America Unprotected

It's been quite awhile since the Democrats refused to let the FISA renewal bill to even come to a vote in the US House of Representatives. This after the Senate reached a compromise, and in spite of the anti-American philosphy involved in preventing a vote - as we encourage peoples the world over to exercise an opportunity to vote.

America has been left unprotected. And the Democrats, led by Speaker of the House Representative Nancy Pelosi, are either not listening or don't seem interested.

It's time for them to hear us. Hear our concern. We need to get their attention.

I encourage everyone to go out and buy (it's good for the economy, and a worthy use of your stimulus check as there's a decent chance this will still be an issue when the checks are cut) a condom. One single condom (if you buy a multi-pack, enjoy the rest however you like - I hear they make great water balloons).

Mail the condom, along with a note reading, "Protect America!" to:

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515


Remember, when you don't use protection, it's like your country has been with every other country.

Insurgents Target Recruiting Station

In a scene all too familiar, insurgents against the United States being involved in Iraq targeted a recruiting station. Fortunately, no one was injured by the explosive blast.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

We've read these headlines so often coming out of Iraq that we don't really read them anymore.

But this time, it's different.

The dateline for this isn't a dusty city corner in Iraq... It was Times Square, New York City. And the target was a United States military recruiting station.

Presumably, we are to still believe that those who oppose the war "Support the Troops" (while targeting their workplace with explosive devices) and we should never "question their patriotism" (because blowing up your homeland is a protected form of free speech?)...

It's time for people who lead the genuine anti-war movement to repudiate (and for Senator Clinton's benefit, also reject) the vitriolic attitude and actions that lead to the thought processes where motivated people think setting bombs is a justifiable way to protest.

There are ways.

Ways that express your disagreement, while not lending one to question your patriotism (or sanity, or criminal intent).

And for future reference, when you want to say, "We support the troops", item number one on the checklist is "Don't blow them up."



The insurgents are here, and they are amongst us. Take note, America.

American Alienation

I've seen this on a few other blogs, and it is SPOT on. Frighteningly enough, it sounds like a few things I've been known to say.

Warning, strong, strong language. And some images that should bother you to no end.

Please, watch.

Different Values

Or... why we're different from them.

Recently, our government has undergone grand debates about whether or not "waterboarding" is torture, or a valid interrogation tool.

In recent news, we've learned that the prisoners at the "despicable" and "horrid" detainee camps at Guantanamo are given education classes and movies for entertainment.

And we know how closely the Coalition forces are held to rigid Rules of Engagement and expectations to uphold the Geneva Convention (though they clearly do not apply, we apply them anyway.)

And then, there's al-Qaeda.

Hürriyet Video'larını izlemet için Flash 7 veya daha yüksek eklenti yüklenmeniz gerekmektedir. Yüklemek için tıklayınız!!!

Curious, think there's any debate within al-Qaeda about this?

The State Department Represents __________

I've always believed that at the most basic level, the US Government represents the best interests of the citizens of the United States of America. I know, I know, we've been given plenty of evidence otherwise... however, this is a most egregious example:

The State Department is considering supporting the Palestinian Authority in its quest to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments won by American victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel, according to Palestinian officials and defense lawyers involved in the cases.

U.S. officials insist that no decision has been made regarding the complex litigation, which could force the Bush administration to choose between supporting compensation for victims of terrorism and bolstering the Palestinian government as the United States presses for a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Testimony in Israeli courts has connected senior Palestinian leaders -- such as the late Yasser Arafat -- to specific terrorist attacks involved in the lawsuits. But Palestinian officials have argued that it makes no sense for the United States to be providing millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian Authority while U.S. courts are threatening to bankrupt it.

In the article from the Washington Post, it's reported that the State Department is actually considering intervening on the part of the Palestinian Authority, and by logical extension, terrorists.

Huh?

The argument from the Palestinians is that the US is giving money to the Palestinian Authority with one hand, while supporting taking the money away with the other.

Ok, I can see that.

Let's introduce the PA to the IRS. I am an employee with the Federal Government. The government pays me with one hand, yet takes my money with the other.

