop attached.

References

Landsbaum, M (2007). Al-qauda’s illegal immigration threat. Retrieved 09/01/2008, from

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=AEB39FF3-E0E8-4E1D-8353-BE0D004E2785

(2008). Federation for American Immigration reform (2008). Retrieved September 1, 2008, Web site:

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters64bf

Immigration counters.com. (2008). Retrieved September 2, 2008, from Immigration counters.com Web site:

http://www.immigrationcounters.com/

Kemp, E (2008). Applicants line up to fill jobs open after plant raid. Retrieved 09/02/2008, from

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20080827&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=808270366&Ref=AR

Overbeck, M (2008). Guide promotes illegal immigration, Retrieved 09/29/2008, from

http://graphic.pepperdine.edu/perspectives/2005/2005-01-13-border.htm

By Nick Dial

A common phrase seen and heard used by protesters the last several years is “separation of church and state” This phrase has been used to protest the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, school, curriculum, nativity scenes in public, and even gay marriage. So….does separation of church and state apply to these activities and venues?  This is where people must dust off that old history book to find the real intentions behind what “separation of church and state” really means.

When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution there was sound reasoning behind why they made specific reference to religion. The U.S. Colonies had lived under the thumb of King George III for some time and had grown weary of monarchy rule and the arbitrary law that came with it. Religions other than the Church of England had been suppressed for quite some time so much so, that the Puritans settled in the Americas in order to freely practice their religion. This was nothing new to the founding fathers; they knew this history as well as anyone else.

The term “separation of church and state” is not found anywhere in the US Constitution.  The phrase was made popular by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote a letter defending the rights of a group of Baptists to practice their faith.

“The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as “favors granted.” (U.S. Constitution, 2010).

Since then Jefferson’s words have often been used out of context and, unfortunately, by those who misunderstand the very reasons the First Amendment addresses the issue.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states : “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Us constitution, 2010).

The key words regarding this issue are the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

Again, we need to look at history to understand the reasoning behind their position. We know that the Puritans came from the Old World to escape religious persecution so that they could practice their faith freely. Europe’s, and especially England’s, long history of religious oppression was the reason for inclusion of the phrase “make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Although none of Europe was particularly religiously tolerant, the oppression reached intolerable levels during the rule of King Henry VIII. In the sixteenth century, King Henry had failed to have a son born in order to retain a male heir to the throne. There had already been tension between the authorities in Rome and England for some time. King Henry went to the Pope requesting that his marriage be annulled. He was refused. He had fallen in love with a new woman, Ann Boleyn, and wished to be married to her in place of his current wife. After refusal from the Pope, the king met with his closest advisors and developed a novel idea.

“When he met with failure, Henry did what every other king would do. He fired his closest advisor. This was an important move. His closest advisor on the matter was Cardinal Wolsey, the Lord Chancellor of England. The negotiations with the papal court were largely carried out by Wolsey. When he failed, Henry dismissed and arrested him and replaced him with Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell. Both these men were sympathetic to the new ideas of Martin Luther. They gave the king some radical advice: if the pope does not grant the annulment, then split the English church off from the Roman church. Rather than the pope, the king would be the spiritual head of the English church. If the King wants an annulment, then the King can grant his own annulment” Protestant England, 2010).

Taking the advice of his advisors King Henry did just that. England broke off from Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of England was formed. King Henry was then declared head of the church and was free to annul any marriage he wished. When the Church of England was created it became the official church of the kingdom and an act against the king was viewed as an act against God. This is the very reason why the founding fathers put safeguards such as the First Amendment in place. They knew from their own history the dangers of a church being part of the government and the abuses permitted under a state religion.

The founding fathers were logical men. The point of the First Amendment was to keep any religion from becoming a state sponsored religion, not the government being supported by those of faith or any reference to faith. If their intent was to keep any reference of God or faith out of government, they would not have made such bold statements about their beliefs in God and God’s role in our granted freedoms.

In the Declaration of Independence they wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.  George Washington himself called for a national day of prayer during the Revolutionary War.

The notion of keeping God or faith out of governmental matters, or public displays of faith was never the intent behind the first amendment. It was there to keep religions from being empowered by government support and turning into a tool of tyranny. Today, due to lack of understanding and revisionist history behind the First Amendment’s purpose, we see people taking things completely out of context to fit their world views. The First Amendment has nothing to do with the concept of God in school, gay marriage, abortion, or any other political issue involving religion. Being an advocate for or against such things and publicly announcing it is fine, that’s what America is all about.  Before you rush out with a sign saying such things as “separation of church and state” keep one thing in mind; if you don’t learn the history behind what you are saying and its true meaning you will accomplish nothing except make yourself look foolish.

References

Protestant england. (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/ENGLAND.HTM

Us constitution. (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html

By Nick Dial

The debates people have over airport security consist of profiling, invasion of privacy, and check- in time. 

“Profiling” has become a buzzword in today’s media with such a derogatory connotation it has become something of a dirty word. Today, profiling immediately gets related to abuse of power and unjust treatment. The fact is that profiling is necessary to effectively perform any real security and determent of crime.

On January 28, 2008 a covert tester for the Transportation Security Administration was able to sneak a mock bomb past airport security checkpoints undetected. According to CNN:

“ Jason – that’s the name CNN was asked to call him – slides a simulated explosive into an elastic back support. The mock bomb is as slim as a wallet; its fuse, the size of a cigarette. He wraps the support around his torso, and the bomb fits comfortably into the small of his back” (Meserve, Jeanne, Ahlers, Mike, 2008).

What is a “mock bomb?”  It is a small, concealable device with a fuse that is replicated to look and feel as its real counterpart. The scary part is that this stealthy act of terrorism can be executed at any time.

In the days following 9/11 people were willing to sacrifice small inconveniences in the exchange for added security and peace of mind. People are starting to forget the issues that surrounded 9/11 and the reason added security was necessary. Since there has not been another successful attack since 9/11, awareness has dropped and complaints have come in earnest about the added security. George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. In this case, the complacency beginning to be displayed only invites another attack – and once again, history repeats itself.

