California Parolees Get A Pass

In an effort to relieve prison overcrowding, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation announced it planned to begin a review of more than 9,200 outstanding arrest warrants of parole violators to determine if pursuing these convicted felons would be in the “interest of justice.” It would be in the “interest of justice” to ensure that these paroled convicted felons are arrested and returned to prison because they violated the terms of their parole. Instead, the CDC will be weeding out “older, less urgent cases and allow a focus on dangerous parolees” according to the Associated Press based on a report from the Los Angeles Times. No matter how it is spun, the bottom line is that upwards of 70 percent of these parole violators could essentially receive amnesty. This is another example of Gov. Jerry Brown’s goal to empty the state’s prisons in an effort to balance California’s bloated budget deficit, at the expense of public safety. And, make no mistake about it, the public will be paying a price for this loony decision. A parolee is someone who has been convicted of a felony and sent to state prison. For a variety of reasons, parole boards routinely grant parole to these felons under conditions that they get employment, not associate with known criminals, not take drugs or alcohol, not commit future crimes, and report their progress of assimilating into society to their parole officer. Unfortunately, almost without exception, these parolees continue where they left off in their criminal careers, and victimize many more individuals before being arrested again. Getting arrested automatically violates their parole and subjects them to completing their original sentence. The new crime must also be adjudicated exposing them to even more prison time. Parolees have been known to murder police officers and citizens, rob people, commit burglaries, sell drugs and possess dangerous weapons, to name a few crimes they characteristically commit. Rodney King is probably the best known parolee. So why would a responsible governor, concerned about public safety, allow his CDC to ever consider instituting a policy to give these parolees a pass? If the governor wants to let criminals out of prison to save money, why not release all the thousands of illegal aliens behind bars and allow the Department of Homeland Security to return them to Mexico? That would immediately ease prison overcrowding and save the state at least $106 million dollars. These prisoners can spend the balance of their time in a Mexican jail, or roam the streets of Mexican cities for all I care. Either way, they would no longer be the responsibility of the State of California. If even more money is needed to expand prison capacities to house dangerous parole violators, stop educating illegal aliens. The best cost estimate to educate illegal alien children in K – 12 grades is roughly $4 billion dollars. That alone represents a significant percentage of California’s current deficit. The money would much be better spent on public safety. Of course, that will never happen in this sanctuary state. California’s problem is that its priority of expenditures is totally skewed. It pays for things is shouldn’t, and doesn’t spend enough money on important matters such as education and public safety. Proposition 36 recently passed, placing restrictions on when prosecutors can file charges on twice convicted felons that would normally have led three strikers to a 25 year to life in prison sentence. Facing that sentence enticed the vast majority of these two strikers to plead guilty to a lesser offense to avoid severe sentences. Now, many more of them will elect to go to trial, having nothing to lose, costing even more tax money. State government’s first responsibility should be public safety. Allowing parolees to assimilate back into the general population without any strings attached will most certainly increase crime, diminish people’s quality of life, and sadly cause many people to lose their lives.

Senate has yet to vote to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act

The Senate has yet to vote to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act which expires at the end of this month. Last September, the house overwhelming passed the extension by a vote of 301 to 118, but the Senate, as usual, has been dragging its feet. The FISA allows the FBI and Intelligence agencies to monitor foreign intelligence agents located abroad as well as U.S. Citizens when they receive telephone calls from suspected terrorists or spies when the calls are initiated overseas. Under the original act, the FBI can, under exigent circumstances, unilaterally flick the switch to begin monitoring telephone calls of terrorists or spies; but it must present its case and receive permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court within 72 hours to continue. The Court consists of 11 federal judges from different circuits around the country with three residing within easy commuting distance to Washington, D.C. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court appoints the judges to the court, and none can serve more than one seven year term. The “secret court” is admittedly one-sided, in that the government makes it case to initiate or continue electronic surveillance without any knowledge of the person(s) in question. If there was, it wouldn’t exactly be a secret court proceeding. Records of court hearings are made, but they are classified, as they should be. There is also a FIS Appeals Court, but it is believed it has only heard one appeal since its inception in 1978. No matter how you examine it, the original and amended Act is designed to ensure that the government does not abuse U.S. Citizens’ rights; it merely expedites what is otherwise an arduous undertaking to secure a warrant to conduct a wiretap. This act is necessary because espionage and terrorism investigations require immediate action to uncover plots and prevent potential harm. FISA was enhanced when it was amended after 9/11 to allow the FBI to intercept e-mails and telephone calls of foreigners located overseas. Think of how many acts of domestic terrorism the news media has reported that have been averted, at least some of which were surely as a direct result of FISA intercepts. The exact number has not, and should not be disclosed. Democrats and Republicans both criticized the amended act because when foreigners call U.S. citizens, those conversations are monitored as well. Some lawmakers are demanding to know the number of U.S. citizens and residents whose communications have been collected under the law. The government has refused to release those numbers for good reason. Disclosing the number would provide clues to the effectiveness of FBI and intelligence agency operations, and possibly who it is monitoring. The ACLU, of course, hates the act, and would like to see it just disappear at the end of the year. There has yet to be one proven abuse by the FBI or other agencies participating in this program. So, why the sudden concern of abuse? If the Senate stalls and lets the FISA Amendments Act expire, ongoing investigations would be placed in jeopardy. Valuable time would be wasted, and intelligence lost, trying to make up for the short comings of not being able to monitor the electronic communications of terrorists communicating to operatives in the United States. The Senate must act soon to not jeopardize national security. Osama Bin Laden may be dead, but al-Qaeda is still around as well as the scores of spin-off terrorist groups and affiliates that are still in operation. Let’s hope the Senate does it job and passes the FISA Amendments Act extension before the end of the year.