I wonder if the Palestinian Authority would therefore support the abolition of the IRS in America, and perhaps all tax collecting agencies world-wide?

Preposterous, I'm sure they'd believe.

The Palestinians aren't the only ones with views regarding this matter. There are those relatives of the victims of terrorism who are parties to the lawsuits in the Israeli courts. They say that should the US give in to the Palestinian demands, then it'll decrease the moral authority of the War on Terrorism.

Good point.

So, there's debate to be had, no? And what happens to the debate if you return to the preposition that the US Government should represent the best interests of the country's citizens? Well, then in that case, it's simple. A) Stay out of it, and let the Israeli courts decide, and B) support your citizens in their efforts to pursue damages caused them by organizations which are against your moral imperatives, i.e. terrorists.

Sheesh, was that so hard?

A Chilling Way to Start Your Day

Once upon a time, the United States lived in mortal fear of the Soviet Union.

Nowadays, most look back upon the stories of what it was like back then as... nostalgia. The new youth certainly don't recall what it was like. Or how close to the edge, we often all lived.

When you study the past, you learn how the pendulum often swung back and forth between positions of strength for the US and for the SU.

Prior to 1981, following the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, and the drawdown of the post-Viet Nam era, the US military was not up to... snuff. President Reagan rapidly changed all that, and made quite a difference in the way the pendulum was swinging.

Prior to that, the following was certainly possible:




Certainly, we can all understand if people have the reaction, "But that was never possible." No? I've written in the past over the need for us to be prepared. Part of that requirement is to try to imagine that, which to us, is unimaginable.

In World War 2, we were surprised when the Japanese developed suicide weapons. It shocked and horrified us. They would willingly fly their planes into targets!

In this war, we're surprised when the Islamic fascists developed suicide weapons. It shocked and horrified us. They would willingly fly our planes into targets!

We often cannot fathom those who do not think like us. Whether it's Right vs Left, Conservative vs Liberal, Middle East vs West... Them vs Us.

Planning for your own destruction isn't exactly a joyous, fun activity. There are more exciting things to do, to be sure. However, it IS a necessary one. You must try to imagine what others will do, so you might prepare to prevent it.

Is this a big leap? Look at your house. Many of you plan for burglars. Perhaps they'd creep around in the dark - so you add motion-detector floodlights. Maybe they'll try to sneak into a window, so you make the windows harder to open. And if all else fails, we throw in alarms. And there's steps we take when we're away: stop the mail, ask the police to drive by, set lights to random timers...

WE PLAN.

Well, collectively, this is our house. We must plan. We must dream the unthinkable. And remember that the most likely attack will be the one we didn't dream.

Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

Who knows when the next sunny, clear day will arrive... when the world changes again?

Just a Thought on Security

This passing thought occurred to me the other day.. Are we TOO secure?

Now, before you start ranting back with, "No, you fool! Don't you know the _____ are about to attack us ANY minute?! They could even already be here," let me explain.

At work, there's a sign listing our various threat conditions. There's FPCON ALPHA, THREATCON ORANGE, INFO ALERT LEVEL ONE, and HOMELAND SECURITY LEVEL ELEVATED.

I'm sure up at the Pentagon, there's still the DefCon.

And who knows what other threat scales are out there.

To send an email (once I've already logged on to our super-secure system, though the level of its neediness leads me to believe that it's a super-insecure system) requires THREE separate security checks. And that's just to forward the latest ha-ha that someone else sent to me.

To get onto base, we have very diligent guards carefully checking each ID. But, I also saw some Jehovah's Witnesses seeking some converts (even on a military base, I guess it never hurts to try to make a convert or two), so how tight can it be, even after the Fort Dix incident (and others I won't discuss here)?

Part of the problem is that there are so many threat scales. Is a condition of "Three" good or bad? Well, if it's on a scale of one to four, maybe not, but who's to say the scale doesn't go to twenty? Usually just the current status is displayed, not the whole scale. And is a "One" high or low?

If someone ran into the office saying, "They've just upped the InfoCon level to Bravo!" what do I do? Should I start burning important documents or maybe just not surf to the CNN.com website? Oh my!