Racial profiling is a touchy topic, but one that should be examined thoroughly and honestly. The problem with discussions of profiling today is that people are not applying critical thinking to the topic. For example, police officers must profile when they patrol. They are, in fact, paid professional profilers. Every time they patrol they are observing their surroundings for activity that is suspicious. There are many factors that come into play that must be addressed, and yes, race is one of them. For example, let’s say an officer is patrolling in the middle of the night in a known predominately black neighborhood. The officer knows the history and surroundings of the area. He may also know that there is a rift between a white gang and black gang in that area. The white guy is wearing dark baggy clothing. At this point the officer must ask them self the following questions:

1. Are white people commonly in the area?
2. Are people normally in the area in the middle of the night?
3. Do members of the rival gang wear baggy dark clothing, or clothing of similar appearance?
4. Are the chances of this person being in this area going to lead to a confrontation?

These questions need to be examined critically and analytically. If most or all of these questions can be answered “yes”, would the officer be unjustly racially profiling for stopping the person to speak with them?  The answer is no. There is a difference between profiling strictly based off of race, and profiling based on multiple factors. Race may be a contributing factor, but it is not the only factor. In this example, there is more than reasonable probable cause for the officer to suspect an issue may be at hand. The suspect is not breaking any laws by being there, however it is not unreasonable to engage the person in conversation in order to investigate. If nothing else the officer may offer to give the man a ride or notify him of the dangers of being in an unsafe part of town. The job of the officer is to protect all of the public, even if the man is a gang member.

With the previous example in mind let’s shift the situation to an airport. We must use what we currently know to combat the threats to the air traveler – in this case terrorism. We place a lot of responsibility on TSA, and they are charged with keeping hundreds of thousands of travelers safe as they go through these ports. To realistically combat the threat of terror, we must have guidelines in place to narrow down the search for the best results. If TSA treated an eighty year old grandmother as a suspect, we would be wasting valuable resources unless there was reasonable suspicion ahead of time to investigate such a person. With the issue of terrorism, here is what we know. There have been many terror attacks worldwide in the past 20 years. Of those, several have been directed toward the United States. The U.S.S. Cole was bombed by young Middle Eastern men. The First World Trade Center bombing was carried out by young Middle Eastern men. 9/11 was perpetrated by young Middle Eastern men, Arabs to be specific, and the recent plot of 2006 in England, where British authorities prevented the bombing of several U.S. bound planes, was being attempted by young Middle Eastern men. According to the Washington Post “Three of the four suicide attackers who killed 52 passengers in London’s transit system last summer were British citizens of Pakistani origin, investigators concluded. The fourth was identified as a Jamaican-born convert to Islam” (Ward, John, 2006).  Based off this information, the ongoing perception of terror plots being carried by young Middle Eastern men or of Middle East decent is a correct one. They clearly state that three of the four men were of Pakistani decent, and the fourth was of Jamaican decent.

We know terror is real, and we know its threat continues to push our security to the limit. History shows a clear correlation between young men recruited by terror cells, especially men of Middle Eastern decent.  Is it unreasonable for their age and ethnicity to be a red flag?  Some may say yes, some may say, no. It could be argued that history shows it’s not illogical to place this at the top of many considerations when investigating a suspect. To disregard this fact would be foolish and naive. There is a clear history of bank robbers wearing ski mask, and if you walk into a bank with a mask on, it’s almost a guarantee you will be profiled and treated with apprehension from the moment you walk in the door. This is only logical- and what we know from history supports this apprehension.

When it comes to security and expectations of the public, we must remember we do not live in a perfect world. While “political correctness” works on paper, it rarely applies in real world security situations. If we want our safety guaranteed, or at the very least have our safety a top priority, then we must be willing to make certain compromises. We can’t have it both ways and expect an effective outcome.

References

Meserve, Jeanne, and Mike Ahlers. “TSA tester slips mock bomb past airport security.” CNN (2008): n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009.

Ward John, . “Plot to bomb U.S. bound jets is foiled.” Washington Pots (2006): n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html

By Nick Dial

Many people may not be aware that terrorism has a long history. While there has been a steady history of atrocities committed, it is the advent of modern day technologies that brings terrorism to our living rooms for all to see. It can no longer be ignored or neglected as much as it was before. To better understand modern terrorism, you must first take a look at the history behind it.

Terrorism has a long history, getting its roots during the French Revolution. The term terrorism was coined by Edmund Burke in the 18^th century. He was referring to the brutal reform that had taken place by the revolutionist. They had decapitated thousands in public with little trial or justice of any kind. Since then, the term terrorism has taken many different meanings. Napoleon referenced resistance fighters during his world conquest as “terrorist”. The Germans did the same during WWII referring to any resistance, which was not recognized by an official military or government as “terrorist”. Today the meaning is drastically different. The FBI defines terrorism as the following: “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (White, 2008, P. 7). Depending on where you live in the world may bring different definition of terrorism. The popular saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” may ring true in some cases, however I would argue Islamic jihad terrorism does not fall into this category. A freedom fighter must fight for true freedom, such as the French Resistance did against the Nazi occupation. Militant Islamic Jihad fights for the spread of Islamic purity law and Jihad (struggle or effort, now referred to as holy war). This law allows the oppression, abuse, and murder of women. Women cannot vote, drive, or move freely in public. This law even goes to extremes such as not allowing someone to carry tomatoes and cucumbers in the same basket, for this is a “sexual innuendo”. This law has no tolerance for people of diverse faith. All who oppose this ideology, Muslim included are regarded as enemy and therefore need to be eliminated, only then will true Islam be restored. The most who suffer from this ideology are Muslims themselves.

Modern day terrorism is dominated by Islamic Jihad. This wasn’t always the case. During the 60’s and 70’s, Latin American terrorism was very active. Its structure was founded from Marxist and socialistic values. The organization of those groups is mimicked today by Islamic Jihadist groups. Many may not be aware of the roots of Militant Islam, so to better understand the roots of this ideology, an over view will be provided. Ibn Taymiyyah was an Islamic scholar in the 13^th century. He sought to find a solution to the carnage during the crusade wars. He felt through prayer, he was enlightened to bring about Jihad. He felt that Muslims had lost their way, and need to seek purification from the inside out. He referred to this as the sixth pillar of Islam and called for the destruction of all opposition.  Most Muslim scholars view Jihad as a struggle against evil. Taymiyyah took this and expanded it into more militant terms. Jonathan R. White, an expert in terrorism states the following: “Ibn Taymiyyah expanded the meaning of jihad by advocating attacks on none believers and impure Muslims” (White p. 193, 2008). The only tolerance he provided was for Muslims who conformed to this ideology. Since him, there have been various philosophers such as Abdul Wahhab, and Sayyid Qutb. Influenced by Taymiyyah, these philosophers have expanded on Taymiyyah’s militant theology and have had great influence on modern day terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is a devote follower of Qutb. Qutb teaches that all Islamic nations should impose Islamic purity law. When this is achieved, they should confront the world. Islamic terrorist leaders and organizations worldwide use these philosophers and their views as justification for their action.