Ending Death Penalty in California Will Create Other Willie Hortons

Next week, California voters must decide Proposition 34 that repeals the death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Passage will apply retroactively to the many people currently on death row. Proponents claim that passage will save about $130 million dollars, which the state spends annually to fight the many appeals these murderers are currently entitled to, and for the first year, earmark $100 million of it for law enforcement grants. Instead, why not have a proposition to reduce the many number of appeals convicted murders are entitled to? (California’s current method of administering capital punishment is death by old age.) I’m convinced there will never be such a thing as “life imprisonment without the possibility of parole” in California as long as there is a substantial Democratic majority in the legislature and left wing Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in charge. Just a month ago, Gov. Brown couldn’t wait to sign a bill that gave convicted vicious juvenile killers the opportunity to have their “life imprisonment without the possibility of parole” sentences reduced to 25 years. What makes anyone believe Gov. Brown wouldn’t sign another piece of legislature to mandate that these convicted killers receive furloughs, like another liberal loony Gov. Michael Dukakis (D- MA) did in 1987? That decision allowed convicted first degree murderer Willie Horton to walk out of prison for a furlough. This gave him the opportunity to break into a Maryland home, tie up the man, stab him 22-times, and rape and slash his wife during a twelve hour period. When the husband finally freed himself, he called police and Horton fled in the couple’s family vehicle. When the police caught up with Horton, he exchanged gunfire with them before he was eventually arrested. The trial judge in Maryland refused to return Horton to Massachusetts fearing Dukakis would release him again. Instead, he sentenced Horton to two life sentences. California has the potential for a perfect storm of crime with screwy liberals in charge, coupled with Proposition 34 and Proposition 36. The latter substantially waters down the State’s highly successful three-strikes law and would apply to already convicted three strikers. It seems soft-on-crime liberals are offended that career criminals are deprived of the opportunity of victimizing others in their old age. Again citing costs, the proposition would allegedly save $70 million annually in reduced prison costs. As far as I am concerned, this is money well spent. Proponents of Proposition 36 say that the current law has sent third time convicted persons to prison for 25 years to life for non-violent, non-serious felony convictions. So? Currently, the pursuit of a third strike conviction rests with prosecutors who have used their discretion wisely. Passage of this proposition would take that discretion away from them and give these career criminals an opportunity to victimize people over and over again. Who is to say what a non-violent or non-serious felony is? By definition, all felonies are serious. If a street gangster shoots at me and misses, is that considered non-violent because I wasn’t hit by the bullet? I can just see a defense attorney arguing to a court that his client shouldn’t be sentenced under the three strikes law because, “he didn’t kill anybody.” Pure bred liberals like Michael Dukakis and Jerry Brown will always pull out their ACLU cards to trump the will of the people in favor of their ideologies. Dukakis was so anti-punishment that during the debates with George H.W. Bush, he refused to hypothetically sentence to death someone that would rape and murder his wife. Propositions 34 and 36 are just the beginning of the dismantlement of time-tested ways of reducing crime by making criminals accountable for their actions. I fear that first degree murderers will eventually be released despite mandated “life imprisonment without the possibility of parole” sentences. That’s because current California leadership believes that criminals aren’t responsible for their actions, you are.

Rumors of General Ham Being Relieved Could be True

Rumors have been swirling about General Carter Ham, commander of Africa Command located in Stuttgart, Germany, ever since Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that President Obama has nominated General David Rodriguez to replace him. Those rumors have been adamantly denied by the Pentagon. While on active duty as an army reservist during 2011 at the Special Operations Command Europe, also headquartered in Stuttgart, I met newly arrived General Ham at the annual Army Ball. He had just arrived in country and took over Africom the day NATO initiated military air operations in Libya. Most command tours of duty are at least three years unless the commander elects to retire. I haven’t read anything about Gen. Ham intending to do so. He has only been the commander of Africa Command less than 18 months. I was forwarded an email from someone associated with the U.S. military in Stuttgart. The email claims that when Gen. Ham was notified of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, he took immediate action to send operational forces there, only to be told by the Pentagon to “stand down.” As commander of Africom, he would have been receiving the same information the CIA, Pentagon, White House and National Security Council did from the U.S. embassy in Tripoli. One of Africom’s missions is to conduct NEO’s (non-combatant evacuation operations) in its area of responsibility. He rightfully voiced his objections to the stand down and gave orders to deploy U.S. forces there anyway. When he did, his deputy commander “apprehended” him and then relieved him of his command. When I read the email description of this, I thought this was a scene from a bad war movie. Apprehending someone in the military is the equivalent of a civilian arrest. Disobeying a lawful order is punishable by two-years of confinement and reduction of rank, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It would be highly, highly, extraordinary for anyone to relieve a four-star general, let alone “apprehend” him. A week ago, Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, Commander of an aircraft carrier strike group positioned in the Middle East, was sent home to Washington State pending the outcome of an undisclosed investigation. Coincidence? I hardly think so. The admiral was most probably reading the same message traffic and voiced his objections to “standing down.” Why else send him home for a tune up by his superiors? If the rumors are true, either Secretary Panetta gave the order to “stand down” or he was told by the president to have General Ham do so. Whoever it was obviously was above a four-star general’s pay grade. Regardless, what happened in Benghazi is exactly why the army has various military commands around the world. If this administration won’t use the assets it has to protect U.S. personnel and one of its own ambassadors from harm’s way, then why even have them? If my sources of information are correct about the chain of events leading to Gen. Ham’s departure, it further illustrates why liberals should never be allowed to be in charge of national security. They simply do not have the stomach for it. The President and Secretary of State Clinton wanted to put a nice face on the country’s relationship with the newly established fledgling Libyan government. They portrayed the attack on the consulate as a spontaneous outburst by protestors that got out of hand stemming from an obscure video defaming the Prophet Mohammad. In reality, it was a preplanned terrorist attack on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001. The word “terrorism” has essentially been erased from the vocabulary of this administration, especially after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Having an attack by al-Qaeda factions on a consulate in a country the administration took credit for liberating does not fit the template of a foreign policy success. A cover up was launched, putting a lid on information until after next week’s election. Don’t count on the media asking hard questions about why Gen. Ham left his command early and Rear Admiral Gaouette was sent home on “temporary duty.” The answer to those questions would only amplify this administration’s limp-wristed reaction to terrorist events and foreign policy failures. It would also further demonstrate that President Obama has managed to severely deteriorate relations in the Middle East.

