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
Farah, D. (2003). U.s. links islamic charities, terrorist funding. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A17354-2003Aug19¬Found=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 was 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. Recently President Obama made the statement that if you “looked like an illegal immigrant, you didn’t have your papers and you took your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed,” (Politcal punch, 2010).
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, and 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. “Republican governor Jan Brewer is deciding whether to sign the bill. “Reasonable suspicion” is not clearly defined. But it’s obvious that anyone who “looks” Latino, just like anyone who looked Jewish, could be stopped and required to produce documentation proving they are legally in the country.” (Valen, 2010).
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. The argument made by the above author claims there is no definition in the state law as to what “probable cause is.” This is unnecessary. This falls under federal law which is mandated by constitutional law, which in return trumps state law.
“When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears. It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).” (Probable Cause, 2011).
Probable cause is clearly defined, and this argument holds no truth or merit in its current argued state.
Myth: you will now have to carry “papers” on you to prove citizenship.
“The legislation makes it a misdemeanor for foreign nationals to lack proper immigration paperwork in Arizona. But since it’s impossible to identify a foreign national by sight, it effectively mandates that all individuals in Arizona carry papers. That’s right: you, American citizen, can’t walk your dog or buy milk from the grocery store without having papers on you that confirm your legal residence. If you take your kids to the park and forget your documentation at home, you can be held in police custody until your information is verified, even if you’re a U.S. citizen.” (Menendez, 2010)
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. When you go to the DMV, you MUST provide vital records such as a birth certificate in order to obtain a valid driver’s license. If you are not a citizen, you still must have the proper paper work that shows you are in the nation legally before obtaining the license. The following are an example of some of the identification requirements provided by AZdot.gov, the Arizona State website for the vehicle Motor Division.
“Identification Requirements: You need two documents listed below-one must have a clear photo of you, or three documents listed below with no photo” (azdot.gov, 2011)
Examples of such identification include the following,
Primary: U.S. state or territory issued driver’s license, state issued birth certificate, U.S. passport, U.S. certificate of citizenship.
Secondary: U.S. Military ID, Social Security Card, Concealed Weapon Permit, Marriage Certificate.
As you can see, the documentation required by the state of Arizona to legally obtain a driver’s license already verifies one’s legal status and would not be accessible unless they were here in the country legally. When an officer stops an individual and must enquirer into legal status, whether or not that person holds a valid driver’s license with the state tells the officer most of what they need to know. Having a valid license takes the place of a birth certificate. The notion that you would have to carry such papers is false and not supported by fact, but rather emotional sentiment and misconception.
Myth: This law will lead to racial profiling.
“The practical effect of the law will likely result in officers engaging in racial profiling by questioning and detaining individuals based on their race and ethnicity. Even if you think that your State legislators are opposed to SB 1070, it is still beneficial for them to hear from constituents that a dangerous racial profiling law will not be tolerated” (ACTION ALERT: SAY NO TO RACIAL PROFILING: STOP THE SPREAD OF SB 1070!, 2010).
Fact: This is another empty claim with no logic attached. In fact, it’s a false logic based on ad populeum and sloganeering of racial profiling. 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 state. They will either profile, or they won’t; a bill won’t change that reality.
Myth: Most illegal immigrants only want to work; the real problem is drug crime. This bill does nothing to help fight the drug problem.
“SB 1070 did NOTHING useful to really deal with the real problem on our border. The real problem is those guys armed with AK 47s that were shooting at Pinal County deputies over by Interstate 8.We have a serious problem when drug cartel gunmen can get all the way to Interstate 8 to shoot at our deputies. Would there be a meaningful federal response if the gunmen were speaking Pashtun instead of Spanish? SB 1070 didn’t even come close to that problem” (Holub, 2010).
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 an 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 illegal aliens 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, largely leaving behind the criminal elements. Illegal aliens who are here for malicious 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 to 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.
AZ 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 driver’s 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 however, 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.
“The Bologna family filed a lawsuit Tuesday alleging that the city’s sanctuary policy shielding illegal immigrants from questions about their citizenship status — even those charged with a crime — was to blame, KCBS San Francisco reported. “The city adopted and enforced a policy that was actually inconsistent with and prohibited by federal law,” Bologna family attorney Michael Kelly was quoted as saying” (Family Sues San Francisco Saying Sanctuary Law to Blame for Murder of Father, Two Sons, 2008).