Is Orange a good color or a bad one? And we've been at it for so long... What are the other colors like? I think a nice paisley alert level could be fun.

Oh, and when you fly (wait for it... I'm not going to go into the charade that we call Screening Security )... Want to amuse yourself? Often posted on clip-on signs above the "Wait-Here-in-This-Ridicuously-Long-Line-That-Has-Osama-Laughing-As-We-Pat-Down-Elderly-Wheelchairbound-Ladies" meandering maze of belts, you'll find warnings. Warnings! You may be flying out of Podunk International Airport, but the Director of Homeland Security, and the TSA, would blike to warn you that the airport in Kuala Lampur does not meet their standards of security.

Oh my! I quickly will point this out to the one hundred and fifty people behind me in line, in case their plans had them going there. Of course, it's more likely that they're going to another US airport, which recent news reports say have security that does NOT meet the standards of the Director of Homeland Security, and the TSA. (For those who aren't familiar, recent tests of security showed that the lil' ol' ladies, and possibly others from their bridge(bombing) clubs, were able to smuggle plenty of suspicious bomb parts past our crack security forces. And we worry about Kuala Lampur.)

Ok, so what's my point?

We, as a whole, make a big show about doing SOMETHING for security, but in the process, we end up doing nothing.

You can imagine the meetings, can't you? The Commander or Director goes around the table and asks, "In two weeks, I want to know what your departments are doing about security."

And two weeks later, they all come back. "Sir, we've instituted this Five-Level scale to let us know what our threat level is!" "Excellent work, Smith!"

And lo and behold, not to be out-done, the others ALSO develop scales in their departments. "Sir! Our scale is more nuanced... It has Six levels." "Ours uses colors so people can easily understand the threat.." (Because if there's anything more confusing than colors, it's the numbers one through five or the letters of the alphabet!)

So, we have all these systems to show just how hard we're working on security. Just like standing in that long line at the airport, it's a big show.

No one truly seems to understand our threats (pretty colors and letters aside) because we've become too focused on the show instead of the substance.

Let's put and end to this nonsense. Either we can ditch all this acting and admit what the enemy already knows (and deep down, so do we) - that it's a show OR we can come up with a coherent approach and really be serious about our security.

Otherwise, we're just inevitably making it easier for them by tangling ourselves in multicolored knots.

This Threat Doesn't Seem to be Going Away

The topic is being raised, again. What topic?

Why, what I, and apparently Doug Ross, think would be one of the most devastating attacks upon our country. And also, a quite likely one.

The children.

Previously, I wrote both here and here.

Please, take a look... and keep an eye out.

Pointless Maneuvering

I would be negligent if I didn't comment (again) on the Iraq Supplemental vote.

Both the House and the Senate have now passed, albeit just barely, their own versions of the bill. Two notable qualities of the bills - they both set a deadline for our surrender and they fund more than the military needs, although Popeye does love his spinach.

What stood out today was the Honorable Rep. Pelosi's comments to the President (side-note: some of you may notice that one of the features of my posts is that I will ALWAYS use respect to those in their various positions, personal feelings aside. I feel it's lacking in today's discourse, and that lack is hindering debate. Compare with other blogs - you know where...).

"On this very important matter, I would extend a hand of friendship to the president, just say to him, 'Calm down with the threats, there's a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role. We want you to respect ours.' This war must end. The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of the war. Let's see how we can work together."

"I just wish the president would take a deep breath, recognize again that we each have our constitutional role and we should respect that in terms of each other."

Oh really. She wants respect. And, she wants the Commander-in-Chief to respect Congress' Constitutional role (please, show me where, Madame Speaker) in restricting the military conduct of our military.

Respect.

Wow.

The Democrats are insisting on pursuing a piece of legislation that is doomed to a veto, and is not veto-proof. For what purpose?

Why is the Democrat leadership going to the mat for this?

The naive view would be that the House would do two bills, one to fund the military, and then one bill, perhaps a very short one, saying that the Congress is curtailing the Commander-in-Chief's authority to deploy troops to Iraq. That way, the troops get their funding (see: "We Support the Troops") AND they get a very clean, no manipulation, vote.