Obama Administration Again Denies Terrorism Exists

Once again, last week’s attacks on our embassy in Cairo and consulate in Benghazi have the Obama administration denying that Islamic terrorism exists. It would rather have you believe that an obscure Indy film produced by a right-wing religious nut in Southern California was responsible for the “spontaneous protests” that led to the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others. This latest “man-made disaster,” as the administration likes to call terrorist events, was in fact a pre-planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. This wasn’t an act of “workplace violence,” as the administration described the Ft. Hood, Texas murders committed by Jihad Major Nidal Hasan. According to Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, "everyone is determined" to catch the heavily armed militants who launched the assault. Too bad President Obama isn’t as determined as he is. He also said that the U.S. embassy was warned of the pending attack three days prior. This revelation, of course, does not fit into the template of our beloved president who is supposed to be admired by the world, especially Muslims. The fact the attack occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 is being ignored, but this is what FBI agents call a “clue.” According to a Libyan security guard at the consulate, protests were not going on at the Benghazi consulate that day. It wasn’t until about 9:30 p.m. local time that the assault occurred. Obviously it was a pre-planned attack on a poorly fortified building, absent of any marine guards, in which the attackers had to have known the ambassador would be inside to attend a scheduled event the next day. Speaking of marines, the word is that marines were forbidden to carry loaded weapons while guarding the U.S. embassy in Tripoli. I wouldn’t doubt it. The ambassador at any U.S. embassy is the direct representative of the President of the United States in the foreign country. What he says goes, and there is rarely discussion about his decisions. If Ambassador Stevens told the marines to carry unloaded weapons, then it’s the same as if President Obama himself is giving the order. If true, the marines had no option but to be disarmed. I wouldn’t doubt that in the mind of a diplomat, the appearance of an armed marine sends the wrong signal to the host country nationals. In 2000, this same flawed logic took place in Yemen, leading to the almost sinking of the USS Cole. Bill Clinton’s ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine, instructed the captain of the USS Cole to dock at the port of Aden to refuel instead of using the off-shore pipeline built specifically to protect U.S. shipping from terrorists. Ambassador Bodine later said she didn’t want the USS Cole to give the appearance the crew was afraid of the Yemeni people or a terrorist attack. The rest is history. Seventeen sailors died in this event that could have been prevented if she had used common sense instead of putting on a diplomatic face. To compound the problem, Ambassador Bodine did everything within her power to thwart the FBI’s investigation of al-Qaeda and its role in the Cole bombing, denying necessary resources, weapons, manpower and equipment that lead supervisory special agent, John P. O’Neill, required for his investigation. She later denied his Yemeni country clearance to keep him away from the embassy. When ambassadors like that are in charge, bad things always seem to happen. Mr. O’Neill retired from the FBI out of frustration with his negative encounters with Ambassador Bodine. He took the position as the head of security of the World Trade Center and was killed during 9/11; yet another attack by al-Qaeda, that many experts believe the planning may have been discovered if O’Neill’s agents had been allowed to properly conduct their investigation. In an effort to divert attention away from the president’s failed Middle East policies, President Jimmy Carter’s grandson suddenly releases a secretly recorded video tape of Mitt Romney back in May talking about the “47 percent” of Americans who don’t pay income taxes. President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and all other diplomats can spin the Libyan attacks all they want, but it won’t bring back Ambassador Stevens and the three staffers killed that day by, dare I say, terrorists.

Who's Crazier, James Holmes or Gun Control Advocates?

The killing of at least 12 people and the wounding of upwards of 50 others in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater during the midnight opening of the latest Batman film was a horrific event perpetrated by mass murderer, James Holmes. Right on cue, liberal politicians called for even stronger gun control, suggesting reinstituting the ban on “assault weapons,” and limiting ammunition magazines to no more than 10-rounds would prevent another tragic event. Between federal and state governments, there are approximately 10,000 laws regulating the possession, sale, and use of firearms. Is another gun law going to prevent a repeat of what happened inside that movie theater in Aurora? Not likely. Einstein’s definition of insanity was someone repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. That’s what happens every time politicians pass a new gun law. What liberal politicians don’t understand is that these laws only “infringe” law abiding citizens from exercising their personal Second Amendment rights to “keep and bear arms.” When Philadelphia Police Commissioner, Charles Ramsey, was asked if things would have been different if an armed citizen with a concealed weapons permit were in the theater, he scoffed at the notion and said: “The debate goes beyond just this one incident, but this guy had body armor from head to toe,” he explained. “You had tear gas in there, and unfortunately, many states, and I don’t know about Colorado, but many states that authorize concealed carry have no provisions at all for people to receive training, marksmanship, proper handling of firearms, or whatever. So now you got two people randomly shooting in a movie theater. I don’t know how that helps.” It would have helped a lot. Holmes meekly surrendered when he was confronted outside the theater by armed police officers, despite being covered with “body armor from head to toe.” The same thing would have probably happened if he was confronted before hand by an armed citizen inside the theater, potentially saving numerous lives. And, by the way, Colorado requires a resident to “demonstrate competency” before a concealed weapons permit is issued. It is unfortunate that a legally armed citizen or off-duty or retired police officer was not in attendance at the theater at the time Holmes made his entry. Would anti-gun advocates feel better if instead of using an “assault weapon” Holmes used explosives to blow up the entirely sold out 16 theaters and leveled the building? How about if he swung two machetes at his helpless victims? The bottom line is that it really doesn’t matter what weapons are used when the perpetrator is hell-bent on killing as many people as physically possible. Somehow, evil people like Holmes will find a way. It’s obvious to me that Holmes wanted to survive the event. That’s why he immediately told arresting officers that he had booby trapped his apartment. In the event of his arrest, he wanted to show everyone just how smart he is. If the police, or an armed citizen had killed him, the booby traps would have killed other people as his method of extracting revenge. He wants to glow in the media spotlight, and is now faking his mental illness, as evidenced by his sending a notebook to a psychiatrist to cover himself should he survive the event. Keep in mind, this guy was a PhD student who thought he was smarter than anyone else on the planet. It couldn’t be that the Hollywood movie violence Holmes has been subjected to over his entire lifetime, such as Batman movies, might have influenced him to perpetrate this violence and to gain his 15-minutes of fame? Several mentally deranged copy-cats have already been charged with plotting similar events across the country. In light of the number of crazed people hiding somewhere who would do us harm, this latest episode demonstrates why responsible, crime-free citizens should have the right to defend themselves, and others, from nut-jobs like Holmes. To suggest that firearms caused the mass murder in Colorado is like saying matches cause lung cancer. All firearms are inanimate objects; it takes an evil-doer like James Holmes to put them into action.