If California had a law in place like Arizona’s recent passing of 1070, this horrible crime may have been prevented the first day they discovered his legal status.
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 as 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 suit.
References
Family Sues San Francisco Saying Sanctuary Law to Blame for Murder of Father, Two Sons. (2008, April 08). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from Foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513378,00.html
ACTION ALERT: SAY NO TO RACIAL PROFILING: STOP THE SPREAD OF SB 1070! (2010, May 11). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from CAIR California : http://ca.cair.com/losangeles/action_alert/action_alert_say_no_to_racial_profiling_stop_the_spread_of_sb_1070
Politcal punch. (2010, April 27). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/04/president-obama-says-arizonas-poorlyconceived-immigration-law-could-mean-hispanicamericans-are-haras/
azdot.gov. (2011). Retrieved Septemeber 22, 2011, from Motor Vehicle Division.
Probable Cause. (2011, September). Retrieved Septmeber 22, 2011, from LectLaw.com: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm
Holub, H. (2010, May 23). SB 1070 does nothing to stop drug cartel gunmen. Retrieved Septemeber 22, 2011, from Tucsoncitizen.com:
Menendez, A. (2010, April 23). SB 1070: A Little Bit of History Repeating . Retrieved September 22, 2011, from Laprensa-Sandiego.org
Valen, C. (2010). probable Cause . Retrieved September 22, 2011, from ChristopherValen.com: http://christophervalen.com/blog/?p=259
By John Stricker
Well, it’s been ten years and the decennial United States Census is upon us all once again. It seems like only a couple of years ago I was asked how many bathrooms were in my house and whether or not I owned, rented, or had a mortgage. I didn’t answer them then and I’m not going to answer them this time.
I believe our nation should follow the Constitution of the United States and its amendments. I believe that with all of my heart. Not only should the government follow it, but so should its citizens. With that in mind, I will partially fill it out and supply the government with the information the Constitution says it should collect every ten years. To find out what that information is all we have to do is open our own copy of the Constitution. (You do have one, right? No? Well you can find one at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2 online.)
The part of the Constitution that deals with the census is Article 1, Section 2 and it reads:
“Section 2 – The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
Now the parts in italics were modified by the 14th Amendment, Section 2 and that reads:
“2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
So you need to take out the part in italics and put this amendment in there. The intent of this section is clear, it’s there to set the number of representatives in the house. It specifies, as amended, that it should count every person in each state. That number is to be reduced, however, by the number of non-taxed indians, and then proportionately reduced in a ratio of those ineligible to vote for certain reasons that are over 21 years of age with the total number of males over 21 years of age in that State. A bit complicated, I know, but not really and all we’re really concerned about is what information the Constitution demands to fulfill its mandate.
First, it needs to know a headcount of everyone living in the state. It also needs to know if you’re an Indian (Native-American, if you prefer) that is untaxed. It needs to know your age to determine a number and it needs to know your sex since that number is calculated by the male population.
What it does not need to know is whether or not your home is owned, you pay a mortgage, you rent, how many toilets you have, or anything else.
What can happen if you don’t fill it out? That falls under USC 13 Title 221 and you can look it up any number of places but the penalties are two-fold, should they decide to prosecute you. First, if you refuse or neglect to answer you can be fined $100. That’s it. No jail time, just a fine. Second, if you give false answers, you can be fined $500. Again, that’s it. No Jail time.
The remainder of this is what I do. I am making no recommendation and urging nobody to follow what I do, but I will share with you my feelings on the matter. I follow the Constitution. I provide them with the names of the people living in my house, their sex, and their age (by birthdate). I provide nothing else. If they want to fine me, then they are welcome to do that, but nobody has been fined for failure to fill out their census forms since 1960. (There was another prosecution over the 1970 census, but that conviction was thrown out on appeal.)
I want to point out that it is federal law that you answer these questions but it is not Constitutionally mandated. There are a whole list of laws that aren’t mandated in the Constitution and if you don’t follow them you can be prosecuted, even though you might believe these laws to be unconstitutional. I would also be remiss in my duties if I didn’t point out that the collection of information beyond what is required to fulfill the Constitutional mandates of Article 1, Section 2 have been heard in the US Supreme Court in 2002 and ruled that it was Constitutional in the case of Morales v. Daley.