Since the world trade center attacks of September 11^th 2001, new legislation was passed known as the patriot act. This legislation opened the door for various agencies’s to go after terrorism and take an aggressive offensive role. According to www.whitehouse.gov, the official website for the white house, the patriot act accomplishes the following: “The Patriot Act Eliminates Double Standards By Allowing Agents To Pursue Terrorists With The Same Tools They Use Against Other Criminals. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to track a drug dealer’s phone contacts than a terrorist’s phone contacts, and it was easier to obtain a tax cheat’s credit card receipts than to trace the financial support of an al-Qaida fundraiser. The Patriot Act corrected these double standards – and America is safer as a result” (The white house, 2008).

Basically the patriot act has allowed such things as expediting the process of intelligence gathering. Before, the judicial process took so long to obtain warrants, that the risk of losing the information or evidence was too great. By the time they would get approval, the evidence was long gone. This allows Agency’s to get started on the Intel gathering while the warrant is being obtained. This way they don’t lose the evidence. There still needs to be an approval for the warrant at however, and any evidence gathered with failure to obtain a legal warrant will result in invalid evidence. This is referred to as “sneak and peaks”. This has become an issue of controversy in the country. Many people feel that it violates civil rights. The problem is that people are forgetting one key thing. Agencies are going after enemy combatants in this country, in the past, they would have been called SPIES! When you have national security threats from an enemy combatant, domestic civil law is often not applicable or insufficient. There is a whole new range of federal anti-espionage and foreign threat laws that come into play.

Recently the Supreme Court decided that enemy combatants on foreign battlefields will be afforded the same rights as criminals within the United States borders.  This is the first time in history this has been decided. The problem with this is the enemy will use our legal system, (which is in place to protects citizens) to exploit our media and judicial system. They don’t play by the rules, but will use the rules to work against the United States. Sometimes common sense needs to take over. This is our Achilles heel, and they will cut it every chance they get. Many argue that the patriot act does nothing to secure our safety, and that we are more vulnerable than before. According to the Heritage foundation (2007), 19 terrorist attacks have been thwarted since 9/11, some even “homegrown” right here in the United States (James J. 2007). With the rise in terror attacks all through 2009, we should be more perseverant now than ever.  Fort Hood, the Christmas bomb attempt, the shooting of military recruiters, and several more plots foiled, should serve as a clear testimony that the fight is far from over. Only through strong will and a desire to succeed will we as a nation rise above this radical ideology.

References

Carafano, James J. (2007). U.s. thwarts 19 terrorist attacks against america since 9/11. Retrieved 12/01/2008, from

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

The white house. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/patriotact/

White, J. (2008). Terrorism and homeland security (sixth edition). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth cengage learning.

I graduated from the police academy in 2006, and worked both as a deputy for a sheriff’s office and police officer for a municipal city. I was trained in the use of a TASER and carried one on duty. I never deployed it while on patrol, but have had a fair amount of exposure to the device and the implications surrounding it.

The TASER has been an issue of increased debate and the more this device is being implemented into mainstream society,  more negative effects regarding its use are being reported. This topic is often one filled with emotion and fear among officers. The more controversial the TASER becomes, the more there is fear of losing it as a tool. This anxiety is reasonably understandable, but that doesn’t take way from the fact there are serious issues that should be addressed surrounding this device and its use in the field. Regardless of one’s feelings on the TASER, there is one remaining consistency – people are sustaining injuries and death after its use. This of course is no different than when regular tactics used by the police not involving the TASER are implimented. After all, some people do get hurt and some die  by the police as well. The key points to remember, however, is how these people are being injured or dying.

When people are physically hurt or killed by  police in situations where a TASER was not used or present, the individuals most likely arrived at that point by behaving in a  disruptive or dangerous manner. The problem that is taking place more frequently with the TASER, is that people are being subjected to this device much too early. Before this is discussed further, one must understand the use of force continuum, what it is, and how it is applied.

Use of force continuum: The use of force continuum is a system used by law enforcement to calculate the appropriate use of force in any given situation. Generally speaking, the rule of thumb is that the suspect, not the officer, is in charge of how high the use of force continuum advances. If the suspect continues to rise in hostility, the officer must raise the force to counter the actions of the suspect. Some use of force policies may differ between departments, and from state to state in small detail, but generally speaking, most use of force continuum polices are the same. These policies are as follows:

• Officer presence
• Verbal commands
• Soft hands (control tactics/wrist locks/OC spray)
• Hard hands (strike points/impact weapons)
• Lethal force (firearm/strike points to vital areas)

For  a clear understanding of this policy, reference the use of  the following force continuum chart.

The reason the TASER has become so controversial is because it is often being used in situations where the TASER was unnecessary. If the TASER were only being used in situations where the only other option was hard techniques or lethal force, there wouldn’t be such a public outcry. In my opinion the majority of police officers show sound judgment and use good common sense,  however there appears to be an increase where people are being exposed to the TASER on very low levels  of force continuum. Many people think the TASER was designed to be a replacement to lethal force. This is false. What the TASER does  do, is allow the officer  options in which to neutralize a situation more safely and efficiently. If there is a situation where the life of the officer or another is in danger, you do not want an officer reaching for the TASER when they should be reaching for their firearm. The reason for this is because the TASER does not always deploy successfully, and this could result in the officer or a third party severely hurt or killed as a result.

The correct location for the TASER should be placed on level four under hard techniques. If an officer reaches a point where techniques such as hard strikes and impact weapons such as the baton must be utilized, this is an appropriate situation to deploy the TASER. An officer has many tools that can be used against them in a physical struggle, such as their  firearm. Many officers have been shot with their own weapon, therefore, when faced with a combative suspect, the TASER is a reasonable tool for such an application. Unfortunately, an increasing number of officers will use officer presence, verbal commands, and then TASER. This is where the true controversies set in because either it is used prematurely, or as a compliance tool - both of which is inappropriate application of the device.