Look Who's Calling Who A Felon

When Stephanie Cutter, the deputy campaign manager for President Obama’s reelection, alleged that Gov. Mitt Romney may have committed a felony by providing false information in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, she revealed how desperate the president is to gain political support. Ms. Cutter’s unjustified and completely unfounded assertion reminds me of the many admitted felony crimes our president has committed. President Obama has written in his two autobiographies about smoking van loads of marijuana and using cocaine. Both the possession, use and transfer of marijuana and cocaine are felonies, but Cutter gives her man a pass. By contrast, instead of ingesting illegal drugs, visiting Pakistan for unstated reasons after high school, associating with the likes of convicted felon and former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers and attending church services by America hater Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Mr. Romney spent two and a half years of his youth on a religious mission to France. Because of his religious beliefs, Mr. Romney does not drink, cuss, smoke or womanize, let alone do illegal drugs. Mr. Romney never received a sweet loan deal from convicted felon Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who in 2011 was convicted for bribery and receiving kickbacks in Chicago. While governor, Mr. Romney never fired an Inspector General for uncovering alleged felony crimes committed by one of his political boosters, thus obstructing justice – a felony. Gov. Romney never evoked “executive privilege” to run cover for his attorney general to shield him from contempt of Congress, a felony. Gov. Romney never appointed “czars” to circumvent the Massachusetts State Legislature in order to place political cronies in positions of power. Unlike President Obama, Gov. Romney never mismanaged the Massachusetts budget so badly that Standard and Poor’s downgraded the state’s bond credit rating for the first time in U.S. history. Instead, Gov. Romney eliminated $1.5 billion in state debt and established a rainy day fund. Gov. Romney didn’t order the Massachusetts State Police not to alert the Immigration and Naturalization Service about illegal aliens who were arrested in his state, eliminating any resemblance of backdoor amnesty. Ms. Cutter also questions why Mr. Romney won’t release more of his tax returns, implying he has something to hide. She was echoing the message of Democratic National Committee chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Schultz implied that Mr. Romney was hiding assets from taxes, when in reality, knowledge of the foreign accounts came from Romney himself when he released his latest tax return. When a reporter asked Ms. Schultz about the foreign investments in her 401(k) she refused to discuss it. She also steadfastly refused to release her own tax return for public scrutiny. In contrast, President Obama refuses to release his college transcripts or medical records and took about three years before finally releasing his birth certificate to satisfy so-called “birthers.” What does he have to hide in those documents? Mr. Romney’s foreign investments, made by investment counselors from his blind trust, made those investments for him. Declaring foreign accounts on your tax return is obviously not an attempt to conceal illegal activity. President Obama’s minions suggesting Mr. Romney is a felon is like suggesting former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL), a convicted felon, only had his state’s best interest at heart when he tried to sell President Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder. Obviously the Obama campaign strategy is to divert attention away from the president’s dismal economic record by attacking his opponent; the same strategy he said Republicans were trying with him in 2008, and something he would never do. He has reached into the Democrat’s moldy bag of tricks and pulled out the tired old strategy that dictates when you have nothing going for you, slam your opponent. Slime him and make him so radioactive that no one will vote for him. He used this exact strategy on his opponent when he ran for the U.S. Senate. If you were hiring a CEO to run your failing business, would you select someone who has integrity and a proven record of saving and expanding companies, or someone who claims that your success is a result of somebody else’s hard work, not yours.

US Enemies are Iran’s Friends

The Associated Press reported to its horror, a “secret police document” revealed that the “New York Police Department recommended increasing surveillance of thousands of Shiite Muslims and their mosques, based solely on their religion, as a way to sweep the Northeast for signs of Iranian terrorists.” The implication is the police do not have any basis to conduct surveillance on followers of “the religion of peace” except for their religion. The article is obviously the AP’s attempt to further malign the NYPD for its forward thinking and preparation for terrorist attacks in its city based on worldwide events far from Manhattan. This is on the heels of The New York Times doing a hit piece on the department a week earlier for showing, The Third Jihad, as a training film to its officers to educate them on home-grown Muslim terrorists. The 2006 NYPD’s “secret” intelligence report, titled “US-Iran Conflict: The Threat to New York City,” recommended the NYPD “Expand and focus intelligence collections at Shi’a mosques.” Why Shiite mosques? Because that’s where you’ll find Shiites. You won’t find them at St. Patrick’s Cathedral on 5th Avenue. The NYPD intelligence document appears accurate. Just last week, Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta stated that Israel may be within a few months of launching a preemptive strike against Iran to set back or eliminate its nuclear weapons program. An attack on Iran by Israel will be all the justification Iran needs to launch attacks on U.S. military bases in Kuwait and Bahrain, and probably New York City and Washington, D.C. Iran is a radical Shiite state that sponsors terrorism and has sworn the destruction of Israel. It calls the U.S. the “Great Satan.” U.S. intelligence officials have said it has not ruled out Iran conducting direct attacks inside this country. Iran is closely aligning itself with Venezuela where it could peddle its nuclear and missile technologies. U.S. officials have reports to indicate there is evidence Iran has provided al-Qaeda some logistical support to its operatives, including providing personnel vehicles, money and the like. Although al-Qaeda is a Sunni Muslim terrorism organization, Iran appears to subscribe to the old adage: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” despite a history of years of turmoil between the two Muslim sects. From my conversations with Sunni Muslims, some hate Shiites more than Jews or Americans; however if that partnership can cause harm to a mutual enemy, both sides appear to be willing to set aside their differences for mutual benefit. Considering there are about 8,500 Iranians among the estimated 35,000 Shiite Muslims residing in New York City, there is good reason for the NYPD to be proactive in gathering intelligence. There are also known Sunni Hamas members within the city who might act in Iran’s behalf because of Iran’s support to Palestinians. The AP pointed out in its article that the NYPD is prohibited under its own guidelines and city law from basing its investigations on religion. I would argue the NYPD bases its intelligence gathering on Muslims being responsible for many actual and attempted acts of terrorism within its city limits. Not all Muslims living in New York City are terrorists, but New York has been and still is a magnet for Muslim terrorists around the world. New York and Boston police conducted intelligence operations on Catholic sympathizers who provided funding and material support to the Irish Republican Army. I don’t recall the AP or New York Times making much of an issue about that. The AP and NYT need to stop publishing “secret” police reports and classified national security information and end being the source of intelligence for Muslim terrorists. They need to stop portraying Muslims as the victims of police abuse when in reality the NYPD is approaching the problem logically. The NYPD is making every effort to protect all New Yorkers, even employees of the AP and New York Times. (Family Security Matters.Org Contributing Editor Gregory D. Lee is a retired DEA supervisory special agent. While assigned to the U.S. embassy in Pakistan, he participated in the arrest of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 NYC World Trade Center bombing, and later testified at his trial. Reach him through his website: www.gregorydlee.com.)