The Federal Government, in my opinion, is becoming more and more invasive into the private lives of US Citizens. The decision of the Supreme Court is, again in my opinion, fundamentally flawed, but that is the topic for a different article. The US Government is exceeding its mandate in the Constitution on a daily basis and if they wish to fine me $100 for not completely filling out my form then it’s a small price to pay to put a chink in that invasive armor. Let your own conscience be your guide.
By Vanessa The “Afro-Conservative”
I’ve learned over time that the relationship between Blacks and the “government” is not as simplistic as pundits would like to make it seem. On the one hand some liberals believe that Blacks cannot survive without government, while some conservatives believe that government need not play an active role, under any circumstances except that which is delineated in the Constitution. Both extreme positions invariably dismiss key times in history when Blacks utilized government in order to subsist, and times in history when Blacks were able to subsist without the help of bureaucracies.
During slavery, despite collective sharing between Blacks families, these families still had to rely on the slave owner for goods and resources. Republicans understood the interdependent dynamics between the slave and slave owners. Republicans also acknowledged how difficult it would be for Blacks if they just emancipated Blacks without any formal support systems, what we know today as “safety nets.” On March 3, 1865 the Freedman’s Bureau bill was passed primarily by Republicans in Congress and was signed by Abraham Lincoln in order to provide food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, and employment to newly freed Blacks. After vetoing a bill to increase the federal power of the Freedman’s bureau, Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s Democratic successor later disbanded the bureau.
After a mere 7 years of support from the Freedman’s bureau (1865-1872), Blacks began to develop informal mutual aid networks. These mutual aid networks helped the two-parent (mother-father) survive by providing spiritual, physical, and emotional support during a very tumultuous time for Blacks. It’s no secret that during the Great Depression, whatever White America felt, it was magnified for Black America. Moreover, many “New Deal” initiatives, although lauded by those on the left, did very little to curtail the economic travails of Blacks.
Therefore, the Black Church was a powerful force that provided services for Blacks which included credit unions, sunday schools, job training, and various other services meant to elevate the spiritual, social, and economic standing of Blacks.
Government didn’t begin taking an active roll in the Black Community again until the 1960s. So, needless to say for over 88+ years, Blacks were on their own. According to the Department of Labor statistics between 1890 and 1940, Black males had slightly higher labor force participation as compared with Whites Males. Moreover, during the time between Reconstruction and the 1960s, many Blacks began to reap the benefits of free enterprise. For example, Greenwood, in Tusla Oklahoma, was one of the areas we know today as the “Black Wall Street.” Greenwood was home to many Black multimillionaires until the Race Riot (where Whites came in and burned down the homes and businesses of the thriving Blacks). Even after the race riots, proving the resiliency of Blacks- Blacks still rebuilt the town and it became economically prosperous once more–until desegregation caused Blacks to stop shopping at Black owned businesses and opened the door for Blacks to fraternize White owned businesses.
Before the Black church comprised of race-hustlers, political opportunists, and prosperity pimps, the Black church enforced principles that included family cohesiveness, education, and economic stability. Once government began to take an active roll in the lives of Blacks, the power of the Black Church in regards to setting mores (values) diminished. Instead, a new sense of “entitlement” was unfortunately embraced. This new formal aid network, otherwise known as “government social programs” began to dismiss the importance of the two parent (mother and father) family structure. High illegitimacy rates which contributed to the many other social pathologies we see in the Black community are a direct result of “government programs” usurping the roll of the family, community, and Black church.
As Conservatives of all walks, we must first understand the history between the dynamics of Black people and government. We must also acknowledge the times when government was beneficial to blacks (e.g. Freedman’s bureau) and times when programs and initiatives were to the demise of the Black community (War on Poverty). Currently, almost 70 percent of Black children (almost 90 percent) in the inner city are headed by single mothers. Social scientists of all political persuasions acknowledge that these trends didn’t begin until after Liberals began to infiltrate the Black constituency.