A good example of misappropriation of the TASER is the “don’t tase me bro” incident that took place at a John Kerry Speech. The officers had the suspect detained and on the ground. The officer threatened use of the TASER if he kept moving (compliance). The suspect then cried out, “Don’t TASE me.” At this point the TASER had done its job. It had intimidated the suspect into submission and there was no threat. The officer used the TASER anyway. This, in my opinion, was nothing more than grand- standing for the audience. There was no need  for deployment of the TASER, even if it were only a drive stung (deployment without the cartridge).

Another example is that of a 14 year old girl. She was attempting to run from a police chief in New Mexico when he shot her from behind with the TASER. One of the barbs hit her in the head, penetrating her skull. “The girl slowed down, but became scared after Hatcher yelled at her to stop and threatened force with the taser. She started to run again. “Hatcher said he attempted to catch up to the girl by foot  but was unable to do so and believes he had no choice but to fire a Taser dart to stop her” (14 year old girl shot in head with taser. 2009). This could have been potentially fatal, and had the officer realized the potential harm the TASER was capable of, he most likely would have not deployed the TASER in the first place.

Another example of misuse is that of Kathryn Winkfein. Kathryn was a 72 year old great -grandmother who was stopped for doing 65 mph in a 45 mph zone. According to MSMBC,” Sgt. Maj. Gary Griffin of the Travis County, Texas, Constable’s Office told NBC News that Bieze acted appropriately.“He mitigated this event safely, effectively and efficiently. Nobody sustained any injury,” Griffin said. (Celizic, M., 2009).  Even if a 72 year old woman in not cooperating ,how can it ever be argued that it’s ok to TASER a woman that is 72 years old? If a male officer cannot effectively subdue women at the age of 72, they have no business being a law enforcement officer in the first place. A baton would have been out of the question, but lighting her up with 50,000 volts is acceptable? There is a serious lack of judgment and logic in this scenario. I hate to be critical of fellow officers, but criticism should  be applied where criticism is due. Other wise there is no way to learn and adapt to such situations.

There are an increasing number of deaths per year following TASER deployments, and as the years continue to go by, so do the number of injuries and deaths associated with this device. Does this mean the device should be removed from law enforcement? No.  What it does mean, is that the TASER must be respected as a serious tool that can cause harm, or even in some cases, kill. Therefore, it should be deployed tactfully in appropriate situations. Using the TASER as a compliance tool is simply bone – headed and dangerous to the general public. Police officers are there to protect the public from harm. Using a device without knowing or understanding the possible consequences can be serious, and the public should not serve as a test bed for this device. If an officer realized that this device could kill, they would most certainly be more careful to ONLY deploy it when necessary - not because a suspect is passively resistant. Passively resistant is when a suspect is  verbally defiant, or may not co-operate with an order, i.e. pulling away or shrugging as an officer grabs them, or failing to complete the officer’s verbal demands. A perfect example of a Taser deployment during a passively resistant suspect can be seen here. A woman is ordered to complete several requests by an officer. She is being argumentative, but is not assaulting the officer in anyway. He could easily have used control tactics to detain her, but instead relies on the TASER.

With the many cases of misuse, one must ask, why? The answer is pretty simple – training. TASER International is the one providing the supposed non-biased data along with training criteria to the various police departments on the proper use and safety of the TASER. For a long time TASER International took the position that their device is completely safe and could not cause cardiac arrest.  This has recently changed. In October of 2009, TASER International released a document instructing officers not to aim at the chest. This of course caused controversy. In the past, coroner reports have ruled  cause of death to be from the TASER. TASER  International responded by filing a lawsuit against the coroner’s office demanding the report be changed as to its findings. As a result, doctors spoke out against TASER, stating these were unethical strong- arm tactics of corporate intimidation. Infowars.com states the following:

“Doctors have condemned as corporate “intimidation” a court decision ordering a chief medical examiner to remove any reference to the use of a taser as an antecedent in the deaths of three men.

Ohio examiner Dr. Lisa Kohler had noted in her autopsy reports that electrical shocks from Tasers were partially to blame for the deaths of individuals in three separate confrontations with police.

Taser International, now notorious for its stern legal defense having won 68 out of 68 lawsuits, filed and won a civil suit, forcing Kohler to delete all mentions of the weapons and to term the deaths “accidental”

Jeffrey Jentzen, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners, an organization that represents the majority of medical examiners in the United States, has warned that the actions of Taser International and the court ruling have set a dangerous precedent:

“Our membership is very concerned about these cases and the reaction of Taser to these cases,” he said last night.

“Our membership is looking into the area and although Taser has developed its own opinion, there are certainly opposing opinions as to their involvement in causing sudden death in individuals.

“Our organization feels that it violates the physician’s ability to make a medical decision. Ordering a professional physician to change or alter their records is in violation of their right to practice medicine.

“Taser has sued a number of medical examiners for making informed medical opinions in an attempt, I think, to both protect their product and send a threatening message to medical examiners.

“It is dangerously close to intimidation,” he said. “They are attempting to send a message to medical examiners that if they elect to make that determination they may face a civil suit.” (Watson, S, 2008).

Now, in 2009, TASER International has flipped  their position.  According to the Arizona Republic, “The maker of Taser stun guns is advising police officers to avoid shooting suspects in the chest with the 50,000-volt weapon, saying that it could pose an extremely low risk of an “adverse cardiac event.”

The advisory, issued in an Oct. 12 training bulletin, is the first time that Taser International has suggested there is any risk of a cardiac arrest related to the discharge of its stun gun.

But Taser officials said Tuesday that the bulletin does not state that Tasers can cause cardiac arrest. They said the advisory means only that law-enforcement agencies can avoid controversy over the subject if their officers aim at areas other than the chest. (Anglen, R, 2009).

As the above states, “Taser officials said Tuesday that the bulletin does not state that Tasers can cause cardiac arrest”. This is completely false. The following is taken from the training bulletin released by TASER International, “while it may not be possible to say that an ECD could never affect the heart under any circumstances, the risk of VF is extremely rare and would be rounded to near zero” (Taser training bulletin, 2009).