Los Angeles Should Stop Hugging Illegals

In what has to be the most ridiculous recommendation by any law enforcement official, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck and his counterpart, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, have announced they support issuing driver licenses to illegal aliens. Chief Beck said, “The reality is that all the things that we’ve done – ‘we’ being the state of California – over the last 14, 16 years have not reduced the problem one iota.” Sheriff Baca qualified his recommendation by saying that licenses should be issued “as long as they have been in the United States for a number of years without committing other crimes.” The problem would be resolved if the State of California would mandate local police officers and sheriff’s deputies to turn over illegal aliens to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation. Instead, California’s governor signs into law a state version of the “Dream Act” allowing illegal aliens to receive public and private college grants. San Francisco, Santa Ana, Santa Cruz, Los Angeles and other cities declare themselves “sanctuary cities.” Is there any wonder why California is a magnet for illegal aliens? The Los Angeles Times reported Chief Beck said that he expected the number of hit-and-run accidents would decrease if illegal immigrants were licensed, because they would not have to fear being caught without a license at accidents. Maybe if LAPD officers told illegal aliens they had no fear of deportation they wouldn’t run after being involved in accidents. Sheriff Baca suggested that driver licenses for illegal aliens be renewed annually and have the letter “I” imprinted on them “so police could determine immediately if they were dealing with someone in the country illegally.” That has as much change of passing the state legislature as tattooing the letter “I” on an illegal alien’s forehead. Chief Beck is also on record of directing his officers not to impound vehicles of illegal aliens that they encounter because he thinks it is unfair for illegal immigrants who cannot receive California driver licenses. The 30-day holds (on vehicles), he said, “are too severe a punishment for never-licensed drivers and place a serious strain on their ability to get to and from jobs.” His proposal started an uproar from taxpaying licensed and insured drivers in the city who are tired of paying state mandated “uninsured motorist” insurance, which is a euphemism for illegal alien insurance. Rather than doing what obviously works every time it’s tried, deportation, Los Angeles city and county law enforcement and public officials chose to tolerate illegal aliens, allow them to victimize legal residents with hit-and-run accidents, and take jobs away from them. Isn’t it illegal for anyone to employ an illegal alien? Then why is Chief Beck concerned about an illegal’s ability to get to and from his job? What part of “illegal” doesn’t the Los Angeles police chief and sheriff understand? As much as California may not like it, illegal aliens are arrestable by virtue of their mere presence. If Chief Beck and Sheriff Baca want illegal aliens to be licensed, let them get an international driver’s license and buy automobile insurance. Even if licensed, most illegal aliens wouldn’t buy high-cost automobile insurance because if they are involved in an accident, they merely return to their home country. A driver license implies legitimacy from the state. Most of the 9-11 terrorists had legitimate driver licenses and never feared questioning by immigration authorities. California assumes all illegal aliens are from Mexico when in reality many are visa overstays from around the world, including Pakistan, Thailand, Iran and the Middle East. It’s time for California to stop hugging illegal aliens and start enforcing federal immigration law. If California sheriffs bussed all the illegal aliens county law enforcement agencies encountered on a weekly basis to Tijuana, the crime rate would further go down and the quality of life for legal residents would increase substantially.

In Defense Of The Stolen Valor Act

When Xavier Alvarez ran for board membership of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Los Angeles County he proudly told voters he was a retired Marine combat veteran wounded in 1987 and received the Medal of Honor. He also claimed to have played hockey for the Detroit Red Wings, rescued the American ambassador in Tehran, Iran during the hostage crisis in 1979 and sustained wounds when returning to the decimated embassy to retrieve the American flag. If that wasn’t enough to convince the electorate, he said he was a Vietnam veteran helicopter pilot and secretly married to a famous Mexican actress. His bravado proved to be all lies. The first clue was that Medal of Honor winners are humble and don’t use the award for personal gain. Alvarez was indicted and convicted for violating the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to falsely claim the awarding of military medals and ribbons. He is now challenging the Constitutionality of the law by claiming it violates his First Amendment right to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments recently and will decide the issue later this year. If it sides with Alvarez, then it should be alright to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, lie to a federal agent during a criminal investigation, perjure yourself in court and liable anyone you desire. Alvarez’s claim to be a Medal of Honor winner was for personal aggrandizing and to gain an elected office. He victimized all military veterans with his claims, the voters of the water district where he ran for office, and not to mention his opponent who lost the election to someone considered a distinguished American. A politician lying about his qualifications for public office is nothing new. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) became chummy with the local VFW and implied numerous times in speeches that he was a Marine Corps Vietnam Veteran who was spat upon at the airport when he returned home from overseas combat duty. The truth is he was a reservist who served his entire commitment at the D.C. armory. Despite his admission that he “misspoke,” his election to the senate proves voters have a Constitutional right to be stupid. Ironically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) placed him on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which exemplifies his disdain for the military. President Bill Clinton lost his law license after a federal judge concluded he had lied to a grand jury about the Monica Lewinsky affair. While running for president, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) claimed he went on a secret mission to Cambodia during the Vietnam War, which wasn’t true. Obviously, wannabe war heroes believe claims of valor will enhance their chances for betterment, and they don’t give a damn who they hurt doing it. I suppose if the Court strikes down the Stolen Valor Act, I can claim to be a brain surgeon because it’s part of my First Amendment right to free speech. Should President Obama then pardon Martha Stewart for her conviction of lying to FBI agents during a securities investigation? Should President Clinton get his law license back? If the Court decides lying is a protected First Amendment right, can people lie about anything without fear of consequences. Major newspapers and media outlets are siding with Alvarez and have filed “friend of the court” briefs saying that criminal mandates on lying is simply wrong. It’s curious that the main stream media points out that the First Amendment does not specifically mention that only truthful speech is protected from the government. Maybe it fears sanctions for publishing half-truths and lies that advance its left-wing agenda. Some liars need to be held accountable because they rob people of the facts they require to make an informed decision. If people lie on their tax forms, perjure themselves, or lie (not exaggerate) on employment applications or their CV to make themselves appear to be someone they aren’t, they need to be sanctioned - especially if someone claims to be a highly decorated military veteran to steal the valor of others. (The U.S. Supreme Court Has Since Ruled the Stolen Valor Act to be unconstitutional based on it violating the 1st Amentment. Congress is in the process of changing the law to make it less broad in nature.)