The objective no longer remains to criticize liberals but to counteract their paternalistic policies by drafting policies and proposals that call for a re-emergence of mutual aid networks (Church, non-profits) to help with problems associated with poverty, job-readiness, drug abuse, marriage, and economic literacy that plagues the Black community.
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/
By Nick Dial
On September 17th, 1939, Russia forcefully invaded Poland storming the borders along with Hitler’s Germany during the start of the Second World War. Russia had inflicted unspeakable acts against Poland’s military personnel after being defeated and apprehended. In 1940, The Soviets had executed approximately 25,700 Polish officers. This event came to be known as the Katyn Massacre. The Russians put the blame on the Nazis, but after the fall of the Soviet Union and an admitted testimony by Gorbachev, the truth was finally settled on who was really behind this horrific act. To say the least, the Polish people have not forgotten the oppressive nature of the Russian government and their lust for power in that geographical region of the world. For others around the world not bearing the scars of the Soviet Union, to remind them of the Kremlin’s long history of deviant actions, just take a look at the Georgian- Russian conflict that transpired this last year in 2008. Russia had indiscriminately fired on non military targets in cities, killing civilians. Russian troops were caught on camera pillaging towns of goods and private property. Video of Russian military vehicles were seen towing away private boats and cars. Surveillance footage even revealed Russian troops robbing banks at the height of the conflict. This behavior only goes to show the old ways of the Red Block are still in full force and provide testament to the brutality and lack of honor the Russian government and military still possesses to this day.
The reason the aforementioned history is important, is because one should understand the history in that region to comprehend ,if anything, why this issue should be handled with the up most care. Unfortunately, it would appear that the Obama Administration does not care for such formalities and are so eager to distance them self from Bush implemented programs, that they continue to wreak havoc in their haste and throw histories hard learned lessons to the wayside. September 17th was the 60th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Kremlin. What does the administration do? They give the Russians a gift by telling our allies we will no longer go forward with the scheduled missile shield that was promised by the Bush Administration. Russia has been beating their chest ever since the plan was announced and even threatened a nuclear strike against Poland for having such a facility. Their excuse was that they would not tolerate an offensive missile system in Poland. Problem was, however, the missile shield was not offensive in any way; it was defensive and designed to protect the U.S. and her allies from any rogue nations that would fire a missile. Nations such as North Korea, Iran, and even Russia if it were to happen. That was the key issue though; Russia did not like the fact that a system threatened their power and influence in the region. Plainly put, Russia does not want their power challenged in any way and like a typical bully, they began to intimidate any nation that would cooperate with NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), seek NATO membership, or cooperate with the U.S. in hosting any missile defense.
The Obama Administration has stated their reasoning for such a move is because reports have come out that Iran cannot yet reach far enough into Europe. While this is debatable, there are several other questions that must be addressed. Just because they can’t now, doesn’t mean they won’t be able to five years from now. What about North Korea’s hostile behavior? China is a rising military power that is often on shaky ground. What about the fact that Russia may one day become a hostile factor again? They at the very least should have sat down with our allies and discussed any issues. Instead, they disrespectfully betray them in a move to appeal to “Russia’s better nature” as this administration put it. The last time a nation attempted to “appeal to Russia” in good faith was in 1945. At the close of WWII, Russia was struggling to create a jet fighter with a reliable and powerful engine. In good faith, Britain provided the Russians with a Rolls-Royce jet engine. The Russians took the engine, copied it and never looked back. What did they do with the gift they had received? American pilots quickly found out in Korea when Russian Mig-15 fighters began attacking them over Korean airspace. A hard lesson had been learned about trusting this “ally”- and it was trouble ever since.
Obama claims that cost is a factor for scrapping missile defense. They say that it is not economical to fire a $70 million dollar missile to destroy a $15 million dollar missile. With this logic, they are actually saying American lives along with the lives of our allies are simply not worth the money. After all, what is the alternative? Without this system in place ,in the event of a missile fired, things will go boom and people will die as a result. The other problem with this stated position is the fact that this administration is so willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on pet projects, but continues to act as if national defense is a luxury that is a waste of both time and money. Let’s break this down. The following list was taken from the Stimulus Bill - all things that congress and this administration considered so important, that it had to be passed right away or face terrible consequences, remember?