In a media interview, a spokesman states, “No where did they say the Taser could cause cardiac arrest”, and here as you can see, the bulletin clearly states it can happen, even though TASER claims the chances are low. Low or not, they are still stating it can happen. The hypocrisy, however, does not stop there. The bulletin also states the following:

“Should Sudden Cardiac Arrest occur in an arrest situation involving a TASER® electronic control device (ECD) discharge to the chest area – plaintiff attorneys will likely file an excessive use of force claim against the law enforcement agency and officer and try to allege that the TASER ECD played a role in the arrest related death by causing ventricular fibrillation (VF), an arrhythmia that can be fatal without intervention. The available research does not support this” (Taser training bulletin, 2009).

TASER states in their bulletin that “the available research does not support this”. This is another complete false statement and misleading. There have been numerous studies done with TASERS, and experts have come forward warning of the possible dangers of TASER and cardiac arrest. CBC News reported in 2008, a team of doctors and scientists at the trauma center at Cook County Hospital conducted tests on pigs with the TASER device. The results were shocking – literally.

“The team of doctors and scientists at the trauma centre in Chicago’s Cook County Hospital stunned 11 pigs with Taser guns in 2006, hitting their chests with 40-second jolts of electricity, pausing for 10 to 15 seconds, then hitting them for 40 more seconds.

When the jolts ended, every animal was left with heart rhythm problems, the researchers said. Two of the animals died from cardiac arrest, one three minutes after receiving a shock” (Chicago study calls taser safety claims into question, 2008).

Police officers need to be aware of the dangers says the experts,

“Dr. Andrew Dennis, a Chicago-based trauma surgeon and police officer who worked on the study, said if Tasers can affect pigs, more research needs to be done to study how safe the stun guns are. In the meantime, police should question when, and on whom, they use the devices, he said.

“The officers need to question themselves and ask themselves, ‘Is this the appropriate situation for this device?’ “Dennis said. “They need to have the understanding that this is not a truly benign device” (Chicago study calls taser safety claims into question, 2008).

TASER International hit back with the following statement:

“Rick Smith, the CEO of Taser International and company co-founder, doesn’t think much can be concluded from the Chicago study because it focused on pigs that weigh less than 100 pounds and have a very different physiology from humans.

Smith said studies done on humans have shown Tasers don’t pose a serious health threat.

“The human studies are clearly much more relevant to policy-makers, and to people that are interested in the science of how Tasers affect people,” he said” (Chicago study calls taser safety claims into question, 2008).

Again, however, we see more hypocrisy on the side of TASER International. As CBC News correctly points out, “pig studies have been used as evidence in arguments for and against stun guns in the past. Even the Taser International website points to studies on pigs in which the outcomes suggest the stun guns aren’t a serious safety risk” ” (Chicago study calls taser safety claims into question, 2008).

Evidently, it’s ok for TASER International to promote testing with pigs when it’s in their favor, and to dismiss it when it is not. So far much of TASER’S positions on the issue have been nothing more then double talk and misinformation, this is in my opinion is very concerning. They say no research is available to support the dangers of cardiac arrest, yet we have a study they commented on and attempted to refute. They say that pig studies are not creditable,  yet they promote it when it’s in their favor with the findings. How can a police officer confidently use such a device in a real world setting when the very manufacturer continues to shift its position on what the device is,or is not capable of? The real problem is that if TASER were to admit to such an issue, millions of dollars would be at risk. There have been many lawsuits against Taser International, many of which are actually police officers who were hurt during training.  A study in 2006 found that many of the devices on the street were more powerful then TASER International claimed they were capable of.

“A study measuring electric shocks from a Taser stun gun found that it was 39 times more powerful than the manufacturer claimed, raising new questions about the weapon’s safety.
The study, published last month in the peer-reviewed Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers, concluded that the shocks are powerful enough to cause fatal heart rhythms. It is one of the few scientific studies of Taser’s electric jolt in which the company did not participate.

“The findings show the energy delivered by the weapon to be considerably understated by the manufacturer,” the Journal study said. “These findings place the weapon well into the lethal category” (Study raises concern over Taser’s safety, 2006). Canada removed many Tasers from use on the street as a result of finding Tasers that were emitting too much power.

In 2007, Pamela Schrieiner, a former employee of TASER International, testified in an affidavit about her experience while working at TASER. Pamela stated in 2004 she was hired as an executive legal assistant for the executive team at TASER International. She states “I reported to Doug Klint, corporate counsel, rick Smith, CEO, and Tom Smith, the company’s president.” Pamela states she was assigned to organize a large number of volunteer exposure reports that were located in boxes scattered throughout the offices. Volunteer reports are documents filled out by police officers exposed to the effects of the TASER. Pamela states “while creating the spreadsheet, I became aware that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of injuries noted on the volunteer exposure reports”. According to Pamela, Doug Klint and Rick Smith became very upset at this. The company was under investigation by the Security and Exchange Commission, and the Department of Justice concerning the safety of TASERS. Pamela states” Mr Klint and Mr. Smith told me to remove the data from the spread sheets for most of the injuries which I had entered. They then shredded most of the reports showing injuries, bringing in dumpsters to dispose of the paper. Many of the destroyed documents contained reports of injuries to the back”.

Pamela states that in late 2004 there was a meeting held about information being leaked to the media. TASER had hired some off duty police officers to investigate the issue. Pamela states she was accused of leaking information by the officers, and even though she claimed her innocence, she was forced to resign. Pamela says since leaving TASER International, she has been threatened by people hired by TASER. She states that people she has never met would come up to her in the grocery store, and tell her “it’s not a good idea testify against TASER”. Pamela ends her testimony by stating the following:

“Rick Smith, Tom Smith, and Doug Smith are responsible for hiding and covering up information on the extent of injuries to officers during TASER trainings. I know this because I was instructed to alter the spreadsheets and saw them destroy documents. Doug Klint told me that the lawsuits against TASER would go away because there would be no documents to prove that TASER knew that injuries were happening”.

Pamela is set to testify on behalf of a case involving a Georgia State Trooper. According to RMCP watch.com, the following has taken place:

“Ms. Johnson, the lawyer representing the Georgia state trooper, filed an emergency motion for a protective order from the court regarding the expected deposition of Ms. Schreiner. The woman did not wish to testify in the Phoenix area, “due to the previous threats and harassment by members of the law enforcement community in the Phoenix area on Taser’s payroll,” the motion says.