But, that's not happening here. There's all kinds of bait, bribes, pork laden into this bill. If the principle were so clear, and from what I read in the MSM, and hear from the Democrats, there is a loud hue and cry from the American people demanding the Democrats take action (and to think, it's almost April... I'm glad it's something important.)

So, with 18 days remaining before the military starts running out of funds, according to a projection by the Defense chiefs... the money is tied up in political game-playing.

And Rep. Pelosi wants respect.

Madame Speaker, will that respect come when the military must begin curtailing training flying hours for its pilots? Or, will it be when deploying units can't practice live fire ranges because there's an ammunition shortage, and the troops downrange need the bullets? Maybe we'll respect you more when the fitness centers, family centers, Yellow Ribbon Rooms, and other MWR facilities are forced to reduce their hours due to lack of funds?

Speaker Pelosi does have a response to the concern about the military running out of money:

"The fact is the president of United States as the Commander-In-Chief has weakened our military. Why would he be saying to us we're running out of money when it's only a few weeks. Leadership would have required for him to have anticipated these needs."

'It's only a few weeks.' (For a Congress that historically has never been known for it's speed.) My favorite: 'Leadership would have required for him to have anticipated these needs.' Madame Speaker, earlier you were quoted referring to your Constitutional roles. In the quote, you mistakenly alluded to a role governing the military. Here, you again make a Constitutional mistake. You say the President had the Leadership responsibility to authorize the funding. How? In the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, paragraph 1, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives...".

Madame Speaker, the President has no Constitutional role to introduce a spending bill in the US House. Exactly how would you have preferred he demonstrate the leadership you felt he lacked?



In short, today Congress failed the troops. They announced our willingness to surrender, or run away within a set period of time, to our enemy. They announced that the Congress no longer supports the mission. And, I'm sure that message was not lost upon the enemy - either our known enemy now, or future enemies we haven't met yet.

Finally, I'd like to share where some other folks have posted their views.

Tanker Brothers

Newt Agrees With Me

Well, I'm sure I wasn't on his mind when he wrote his article. However, it's nice to see him saying the same points I was making in my post about the terrorist killing children. Also a scenario worth considering here.


Mr. Gingrich reminds us of these difficulties in an article he wrote, featured at HumanEvents.Com.

It's good reading, and I encourage you to take a peek.

Credit Where Credit Is Due

One of the common refrains we hear whenever an attack, outrage, or other event is perpetuated by Islamo-fascists is, "Will We Hear Any Muslims Condemn This? Not Likely."

Well, I'd like to give credit where credit is due. In this Washington Times' article, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy has offered to raise money to cover the legal fees for passengers of the USAir flight which the Imams were kicked off of.

Good for them.

Remember, it's important to point out when we do get what we keep asking for.

Five and a Half Years

It's becoming a popular thought, and an easy one, to believe that since we've not been attacked in five and a half years, that there are no more attacks to be had.

You see... the threats are drummed up by an administration that wants to distract the populace with fear to avoid them seeing all the other problems. Or so the thought goes - don't think it works so well... aren't we knee-deep in a Congressional hoo-hah about investigating people for not committing a crime? (Really people... to say that a politician hiring/firing a political appointee for political reasons is just playing politics. What do we expect? It's POLITICS, but that's another post.)

Some military strategists and cold war historians will remember this tactic: During the Cold War, we would often fly our aircraft right up to the Soviet Union's border, turning at the last possible second, to see what they would do. The Soviets would do the same. Cat and mouse. The objective was to get the enemy to think you were attacking and defend themselves... without anyone actually getting killed. Remember, back then, a small battle could have quickly grown into a history-ending war.

You always want to know how your enemy will react. What are their defenses? Their plans? Strategies? So you probe... testing their defense, try to have them show you their cards.

Alright, Kreskin, what's this got to do with not being attacked?

Do you think... do you REALLY think nothing has happened in the past five and a half years? al-Qaeda, et al, have done nothing?

No, we've been probed... and watched. Imams flying USAirways, for example. Good test of our reaction. Plenty of dry runs executed. People studying subways, vital assets, etc.