• $2 billion earmark to re-start Future Gen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees…
• $150 million for Smithsonian Museum facilities.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
• $75 million for “smoking cessation activities.”
This is just a small sample of the pet projects that was rolled into a “stimulus bill”; a bill aimed at creating jobs. As you can see, almost none of these do anything to create jobs and yet a system that is designed to defend the nation and protect human life is not economical? It’s a good thing their spending 600 million on hybrid vehicles for federal employees. This will stop a missile threat. In fact, the 600 million spent on hybrids would pay for 8.5 of those missiles designed to shoot down ballistic missiles in case of a launch.
Part of this administrations largest problem is in two key areas. One, they don’t study their history. Two, they lack any sort of significant foresight on matters of national defense. Recently Obama stated he was scrapping the F-22 Raptor, the most advanced fighter in the world. He states it costs too much and there is no need for us to have such advanced weaponry. Once again, lack of foresight. China and Russia are both trying very hard to catch up to us in regarding military technologies and are working hard to build a fighter to match it. Air dominance is the key to winning today’s wars and the point to remember is that we build weapons to fight tomorrow’s wars, not today’s.
Once again. we must look into the pages of history. In the 1930’s Germany was leading the world in military technologies. A major example of the Obama Administration’s attitude with defense can be taken right from history. The Germans had the wisdom and fortitude to realize that tanks were the future in ground combat. The United States was still caught up in the old ways of infantry and continued to have horse mounted cavalry rather than investing in tanks. When Germany launched their Blitzkrieg campaign in 1939, the world watched in horror as these perfected steel monsters rolled across Europe unchallenged. The Germans had provided a perfect example of military technology taking the lead. The United States was forced to scramble in an effort to catch up for the time they had lost, and the result was an inferior tank that was vulnerable to the German counterpart. Many men died as a result. The German tanks were so superior to the Allies, the Germans called the American Sherman tanks “Tommy Cookers”, due to the way they lit up after taking a hit. The German tanks were so advanced they actually achieved a 10 to 1 kill ratio in combat.
Because of the hard learned lessons of WWII, the United States made great efforts to never again be caught at such a disadvantage. The evidence of how important this factor was came to light during the Gulf War. Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world at the start of the war. Our stealth bombers were able to penetrate heavily defended air space and disable Iraqi forces, something that would have proved very difficult with conventional aircraft. Our M1-Abrams were so advanced to the Iraqi Russian built tanks that they were able to engage the Iraqi tanks a full mile before the Iraqi tanks were in range to fire back. The result was the defeat of the 4th largest military in just 6 short months.
Today Russia is jockeying around for power. They are aiding the Iranians in developing nuclear capabilities, oppose to any sanctions on Iran, and continue to undermine the United States in regards to national security. The Kremlin has made inflammatory statements against NATO Western Allies. They are becoming very friendly with Cuba and Venezuela, both ant- United States, and to top it off, they have recently sold Iran one of the most sophisticated anti-air missile systems in the world, the S-300. Given Russia’s continued behavior that constantly undermines the interest of the United States, why would we want to cozy up to such a government, all while insulting our allies in the process? My question is this; with all the billions being spent on frivolous pet and ear marked projects, an amount that could have paid for missile defense many times over, what will be this administration’s excuse if a missile is fired? I can hear it now, “don’t worry about the carbon from the mushroom cloud, we bought our federal employees hybrids to offset the carbon footprint!”
By Nick Dial
As each month dwindles by, so does another month with no progress made towards countering Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The situation is becoming grave and the sands of time are beginning to run low. Iran has made no attempt at hiding its intentions towards those who oppose its quest for nuclear nirvana. Repeated threats of wiping nations of the map appear to be common place with Iran’s regime. Ever since the 1979 takeover of Iran, Its people have been strongly oppressed by the Mullahs. While it’s safe to say that a great deal of the Iranian people do not support Iran’s current nuclear venture, they continue to be held hostage by a rogue group of dictators and thugs that constantly thumb their nose at the world in defiance. So far, what has the world shown in return? Apathy. Clear and simple apathy with no will to hold a nation at face value for its words or actions.