Since then, Taser has been asking numerous “intrusive and harassing questions” about Ms. Schreiner’s finances and private medical history, according to Ms. Johnson’s motion. The company has subpoenaed her tax returns, bank account statements, phone bills and documents reflecting “your diagnosis of and treatment for cancer” for the years 2004 and 2005” (ex-taser worker alleges she was threatened, 2009).

The fact TASER International is demanding such irrelevant history about Mrs. Shriener demonstrates troubling lengths in which they will go to somehow destroy a person’s creditability. RMCP Watch.com goes on to state the following:

“The Georgia case that includes Ms. Schreiner’s allegations involves claims of a debilitating back injury sustained by David Wilson, a former Georgia State Trooper, during his training on how to use the device.

That case, launched last year, is similar to one filed by RCMP Constable Dan Husband, who was stationed in Revelstoke, B.C., when he suffered a back injury after a voluntary Taser strike, he claims. Officers are encouraged to experience a Taser shot as part of their training, the suit says. Const. Husband’s suit was filed a year ago but only made public this week in the National Post.

There have been at least 10 training-injury lawsuits filed against Taser since 2003, according to the company. They are among the more than 100 product-liability suits it has faced, according to the company’s most recent filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. stock market regulator.”

“Lawyers for Taser, who are defending against the Georgia suit, filed weighty legal arguments trying to keep a jury from hearing Ms. Schreiner’s allegations. Taser said in court she resigned after working for nine months when she was accused of providing false information during a corporate investigation and that her affidavit contradicts her earlier statements”(ex-taser worker alleges she was threatened, 2009).

These issues are very concerning considering many officers have been injured in training after being encouraged to take such a hit from the TASER. I, myself, was hit with the TASER in training and suffered a severe back strain to my upper back that required medical attention resulting in missed work. Had I known about such cases involving officers being hurt in training beforehand, I certainly would have made a different decision. The risk of injury vs. no benefit to receiving a hit in my opinion is not worth it. The fact TASER allegedly destroyed such information that should have been shared with officers, including myself, is even more concerning. I am not unique in this regard. One such example is that of a 38 year old officer in 2007. This officer volunteered to demonstrate the safety of the TASER for the British Metropolitan Police.  After being hit with the device he was rushed to the hospital with severe back fractures. Janes.com sates the following:

“A police officer in the US who volunteered to be the subject of a Taser demonstration has suffered possibly lasting damage including spine fractures after receiving a five-second discharge, according to a respected medical journal.

The 38-year-old victim was rushed by ambulance to hospital where a scan showed he suffered compression fractures in his spine caused by muscle spasms triggered by being Tasered in a training class.

The case has now entered medical literature after being written up in the eminent American College of Emergency Physicians journal which released the details

Supt Charlie Hill, staff officer to the ACPO police use of firearms working group, said the case underlined the need to move with caution until more can be discovered about the potential side effects of using Tasers”(Officer injured in taser demonstration, 2007).

A more recent case is that of Utah man, 32year old Brian Cardall. Brian had a history of mental illness. While on a road trip from Arizona with his wife, he became agitated. Brian had stripped his clothes off and began having an episode. His wife called for the police to come help detain him. When the police arrived they TASERED him, knocking Brian unconscious. He died shortly after at a nearby hospital. Brian’s wife was pregnant when he passed, leaving behind three children and a wife. Had the police been aware that the device could kill Brian, or if it was found that the mentally ill are more susceptible to the TASER, they almost certainly would have used another method (Non-lethal weapon kills utah man, 2009).

In conclusion, should the TASER be taken off the street? In this peace officer’s opinion no. It can still serve as a good tool in law enforcement as long as it is used appropriately and respectfully. People reading this article should understand I am not anti-TASER. I am however for doing what I believe is morally and ethically right by putting the safety of fellow officers in training and the safety of the general public first and foremost. In my opinion the following should take place concerning the TASER:

1. There should be a federal investigation into the legitimacy of Mrs. Schriener’s testimony and validated whether or not important evidence of the device’s safety has been withheld and destroyed.
2. There should be federal and private sector independent testing of the device. It is not ethical that the general public be used as a test bed for the TASER, while TASER International continues to change their policies and positions as people suffer the consequences after being exposed to the device.
3. The  number of officers injured during “safe” taser training must be taken seriously. This device must be respected.  It is not a toy, and officers should not be encouraged to take a hit. We don’t shoot each other with our firearms and bean bag rounds, and we don’t hit each other with our batons.
4. The TASER should be moved up on the use of force continuum to hard techniques. Passive resistant suspects do not warrant use of the TASER and the TASER should not be used as a compliance control device.
5. New training methods and procedures regarding use of the Taser should be implimented.

The above stated points should be addressed. The longer this device is used without proper testing, study, care, and respect, the longer people will unintentionally suffer unwarranted injury or death as a result.  There are now many cases pending regarding people who died shortly after being hit with the TASER – and it was in situations where lethal force would not have been used or permitted. One thing should be remembered above all else-  as law enforcement officers, we commit to protect the public and to serve. It is a cause greater than ourselves. The TASER is a tool, not a symbol of loyalty. There is no reason why law enforcement cannot take grounded approach to the issues discussed here concerning the TASER.  We are loyal to the oaths we take and that includes getting to the bottom of how safe this device truly is before we subject someone to its use unnecessarily.

References

14 year old girl shot in head with taser. (2009). Retrieved from

http://current.com/items/90490049_14-year-old-girl-shot-in-head-with-taser.htm

Anglen, R. (2009). Taser advises police not to aim at chest. Retrieved from

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/10/21/20091021taser1021.html

Celizic, M. (2009). Great-grandma dared cop to tase her, so he did. Retrieved from

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/31202935/

Chicago study calls taser safety claims into question. (2008). Retrieved from

http://www.ppao.gov.on.ca/pdfs/sys-tas-cbc1.pdf

ex-taser worker alleges she was threatened. (2009). Retrieved from

http://www.rcmpwatch.com/ex-taser-worker-alleges-she-was-threatened/

Officer injured in taser demonstration . (2007). Retrieved from

http://www.janes.com/news/lawenforcement/pr/pr071011_1_n.shtml

Study raises concern over taser’s safety. (2006). Retrieved from

http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11338

Taser training bulletin . (2009). Retrieved from

http://www.fbinaa.org/files/public/TaserTraining_Bulletin_MEMO_10_14_09%5B1%5D.pdf

Non-lethal weapon kills utah man. (2009). Retrieved from

http://blogs.sltrib.com/slcrawler/index.php?p=741&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Watson, S. (2008). Doctors condemn “threatening” taser court ruling. Retrieved from

http://www.infowars.com/doctors-condemn-threatening-taser-court-ruling/

The Nigerian man claimed he had been sent to destroy the plane on orders of Al-Qaeda. What could have been a very terrible disaster during “the most wonderful time of the year” ended in success as the passengers of flight 253 swarmed the terrorist as the explosives failed. Christmas miracles do exist after all. The plane was able to land with no life- threatening injuries.