It's Not Healthy Being A "Star" Football Player

In an article in my hometown newspaper, The Herald, the reporter wrote that “the parents of former North Monterey County High School football and track star Reginald Doucet Jr. said Thursday that they are convinced the Los Angeles Police Department is guilty of murdering their son and covering up the crime.” There is was again; a football “star” being killed by the police. Just out of curiosity, I Googled, “Star Football Player Killed.” I got over 30 million hits. The search revealed screaming headlines about the deaths of former “star” football players who were murdered, shot, died in car and motorcycle accidents, hit by a train, killed during an argument over cologne, stabbed, killed by police, drowned, “executed by NYPD,” died in plane crashes, died while entangled in a BowFlex machine, died in combat, or died while playing the game. They hardly ever seem to die of old age. There seemed to be a lot of “star football” players killed by the police. So many, in fact, you’d think that the police around the country were targeting young football stars for assassination. Why did the police kill him? He’s a football star, of course! Why do newspaper editors feel compelled to use the adjective “star” before “football player” when describing a dead athlete? Does it enhance the tragedy of the loss when someone with great skills or talent dies? Do newspapers check the decedent’s playing statistics to see if he really was a star? Regardless, the evidence is clear. Being a “star” of anything will hasten your death. A good number of athletic stars, movie stars, singing stars, and television stars have all met early deaths, the latest evidence being the death of Whitney Houston. I think I have a good chance of living a long life because I’m not a star of any sport or entertainment field. In light of my research, I’d be satisfied to be an “average” player, singer, or actor. They never seem to be bothered by the police, fans, paparazzi, drug dealers, ex-girlfriends, and the like. Actually, the more average you are, the less likely you’ll be the victim of a police shooting, murdered, go to jail for drunk driving or arrested and tried for killing your wife or girlfriend. Of course, when the police do kill a “star football player,” there probably has never been occasion when witnesses sided with the police version of what transpired. It seems that in every single documented incident of a police officer shooting a “star” football player, no one has ever said, “Yeah, I’d of shoot the guy too if I were the cop.” You would think in light of all the incidents where police have shot star athletes, at least one of these “stars” got what he deserved. The only time this has ever come close is when Michael Vick (a star football player), was arrested for promoting dog fights. Little old ladies wanted to get a gun and shoot him. So do your children a favor and persuade them to not be star football players.

Got ID?

The Obama administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder and his Civil Rights Division Chief, Thomas E. Perez, blocked the implementation of a Texas law requiring voters to produce identification in order to vote at a polling place. According to the Associated Press, the U.S. Justice Department wrote a letter to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot, claiming that “Hispanic voters in Texas are more than twice as likely than non-Hispanic voters to lack a driver’s license or personal state-issued photo ID. The department said that even the lowest estimates showed about half of Hispanic registered voters lack such identification.” How does the Department of Justice measure such things? Did it randomly stop Texas Hispanics asking them for photo IDs? Oh, wait! That would be discriminatory, as evidence by Holder suing Arizona for passing legislation to do just that. So absent that, how did the DOJ come to that conclusion? Do half of all Texas Hispanics over 18-years old not have driver licenses? Can they not afford the fee to purchase a Texas issued photo identification card? I hardly think so. American society is so accustomed to showing identification that it’s astonishing anyone other than someone who has ill intent would object to proving their identity for something so important, like voting. Without blinking, Americans produce their driver license or other government issued identification to enter a federal or state building or military installation, join the service, cash a check, write a check, establish a bank account, sometimes to use their credit cards, vote on union issues, sign a notarized document, board a commercial airliner, register for school, take out a loan, adopt a pet, rent a car, rent a hotel room, apply for a job, buy cigarettes, initiate cell phone service, buy alcohol and hopefully to apply for welfare. So why not to vote? What’s so discriminating about asking someone to prove who they are to cast a ballot? If producing photo identification to vote is discriminatory, then why do we have to show identification for anything? It’s impossible for me to believe that someone who is in the U.S. legally does not have access to some form of government identification. For a small fee, a state DMV will issue any legal resident an identification card. There’s the rub. Texas requires applicants for identification cards to provide a social security number, which only legal residents are entitled. Is this why Holder and Perez estimate that half of all Hispanics in Texas cannot get a state issued photo ID card? California actually verifies the number with the Social Security Administration before issuing an ID card. The truth of the matter is that requiring voter photo ID would virtually eliminate voter fraud. It would prevent dead people, “Mickey Mouse,” “Donald Duck,” felons, and illegal aliens from voting for their favorite candidates, and Holder knows it. He and his Chicago cronies are mining for voters wherever they can find them. The Obama administration sees a crop of voters to harvest this November, and it doesn’t want pesky state voter photo ID laws getting in the way. Many millions of American servicemen and woman have sacrificed greatly to maintain the cherished right to vote. For the Obama administration to discount that and allow even a remote possibility of someone not entitled to vote to do so, is an affront to those who fought and died to retain that right as free citizens. Thirty-four states have introduced legislation to require voters to identify themselves at polling places. A federal law should require all voters to prove their identities before casting a ballot. That law would prevent anyone, any ACORN type of organization or any administration from skewing the results of an election. If Texas offered to issue free State photo ID cards to any legal Texas resident who wanted one, Eric Holder would still complain because his political party’s illegal voting base would erode. He’d probably object on the grounds Hispanics can’t afford bus fare to the polls, or can’t read English, or some other such nonsense.