In 1945 The United Nations was created to deter such issues from taking place. The world had just been through a horrible world war and the thoughts of smooth talking demagogues that commanded powerful armies with advanced weapons were fresh in the world’s minds. Hitler had left a scar on the world and had proven how apathy from Europe and failure to react to the red flags clearly being presented, cost the world in blood. Humanity had been pushed to its very limits and if you try just a little, you can still see, feel, and listen to the aftermath of that horrible event. Today, it would seem that scar has faded away. Instead of the U.N. proudly displaying this scar to remind the world of its existence and why never again such an action should take place, they choose to cover it up with a little make up and put on a smile. Sure the U.N. is large and it can have quite a bark, but all too often there is never any bite. Instead we get an organization that is so corrupt it could rival ACORN, pitching nations against one another for veto power and serving their own self interest. What once started with good intentions has now turned into nothing more than a world class dog and pony show. Look no further then the Rwanda atrocities to find an example of their incompetence. Let’s not forget the Oil for Food scandal, where Russia, China, and Germany had illegal deals with Saddam. It’s no wonder they didn’t want us to go into Iraq, They were afraid we would find out the truth and they would have egg on their face. Turns out, they were corrupt and hid behind the disguise that they opposed the War on Terror because it was “unjust” when in reality they had their reputations on the line and were afraid of getting exposed. The reason the United Nations doesn’t work is because you have multiple countries with vast differences and agendas, especially Russia and the NATO west. They never agree and do nothing but out vote one another and jockey for position. When you can constantly veto your advisory, why vote in favor of helping them when it may make them stronger in the long run? The countries of the U.N. all have their own interest in mind, talking rather than acting and innocent people pay the price in blood and oppression for such incompetence.
In June of 2009, Iran faced a massive demonstration of the human spirit. When an evident case of election fraud re-elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, The Iranian people took to the streets and faced brutal resistance from the Mullah Regime. People were shot, beaten, and even had acid poured down on top of them from helicopters. Despite all of this , they continued to persevere. The one true image being seen that the mainstream media could not, was right in front of them. Iranians were holding signs of protest written in English. What many Westerners may not realize is the fact that most of these people do not speak English and had to go out of their way to accomplish this. This was a clear message to the western world, “We are here, and we want democracy too”. It was a cry for help, even if only to get moral support for the cause of freedom.
During the protest, what did we see from the Obama administration? Finally after much hesitation he “condemned” the brutal tactics of the Mullahs, but did nothing to really give moral support to the people fighting for a noble cause. The world sat back and watched as a people were brutalized. Many times before this event took place, Obama and his administration had made repeated attempts to have “talks” with Iran, only to be slapped away and publicly belittled for trying. Once again, an attempt has been made to negotiate with Iran and once again they simply said, “no.” What has Obama decided to do? The administration has stated they will be holding talks in October of 2009, talks of which Iran has made clear they want no part of in regards to their nuclear program. This is like scheduling a phone call with someone who says they won’t pick up. How many times does this administration need to be publicly humiliated before they realize they are having a one way conversation?
This administration is quick to reprimand the likes of Honduras, a nation that ousted a true tyrant, Manuel Zelaya, in the name of freedom to preserve their constitution, yet fumbles on supporting the people of Iran. Instead, they side with leaders like Chavez and Castro. Obama has been openly critical toward Israel and has done little to show them good faith in protecting their borders with an ever growing threat, Iran. One thing Israel should have done was pick up the ball that Obama dropped. For over a year, Iran and its nuclear venture has been front and center. Obama should have supported the Iranian people and put added pressure to topple the Iranian regime. We could not have asked for a better situation. Here was a golden opportunity to help the implosion of a rogue nation without the use of a massive military operation. That window is now most likely closed. Israel could and should have reached out to the people of Iran and built a bridge of moral support to fight against the Mullahs. Unfortunately this option may no longer be achievable and time is not on Israel’s side. A choice will have to be made. As months continue to go by, so does the deadline for Israel in making a decision. Strike them first, or wait for the worst. The United Nations played a key role in the creation of the Zionist state in 1948 and yet now, the U.N. seems so willing to offer this nation up on the altar of sacrifice as they sit back and do nothing. No doubt if Israel is forced to take action, the world will look upon them with damning eyes, very reminiscent of the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War, regardless of the fact that Israel was fired on repeatedly before taking action. In the World’s eyes, Lebanon was portrayed widely as the victim. The fact they elected Hamas, a known terrorist group into government rule, seemed to have no contributing responsibility. In reality, Lebanon themself had brought this aggression on through acts of violent aggression of their own. Even to this day, Israel is still fired on with random rockets hitting their inner cities. Will Israel ever be given the respect to defend herself that so many other nations on the world stage are privileged to do? Or, will they continue to be treated as some bastard stepchild who must always look down at the ground and only speak when spoken to?