The reason this event is one of massive significance is due to the fact that the world and even the U.S. is increasingly falling into a state of malaise and denial. A pre-9/11 mentality is taking hold and rhetoric such as “man caused disaster” is taking the place of common sense. Is it really going to take the periodical terror attack to remind the world that there are people with a violent agenda? The World Allies need to step up to the plate, and quit acting as if this is a law enforcement issue. This issue is one of massive scale, and the perpetrators have made it very clear they are at war.

One issue that seems to confuse people is the concept of terrorism itself. People must realize that after 9/11 the world changed. It will never go back to a pr-9/11 state. While you would think this was clear, many just seem not to comprehend this. They speak about “winning” the War on Terror as if there is one leader who is going to sign terms of surrender. This is false, and the sooner people wake up to this the better. This is not a war in the traditional sense. In terms of terrorism, it never will be.

When many think of the War on Terror, they often think of roadside bombs, air strikes and the engagement of military powers. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, war is defined as follows: “a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>” (Merriam-webster online dictionary, 2008). Much like The War on Drugs, or The War on Disease, The War on Terror is a fight against an ideology. Fighting does take place, but it is a class war in the true sense. You have opposing philosophies squaring off to do battle. In this case the United States and her allies believe in human rights, the freedom of religion, happiness, and a world free of oppressing theology. The other fights for an Islamic world- wide government that will rid the world of all non believers, Muslims included.

Obama and his administration must wake up before harsh lessons of the past are repeated. The War on Terror is very complicated, which requires much research to accurately comprehend.. There are mass amounts of disinformation, mainstream “talking points”, and popular clichés that all fail to accurately bring the situation to the table. Iraq clearly had much ambition to further its threat to the West. When 9/11 took place, a great game of chess was unleashed on the world and threats needed to be prioritized. With the Intel that had been provided, and the Intel that has been found since, it is safe to say that Iraq is a logical military action determined to provide arms into the hands of Islamic Jihadists. Before 2001, history shows that the United States suffered from constant terrorist attacks. Since going on the offensive, there have been minor attacks throughout the world, and none on United States soil. This fact cannot be ignored. The War on Terror is effective, working, and necessary to secure the safety of this nation and her Allies. This is a world issue, not just a United States one. While the world continues to turn a blind eye, rogue nations of the world continue to arm themselves. History should serve as the ultimate guide when dealing with such issues. Hitler was ignored and not taken seriously at face value. His intentions were not hidden, and yet nations continued to ignore the warnings. That ignorance was paid by the blood of fifty million people whose lives were lost during WWII; all of which could have been avoided with proper intervention and action. Action is the key word in that statement. Sometimes it is not enough to sit back and talk; at times action must be taken and someone will have to do the heavy lifting. People must wake up. It should not take the occasional man on a plane trying to blow us up, or a terrible car bomb to remind us that these people are real and are bent on doing us harm. Ignorance and complacency may be comfortable and convenient, but it comes with a price and it is a luxury we can no longer afford.

References

Irwin, J. (Photographer). (2009). passengers help foil attack on detroit-bound plane. [Web]. Retrieved from

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091226/D9CR18JO0.html

Merriam-webster online dictionary. (2008). . Retrieved from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/WAR

By Nick Dial

When does political correctness reach a point of total insanity? No longer is political correctness just lip service to the easily offended, it now comes with the price of lives lost or endangered.

According to this new administration, we are no longer in a war against terror; we are in an “overseas contingency”. Acts of terrorism are now labeled as “man caused disasters” and we are no longer at war with Jihadist- only Al-Qaeda. Is Al-Qaeda not a group of Jihadist? In the name of political correct rhetoric and agenda driven spin, we have now reached a point where nothing is what it seems and everything is spun to deflect away from what it truly is.  The only thing missing from this scenario is a white rabbit wearing glasses and a bottle that says,  “drink me.” Only when you drink this liquid, you don’t grow in size – you simply march in step with the rest of the mainstream pundits of the media. Oh, how collective our society has become! Alice chasing the rabbit down this twisted trail of illusions in what is now The United States of Wonderland.

On November 5, 2009, an Army Major, Nidal Hasan Hassa, opened fire in the Soldier Readiness Center of Fort Hood. The shooting was said to have lasted approximately 3 minutes. By the time the shooting stopped, 13 were dead and 30 wounded. Immediately afterward, questions began to fly as to what the motive might have been. The mainstream media, however , and the liberal left, wasted no time projecting their hypothesis into the mix.  Headlines started to fly such as “War on Terror Takes Its Toll”, implying that it was not the shooter that was at fault, it was the stress of the war. Claims were made from “post traumatic stress disorder,” even though Hasan was never in combat, to he simply “snapped”. Everything and anything was thrown into the mix to derive away from what this truly is. It is none other than an act of domestic Islamic Terror.

According to the FBI, the definition of terrorism is as follows:

“The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

Given the above stated definition, we must ask ourselves, does Hasan fit this definition? Before deciding, let’s take a look at some of the factors surrounding Hasan and his actions.

Before Hasan  opened fire that day, there had been reports among colleague that Hasan showed contempt for the War on Terror, and the Role the U.S. was playing. According to Bloomberg.com, a doctor who was in a graduate program with Hasan stated he called the War on Terrorism “a war against Islam.” Bloomberg.com goes on to state the following:

“While studying for a masters degree in public health in 2007, Hasan used a presentation for an environmental health class to argue that Muslims were being targeted by the U.S. anti-terror campaign, said Val Finnell, a classmate.

“He was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second,” said Finnell, 41, a preventive medicine doctor in Los Angeles, in an interview yesterday. He was always concerned that Muslims in the military were being persecuted.” Others who worked with Hasan stated that when he was challenged on such views, he became sweaty, flustered, and visibly upset.