Time Is Up For Afghanistan

Bad things always seem to come in threes. This year the U.S. military has endured three separate incidents that have the potential of changing the course of the Afghanistan war. The YouTube revelation of Marines urinating on dead insurgents set the stage for two other horrific events. The burning of the Holy Quran at Bagram Air Field resulted in weeks of civil unrest, death of six soldiers, and protests against America. It was the premise for yet another apology by the Commander-in-Chief for military actions. Regardless, if there were cryptic writings on the page margins of the Qurans or not, burning them was an idiotic thing to do. Few Americans understand the Afghan and intense Muslim sensitivities to the Holy Book, which they view as the direct word of God. To desecrate it is an affront to all Muslims and unforgiveable in Afghan culture. When I was on diplomatic assignment in Karachi, Pakistan, a spontaneous riot erupted. Someone found a Quran laying in a gutter of a busy boulevard. He gingerly picked up the book and started running around like a madman yelling to crowds of onlookers that someone had desecrated the Holy book. As if preprogrammed to do so, pedestrians stopped what they were doing and began smashing business windows and overturning cars. After about an hour of mob violence, a man on a moped drove up to the scene of the alleged desecration and asked if anyone had found his Quran. He explained that it had accidently fallen off his moped’s rear rack. The crowd immediately returned to sanity and began to disperse. Afghans acted the same way once they learned about the burning of the Qurans. If those two incidents were not bad enough, a drunken rogue U.S. soldier wanders off his operating post, goes into a village and allegedly murders 16 Afghans, nine of which were children, and sets their bodies on fire. To the Afghans, nothing less than his headless body dragged around the muddy streets of Kandahar will satisfy their thirst for revenge. The alleged murderer, Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, has retained John Henry Browne, a respected Seattle attorney, who is already laying the ground work for his defense. He is making it well known that this was SSG Bales’s fourth tour of combat duty, (the first in Afghanistan), and that he is a loving father, up to his ears in debt, and was a former star football in high school. He is also emphasizing that SSG Bales suffered a non-combat related traumatic brain injury during a traffic accident in Iraq. According to Mr. Browne, SSG Bales also suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. These types of defenses are completely foreign to Afghans who would prefer his trial be in Afghanistan where justice is sure and fast. Whether Mr. Browne can pull off an acquittal before a military jury is yet to be seen. He needs to remember that in all likelihood, most of the military panel members have multiple deployments under their belts. They may believe that a PTSD defense is weak because none of them has massacred women, children and non-combatant males. No matter the outcome of the trial, Afghans have had their fill of Americans and NATO. The vast majority of them just want to be left alone. All the good Americans have done there is unappreciated because no Afghan believes it will last. They know that their culture of corruption, the insurgency, illiteracy, religious fanatics, opium production and crime will unravel the progress made in the last ten years. These three incidents have forced the U.S. to prematurely transfer more control of governance to the Afghans and probably curtail unilateral night raids which has been most effective in capturing or killing insurgents and terrorists. Afghanistan is one of many places on earth that is truly ungovernable by Western standards. The U.S. has learned, or will soon, what the Soviets and English before them learned: Afghanistan marches to a different drummer. It will always reject foreign intervention, regardless of how well intended the interventionists are. The U.S. mission in Afghan has accomplished the dethroning of the Taliban and the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Continuing to spend billions of dollars in infrastructure improvements, the establishment of rule of law, building of prisons and additional military and police training will prove to be of no use. Once Westerners depart, whether it is today, in 2014, or even 2114 doesn’t matter so long as corruption is a way of life and opium is Afghanistan’s number one cash crop.

Media's Rush To Judgment Of George Zimmerman

The media’s new poster child for victims of racism is Trayvon Martin. His death has marked the beginning of a media frenzy and brought out the usual race baiter suspects. Before the official police report has even been released, the Sanford City council, pressured by media reports, temporarily removed its police chief, Bill Lee, (no relation) and quickly replaced him with an interim chief, a black police captain from the department. Chief Lee was suspended because the State’s Attorney wouldn’t file charges against Zimmerman. Go figure. Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson raced each other to Florida to be in the spotlight and organize rallies to demand the arrest of George Zimmerman. They maintain, along with a purported two million petitioners, that Zimmerman is a murderer who shot a “defenseless” black 17-year old juvenile armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. (Trayvon Martin is a lean 6-foot, 170 lbs.) President Obama stirred up his political base, the same way he did after the arrest of his friend, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. He said that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon. At least he didn’t say the Sanford, Florida police “acted stupidly” this time. He vowed to “get to the bottom of what happened.” Even after eyewitnesses began to emerge corroborating Zimmerman’s version of the chain of events, including Martin knocking Zimmerman down and striking his head repeatedly on a concrete sidewalk, the frenzy grew even larger. The latest media revelation is a police videotape of Zimmerman, in handcuffs, exiting a police car and escorted into the station. Reporters and sympathetic talking heads all agreed that Zimmerman exhibited no visible signs of trauma to the back of his head or nose; therefore, he’s obviously guilty! They forgot to mention that the police at the scene called paramedics to treat Zimmerman before transporting him to the station. Did the paramedics clean his wounds before treating him? Nah! That does not fit the template of a racist wannabe cop who called 9-1-1 over forty times since 2007 as a “self-appointed” Neighborhood Watch “captain.” (That would be 40-times in a 60-month period, or .67 times a month.) If Zimmerman wasn’t injured, then why did the police call the paramedics? The media obtained audio tapes of the 9-1-1 call preceding the shooting and concluded that the person heard yelling during an apparent violent struggle was obviously Martin because his dad, Tracy Martin, said so. They neglected to mention that the police played the audio tapes for the father who said the voice was not his son’s until it dawned on him that meant that the person yelling for help had to be Zimmerman, so he recanted. This happened the next day, instead of that evening, because Mr. Martin failed to call the police to report his son missing. Guess he had something else to do. The grieving mother, Sybrina Fulton, must have shed tears on the paperwork she signed to trademark “I am Trayvon.” Her attorney said that she didn’t do it for profit; however when you see the news coverage of pro-Trayvon marchers, many are wearing t-shirts with the trademarked slogan and Trayvon’s smiling hooded face when he was thirteen years old. I guess she didn’t like Trayvon’s recent photo associated with his Twitter account where he snarls at the camera and flips the bird. The initial AP news articles were dripping with admiration for this child who helped little old ladies cross the street. When it was later revealed that the lad was visiting his father during a two week suspension from school for having marijuana residue in his book pack, and that he had previously been suspended twice before for tardiness and truancy, the grieving mother exclaimed, “They killed my son, now they want to kill his reputation.” The black city manager of Sanford said he would find and fire whoever leaked the information to the press. Seems like when actual facts emerge, he won’t tolerate them being leaked. Movie director Spike Lee (no relation) got in the act by Tweeting what he thought was George Zimmerman’s home address. This caused unspeakable horrors for the poor 70-something couple because the man shared the same name. He later apologized to his many Twitter followers not for giving them George Zimmerman’s address, but for giving them the wrong address. He was hoping one of his followers would collect the New Black Panther Party bounty of $25,000 to find and “arrest” George Zimmerman. Not to be outdone, Congress held a public forum on Capitol Hill about the shooting. Every available black Democrat representative posed for photographs with the grieving parents to gin up their political base in an election year, including Sheila Jackson Lee (no relation). To show solidarity with his rap-a-dap, “gangsta” constituents, former Black Panther Rep. Bobby Rush wore a “hoodie” in the well of Congress in defiance of House Rules dress code. Unfortunately, if Zimmerman escapes indictment for Trayvon Martin’s death, the followers of the race baiters will never be convinced of his innocence, regardless of the truth. The main stream media will ensure they never will.