And due to the nature of our society, we do our best to help by publishing not only the probes that we catch, often letting them know how we caught them, but what our authorities did to respond.

Somewhere, there are teams of their group doing the same thing we do... game planning, playing "What If?", and coming up with ideas for attacks... and another group is dutifully recording all of our responses, even to incidents not caused by them, but educational just the same.



An attack will come, fellow Americans... and since they've studied us, I do predict it'll be catastrophic. Be prepared, not surprised, and keep this thought next time you go to a ballot box. Republican, Democrat, Liberarian, Green, Association-of-Purple-Horned-People-Eaters, whatever... make sure you keep this thought in mind for whomever you vote for: 1) How will they work to prevent the next attack, and 2) When it does come, what will they do to react?

Killing the Children

In a recent post, I posited a scenario where the terrorists attack our children in a plot to bring this country to a standstill, and to its knees.

It's a scenario that is counter to our intuitive nature; we do not imagine it possible that people would attack children. However, we need to remember that the enemy in our current struggle is not like us. We would like to believe that we are the same as they, that they live their daily lives as we do, but... it's important to know that the enemy is different.

How so?

This enemy does not hold the same values towards life. Don't believe me?

Let's review some stories.


Remember the great air terror scare last August (August, 2006)? One of the results is that we tend to mock the resulting security screening efforts -- no liquids of more than a minuscule amount, clear baggies, etc. Yet we seem to have lost one of the most frightening details.

Of the 20+ suspects arrested, two of the suspects were a man and wife. Part of their plan was to smuggle elements of the explosive in their baby's bottle, to avoid suspicion. Now think - in order to avoid suspicion, the baby would have to be present. That's right. They were going to bring their six month old baby on board the aircraft they planned to obliterate from the sky.


Beslan
Remember the hostages at Beslan? Where Islamic terrorists stormed a school, herded the children into a gymnasium, wired with explosives? Perhaps you recall how when some children tried to escape, the terrorists shot them? Many children dead.


Latest Terror Tactic
In this article, we learn that the enemy in Iraq is trying something new. In order to more easily slip past checkpoints with a car full of explosives, they will fill a car with a man, a woman, and children in the back seat. Now, the car looks less like a suspicious rolling bomb and more like a nice Arab family out for a drive.

Of course, should the "family" be stopped and questioned, perhaps asked to consent to a search, they will either protest loudly about how a family shouldn't be searched OR accept the target of opportunity and blow up the checkpoint.

But, if they're waved through, as happened recently, then they will drive to their target. The adults take off running, and detonate the car bomb - with the children still inside.


We think our children are safe because who would attack children? Our enemy. They want us dead. Not hurt... dead. They don't want to assimilate us. They wish to eradicate us. Our nation, our culture... is an affront to them. And if they can accomplish that by killing infidel children, so be it.

Be aware of what we're facing, and of what they're capable.

What We Should Be Asking

I was chatting with a good friend tonight, and our topics meandered, as internet chats tend to do.

One of the questions raise was, naturally, about the next Presidential election. I've always beleived that we ask our candidates the wrong questions. Yes, surely we would like to know where they stand, or would have stood, on recent issues of importance to us. How does Candidate Smith feel about drugs? Stem cells? The ubiquitous abortion question? Crime? Gun Control? Education? Etc., etc., etc.

But, contrary to what we've been led to believe since a certain scandal (you remember, "... it doesn't matter what he does on his own time, or his character, it's how he does the job..."), character does count.

We need to have some idea of what the President will do when our next unknown situation comes along.



For example.

Today's news story: Extremists Driving School Buses

It seems that there are people of extremists nature driving our children around. Concerned? No, of course not. Britney may have fallen in love in re-hab.

Besides, we're told it's not a concern. Of course, the FBI is often in the habit of investigating and chasing down leads of people that shouldn't concern us.


So, let's imagine a scenario...

It's not too long after the new President has taken office. The terrorists have listened to seven years about how we took the fight "over there" to keep them from hurting us "over here". And how they haven't been successful.