The questionable behavior surrounding Hasan doesn’t stop with the above information. According to The Telegraph.CO.UK, the following was discovered about Hasan and his behavior in the military:

“Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America’s Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats”.

“He also told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe”.

Obviously Hasan shared the same belief in Wahabbi driven Islam as his Al-Qaeda counter – parts. As additional information comes forward dealing with Hasan, continuing details lead to the fact that this was indeed, an act of a lone wolf domestic terrorist. A lone wolf terrorist is someone who acts alone in carrying out an act that is social or political in nature. A perfect example of a lone wolf is Timothy McVeigh and his 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City. His positions were clearly anti- United States Government; can the same not be said about Hasan? According to ABC, Hasan, in fact, tried to contact Al-Qaeda directly. ABC reports the following:

“U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with an individual associated with Al- Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News”.

It is not clear if much came from his attempts to contact Al-Qaeda, but the fact he tried speaks volumes regarding the motivation of his actions against the military.

Now that some of Hasan’s actions and behavior have been covered, a recap would be helpful in examining the intent behind his actions. Hasan did the following:

• Stated he is a Muslim first and an American second.
• Stated the war on terrorism was “a war against Islam.”
• Stated that Muslims were being targeted by the U.S. anti-terror campaign.
• Became sweaty, flustered, and visibly upset when challenged on his views.
• Gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said “non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.”
• Told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that “non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire.”
• Gave medical colleagues an extremist interpretation of the Koran which lasted approximately an hour.
• Attempted to contact Al-Qaeda before the event took place.

Based on the above overview, is it fair to suggest and conclude that Mr. Hasan was indeed a lone wolf terrorist acting in the name of radical Islam?  Again, the definition used by the FBI of terrorim states the following, “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Force was used against both government and civilian personal. It was clearly in opposition to the War on Terror and to promote Islamic Jihad and its values. Based on everything covered and the definition given, this a clear case of Terrorism.

Based on the above reported behavior leading up to this event, many may ask how did it get this far in the first place?  This is where political correctness comes in and rears its ugly head. When red flags are ignored to such an extent in the name of political correctness, a serious look should be taken at how similar situations  will be handled in the future. According to Fox News, the warning signs were there, but political correctness kept any serious inquiries from moving forward. Fox reports the following:

“There were definitely clear indications that Hasan’s loyalties were not with America,” According to Lt. Col. Val Finnell, Hasan’s classmate at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He and Hasan were students in the school’s public health master’s degree program from 2007-2008.

“The issue here is that there’s a political correctness climate in the military. They don’t want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody’s religious belief, or they’re afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.

“I want to be clear that this wasn’t about anyone questioning his religious views. It is different when you are a civilian than when you are a military officer,” said Finnell, who is a physician at the Los Angeles Air Force Base.

“When you are in the military and you start making comments that are seditious, when you say you believe something other than your oath of office.  Clearly, someone needed to ask -why is this guy saying these things?

“He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical Jihadist views,” Finnell said. “When you’re a military officer you take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

“They should’ve confronted him — our professors, officers — but they were too concerned about being politically correct.”

Unfortunately, we have reached a point in society where political correctness has superseded common sense. When people are injured or lose their life due to incompetence fueled by political correctness, society as a whole must take a hard look in the mirror of life. Life is not fair, nor is it a “politically correct” world. There are losers and winners, there is friend and foe, there is dark and light, and there is safety and danger. The time has come to quite playing childish games. The real world is hard and full of danger. We must stop trying to project a fabricated image of “perfect unity,” where questioning topics that are uncomfortable and provocative are avoided. This isn’t Kindergarten. In the real world not everybody gets the same amount of jelly beans and not everybody is a “friend”. Perhaps the nation needs to go back to grade school and retake courses in “stranger danger.”

By Nick Dial

Troop morale in Afghanistan is reportedly low. Before asking why this would be, let’s look at some of the events that have transpired in the last year. Obama announces he will close Guantanamo bay with no preformulated plan on how this would be achieved. He then decides to suspend military tribunals in favor of civil criminal approaches, which would result in detainees having the advantage due to the fact they were not captured on a battlefield and not in a situation where police conduct a formal investigation and tag evidence. Obama then pushes for Miranda rights to be read to prisoners captured on the battlefield; something of which they have no constitutional entitlement to in the first place.

With this alone, one must question;  what, exactly is the tact being used here?  Obama changed the rules of engagement for U.S. troops, stating they cannot fire on a structure from which they are receiving fire. They must first see the enemy, something which more often than not is impossible when taking hostile fire from a structure 300 plus yards away. According to one report in Afghanistan, “U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village”. These new rules resulted in the death of several marines when they became pinned and ran low on ammunition. Fact is, a president that has never served in combat is dictating how our troops should conduct themselves in combat and as a result they are dying.

The questionable decisions, however, don’t stop there. Obama has cut funding for research and development, insulted our European allies with denial of the promised missile shield, and continues to drag his feet with Afghanistan. President Obama personally picked General Mcchrystal and yet he does not show much interest in meeting General Mcchrystal’s recommendations. General Mcchrystal requested troops in August of this year, yet it took the president until October to meet with him for a mere twenty- five minutes. General Mcchrystal requested 40,000 troops and what does Obama do after procrastinating for more than a month? Nothing, he stalls more saying he must wait for a clear election in Afghanistan.  The president has repeatedly shown that other priorities come before the troops. How do you explain to your military that booking seven talk shows to promote health care and flying to Copenhagen to promote the Olympics in Chicago is more important than addressing the war in Afghanistan in which our troops are fighting and dying?  The president has stated that we are no longer “at war with terror”, acts of terror are “man caused disasters” and “we are no longer at war with Jihad”. Perhaps the troops and the enemy didn’t get that message, because we have dead heroes coming back home in caskets from fighting Islamic Jihadist!

When does incompetence turn into all out betrayal? Earmarks and pet projects are nothing new when it comes to Washington, but what about when funds for the military are taken away from our troops and given to pet projects instead? According to the Washington Times, “Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis” (2009). The article goes on to state “$25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat” (2009). This recent act is simply a slap in the face to the troops by this administration. How can we expect the morale of our troops to be high when this administration continues to put its own self -serving interest before the troops?  Have they no shame?

References

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/troop-funds-diverted-to-pet-projects/