By Clare M. Lopez
It’s a new era, alright: an era in which America’s moral compass is spinning aimlessly. While on an official visit to Baghdad Tuesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and top U.S. commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, hailed a new era in Iraq and touted an improved security situation at the one-month mark since U.S. troops pulled back from Iraqi cities and towns at the end of June.
But even as the two crowed (along with their Iraqi counterparts), Iraqi police forces were assaulting the civilian population of Ashraf City north of Baghdad, home to some 3900 unarmed members of the Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK). At day’s end, the MEK death count stood at four, while the injured numbered in the hundreds, and dozens more had been snatched and carried off by the Iraqi forces.
The MEK has been fighting tyranny and despotism in Iran since the group arose in the 1960’s on Iran’s university campuses to oppose the autocratic rule of the Shah. From the 1980s until the U.S. launched Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in March 2003, they had waged a desperate battle against the mullahs’ despotic regime from Iraqi soil where they took refuge after the Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution turned on the allies that had helped him topple the monarchy.
In the early days of OIF, American forces bombarded MEK camps, despite not being attacked first or taking a single shot in return. A ceasefire and MEK disarmament agreement culminated in 2004 with U.S. extension of Fourth Geneva Convention protections to the group, which had been exhaustively and individually investigated in the interim by a U.S. interagency panel and found completely innocent of any criminal or terrorist wrongdoing.
In this 2004 action, the U.S. declared the MEK members in Ashraf “protected persons” under the Geneva Conventions. This makes us responsible — morally and legally — for their safety.
U.S. forces honored their protective commitment up until the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), approved by the Iraqi government in late 2008, began to enter into force. In recent weeks, however, as the Iraqi government moved closer to assuming independent security control across the country, the U.S. has stood by passively as Iraqis, almost certainly acting on behalf of the Tehran regime, repeatedly blocked shipments of food, water, and medicines to Ashraf. As yesterday’s brutal assault unfolded, Odierno, speaking in Baghdad, observed blandly that Iran was employing “soft power” in a bid to shape Iraqi politics.
Amnesty International, the U.S. Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents, Maryam Rajavi, head of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), and supporters across the world issued calls to the international community, the U.S. government, and President Barack Obama personally to prevent a humanitarian disaster in Ashraf.
(The homepage of the Department of State, meanwhile, contained a selection of pieces about Hillary Clinton’s recent travels in Asia, an upcoming trip planned for Africa, and some commentary about North Korea and Russia — but not a single word about the savage attack by the police forces of our Iraqi protégé against courageous and completely unarmed Iranian civilians who have dedicated their lives for the last 30 years to the cause of freedom and democracy in their homeland. From the U.S.’s new Ambassador to Baghdad, Christopher Hill, not a word. From the administration’s new Iran specialist on the National Security Council, Ambassador Dennis Ross, not a word.
The official U.S. government reaction — in the face of massive street protests across Iran after June 2009 presidential elections widely seen as fraudulent — was to stand by passively, issuing mild expressions of concern about “the violence” as regime thugs clubbed, gassed, knifed, and shot unarmed demonstrators on the streets. Now, again, this administration is showing itself to be an enemy of those who stand for their liberty against the forces of tyranny. Desperate to achieve some kind of negotiations with the mullahs’ regime about its nuclear weapons program, the Obama administration seems not only oblivious to repeated public snubs from Tehran, but blind to the reality that this regime is unraveling before our eyes and has lost all domestic and international legitimacy.
Earlier this month, in yet another demonstration of abasement to the ayatollahs, the U.S. released Qods Force commanders who’d been captured and held in Irbil, Iraq since January 2007, when they were caught red-handed planning, coordinating, and executing attacks with Iranian-trained Shi’ite “Special Groups” terror militias that have killed hundreds of U.S. forces.