In the meantime, they've studied us. They know our weakest areas. Partly due to our freely discussing our weaknesses and doing exposes whenever a weakness comes out. (Always on an anonymous and confidential basis, of course.)

Their planners have worked hard. They've needed to get people into the country. While they might go through the new passport process, it's more likely that they came through one of our porous borders. Not as a group, but separately... over time.

So, cells in place? Check. Now, they may be innocuous and not even look Arab OR they may go the route of being blatant and using our political correctness against us (see: USAir imams).

They will need explosives... hmmm. Given the arms market, and the ease of moving things around... let's give this one a Check.

Target? Think for a second. In any issue that comes up, what is the number one way of trying to sway the emotions? "What about the children?" If the children aren't safe, no one is. That's our psyche. Nothing will tear at us more than a hurt child.

Opportunity? Hmmm, how about... school buses?

Now, how to do it? Well, you need to know where the schools are. Ok, easy. School schedules? Use the local school website. Bus routes? Also easily obtainable, but if nothing else, rent a minivan or two, and follow something big and yellow around town. Good chance it's a school bus.

School buses aren't inspected when they pull up to the school, are they? Nah.

So, you have your cells. Spread them around the country. No, not the big cities... random "Heartland" cities... maybe those with large school districts. For good measure, and to account for a possible 25% failure rate, let's plan for maybe 20 different cities.

Once all is planned, and drivers are hired (several per district, redundancy is good)... you load each bus with 1,000 pounds of TNT or some other handy-dandy explosive.

Select a morning.

Coordinate with all the cells.

And then, on that morning... as the bus in in line, with all of the other buses, also full of children (each bus often holds between 45-60 children), parked in front of the local elementary school... where lots of loving parents have recently dropped off their prides and joys...

Detonation.



CNN is carrying the news... reports are coming in from around the country. Early estimates are between 1,500 and 2,000 children, most kindergarteners through fourth grade (under 10, folks), are dead. Along with parents and teachers. Helicopters and cell phone videos are showing large craters, and burned out hulks of buses, schools collapsed, a flag pole snapped in two, the burnt, torn flag flapping in the smoky breeze.

And then, all of the networks carry the image of the day... CNN/MSNBC/FOX/EVERYBODY shows a paremedic, tears streaming down his stoic face, bringing out the body of a young kindergartener. Her hand is still clutching her Strawberry Shortcake doll. The reporter tells us that the blanket covering her is to hide the fact that half her body isn't there anymore.



Question: When the adviser leans over to tell the President the news, whom do you want the President to be? Whom do you want the President to have for advisers? Because we all know that one of the thoughts that our new President will have is to turn to or call his (or her, Hillary fans) closest advisers and friends and ask, "Oh my God, what do I do now?"



Scenario continued: Early reports show that the intelligence agencies have been tracking some of those suspected of carrying out the attack. They come from countries such as (hmmm, let's say...) Libya, Syria, and Egypt (one of our allies). Quite a few groups are claiming credit, and there are even images of celebrations in the streets of some nations.

What do we do? How do we respond?

What effect will this have? How many parents will send their kids to school the next day?

Next week?

If the kids aren't at school... they're at home. Someone has to watch them. There goes the workforce.

And how long before parents piece it together... if they're not safe at our government schools, what about day care centers? Uh oh.

If our workforce isn't at work... then what about the economy.

And where else will people not go? Will parents let their teenagers go to hang out at the mall? Not likely. Expect malls to close.

Gun ownership will of course go up. There may even be an occasional accidental shooting as some concerned, nervous parent, untrained in their new gun, mistakes ______________ as a terrorist. (I'm not against gun ownership, but it is a potential result.)

The economy will come to a standstill. Our societal framework will be stressed. For as bad as 9/11 was, most of us didn't work in tall sky-scrapers in New York, and quite a few of us didn't fly. So, after awhile, even though it was a monumental tragedy and touched us deeply, we could still send our children to school in perceived and trusted safety and go to work.



Past issues are important, but we need to know what our next President is made of at his core. For, when the next scenario comes (and it will), we will want to know what will he do? Is he up to the task?

Who do you want to be given the news and have to ask, "Oh my God, what do I do now?"