This is an administration that simply has no moral compass. Let the world be on notice: the leader of the free world has abdicated and instead now seeks outreach with thugs, terrorists, and rogue regimes around the world.
North Korea lurches toward regime succession by setting off nuclear tests, proliferating nuclear expertise to Syria, and launching missiles in the direction of Japan and Hawaii — but the Obama administration thinks more economic enticements should turn them right around.
Tiny, brave Honduras defends its constitution by removing a president in league with Venezuelan caudillo Chavez — and the State Department is now busy revoking its diplomats’ visas.
Oppressed Iranian citizens at last turn against a regime that has tortured and terrorized them for three decades — and the American president says he’s “appalled and outraged,” but can’t really be sure who actually won those elections. Besides, he still hopes the mullahs will accept his outstretched hand one of these days and sit down to a civilized discussion about why they should end development of nuclear weapons instead of continuing plans to wipe our erstwhile friend and ally Israel off the face of the map.
The United States disarmed the MEK in Camp Ashraf and then promised — under the Geneva Conventions — to protect them. Yet we stand by while they are being murdered. How can this be, America?
By Nick Dial
You know what really irks me about this administration? They have been spending absurd amounts of money on domestic pet projects turning everything into an “emergency” to push the agenda. The fact is, there is a real emergency going on right now. I heard on the news today that 4 soldiers died in Afghanistan. This really infuriates me. I haven’t heard one thing in the past three months about Iraq or Afghanistan by president Obama. He’s too busy engaging his “enemies” like Rush Limbaugh, when the nations REAL enemies are continuing to conspire and kill American troops. They re-label terror as a contingency and terror as “man made disaster”, but have the audacity to call dissenting Americans “political terrorists”, and “extremists”. They say now we are not at war with “Jihadists”, but isn’t Al-Qaeda Jihadists? There are four dead Americans coming home in the next week that may disagree with that statement. They are spending billions on failed social programs, all while cutting funds for the military and failing to dedicate the funds and resources necessary for the troops. I would rather see our troops come home then be subjected to a political game putting them at a disadvantage in the the field. Of course, we can’t do that and it would be very irresponsible.
Gee…Where did we see this before? Ah yes…Vietnam, where the Democrats, JFK and Linden B Johnson, put our troops in a war and then slapped ridiculous and arbitrary restrictions on them such as no fly or bombing zones in the north where all their factories and logistics were located. It was like expecting a boxer to win in the ring on your behalf, but then you tie his hands and say,” Dodge and weave until your opponent tires out – you can win that way.” It wasn’t until Nixon, a republican, was voted into office that the Vietnam war was finally fought as it should have been from the get go. He launched operation Line Backer, and unleashed our full potential on the enemy. Our hands were no longer tied and we were free to give them that much needed uppercut and left hook. Finally, the north was feeling the wrath of the United States and our B-52′s were breaking the backs of the North Vietnamese so badly that Ho Che Min came to the table to have peace talks. Foolishly, we took the deal and millions more died. One North Vietnamese Officer stated ,”the Americans will never know how close they were to crushing us”. In the end, the liberal left had their way and when we left, the killing fields began. Where were the the lefties outcry over that? I thought they were humanitarians?
Now in Afghanistan, the same game is being played. We have nuclear armed Pakistan, a supposed ally, and like Cambodia in the Vietnam conflict, we have these same restrictive rules. The enemy has free reign in Pakistan and continues to attack our troops from their country, yet Pakistan states we cannot pursue the enemy and must respect their sovereignty.It’s time to get serious.Iif we had fought like this during WWII, the Germans and Japanese would have mopped the floor with us – and then some. We need to get our priorities straight. We need to dedicate the funds to the war effort, mass our troops, and go into Pakistan and knock the hell out of the enemy. War is dirty and bloody. When you sit here and play footsie like we did in Vietnam and continue to operate in a box, nothing will be achieved. It only prolongs the fighting and people continue to die in vein. You want health care reform? You want stimulus bills in the trillions with pork attached? Do right by the troops and give them the pork! Give them the “reform”! Finish the job in that region and then we’ll talk about all the other stuff. This is like buying new furniture when your house is burning down.