Citizen King

Last weekend on the NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, the network felt it was important enough to fly him to Los Angeles to interview Rodney King to get his thoughts about the 20-year anniversary of the riots that left over 55 people dead and 2,000 injured. For the first time, according to Mr. Holt, Mr. King admitted to driving over 100 miles per hour while being pursued by California Highway Patrol and L.A.P.D. officers. Until then, he and the media gave the impression he was just driving down the street minding his own business when the mean police officers attempted to stop him because he was black. Dr. Drew Pinsky, on CNN’s Dr. Drew Show, interviewed Mr. King and told him, “You’re just a regular citizen that got caught in something that no one could have predicted would have the kind of impact on history.” Rodney King is not a “regular citizen.” “Regular” citizens aren’t on parole. When a regular citizen is caught driving drunk, they don’t flee the police racing over 100 miles per hour on freeways and through residential streets. “Regular” citizens, even when caught driving under the influence of alcohol, have enough sense to comply with an officer’s instructions and not resist arrest. “Regular” citizens don’t become the media poster child for “racial profiling,” and get 3.8 million dollars for his first book deal and an almost equal sum from a lawsuit, and then lose it in “bad investments.” “Regular” citizens have a job, go to work, raise a family, obey the law and enjoy the opportunities this country has to offer. I hate to break it to Dr. Drew, but Rodney King is no “regular citizen.” Citizen King was on parole for robbery where he threatened a store owner with an iron bar. Parole, unlike probation, is when a person serves time in a state or federal prison, and is released early. Probationers, on the other hand, serve their sentence “on the street” and do not go to the county jail after conviction of a misdemeanor. The analysis of Citizen King’s blood/alcohol content five hours after being arrested was just under the legal limit. Considering alcohol dissipates at an average rate of .025 per hour, he would have been at least twice the legal limit at the time of his arrest. This probably explains why he grabbed his rear end and rotated his hips in a sexually suggestive manner to the police officers who were attempting to arrest him, and why he ignored their lawful commands and fiercely resisted. He knew his parole would be violated and his next stop was back to state prison. He was determined to put on a show before returning to the big house. His behavior was so bizarre, the officers understandably thought he was under the influence of the drug popular in the black community at the time, Phencyclidine, or PCP, aka “Angel Dust.” I have arrested scores of people under the influence of PCP as a police officer in Pasadena, California, where Mr. King grew up, I can tell you that “Dusters” feel no pain, and have to always be physically restrained. Pasadena P.D. had a “two handcuff” policy because some dusters, even with their hands cuffed behind their back, were able to bust the chain link between the cuffs because they were oblivious to pain. The department’s policy was to also use “hobble cords” to lasso the suspect’s legs with a nylon rope and latch it on to the handcuffs, making the suspect look as though he was a roped calf at a rodeo. That’s how violent many of these dusters became. This evidence, and a lot more, such as Citizen King’s seeming indifference to being shot with a Taser, reinforced the thought he was under the influence of PCP in the minds of the four officers, and was presented to the Simi Valley jury that acquitted them. The rest is history. Citizen King is still a media hero whereas two of the L.A.P.D. officers were later convicted of federal civil rights violations; the other two were acquitted. Mr. King became a multi-millionaire and a “celebrity” on reality television shows. All of the officers lost their livelihoods and reputations. In two decades, the media has finally found a new poster child: Trayvon Martin. When a reasonable jury acquits Mr. George Zimmerman of second degree murder, stand by for a repeat of the Los Angeles riots, but probably at a much larger scale. Can’t we all just get along? (Mr. King accidently drowned at his home after this column was written.)

You Can Always Count On Pakistan To Do The Wrong Thing

Last week’s conviction of Dr. Shekeel Afridi by a Tribal Justice Court, even though it had no jurisdiction to try the matter, exemplifies Pakistan’s complete disregard to the rule of law and the why it can always be counted on to do the wrong thing. Instead of rewarding Dr. Afridi and celebrating his cooperation with the CIA that led to the identification and capture of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan a year ago, he was tried and convicted for treason and sentenced to 33-years in prison. Dr. Afridi helped the CIA determine that Bin Laden’s family members were in the compound where Navy Seals later killed him. He set up a store front vaccination clinic and captured the DNA of women living in Bin Laden’s compound that verified they were Bin Laden’s family members. That match made it most probable Bin Laden himself was in the compound, and probably led to President Obama’s decision to unleash the Seals to get him. Without that positive DNA match of the family members, the likelihood of the special operators getting the green light from the White House would have been understandably very slim. From my experience working and living in Pakistan while on a DEA diplomatic assignment from 1994 - 1998, the worst crime someone could commit was to “malign” the military. The military is the most respected government institution in Pakistan, and anyone who proves it doesn’t deserve the respect it demands receives severe punishment. A Pakistani Foreign Service National DEA investigator named Ayyaz Baluch performed an undercover assignment in Islamabad to further a New York Division investigation. His job was to meet with a Pakistani Air Force (PAF) major and pay him thousands of dollars for his recent sale of a kilogram (2.2 pounds) of heroin he delivered to a DEA informant in the U.S. on a recent PAF flight to Dover, DE Air Force Base. The major “fronted” the heroin to the informant with the understanding a “relative” of the informant would pay him in Islamabad upon his return. I sat in the restaurant of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad and witnessed the payment to the major who promised to deliver more heroin on his next trip to Dover. A month or so later he delivered two more kilograms to the informant in New York City and DEA immediately took him into custody. When the Pakistani military received word of what happened all hell broke loose for the American diplomatic community, and especially for Mr. Baluche. After weeks of non-stop newspaper editorials and articles about how DEA agents in Pakistan were actually CIA officers assigned to steal its nuclear secrets, goons of the Inter-Service Intelligence agency kidnapped Mr. Baluche from his home. For the next year he was lodged at an air force confinement facility, systematically beaten, tortured, and hounded to sign statements that he was working with the Americans to steal Pakistan’s nuclear secrets. Despite the protests from DEA and the American Embassy, he was court-martialed even though he was a civilian, and given a multi-year prison sentence. After a year, the Pakistan military decided to turn him over to DEA who immediately arranged for his departure from the country after securing a permanent resident U.S. visa. Mr. Baluch is now a U.S. Citizen and a senior intelligence analyst assigned to DEA headquarters. What happened to Mr. Baluch is similar to what happened to Dr. Afridi. The Pakistan government should have commended both for their heroics; instead it punished them for doing the right thing. The Government of Pakistan’s action is a clear message to its citizens that providing information to the U.S. about the hiding places or intentions of terrorists within its borders will not be tolerated. These same citizens already know that with Pakistan’s endemic corruption, providing any viable, actionable information to the authorities is a complete waste of time and only poses a danger to the informer. Pakistan’s demand for an apology for U.S. forces killing 24 of its soldiers after they fired across the border on them, coupled with extorting us for the release of tons of our war supplies in country before they are allowed to transit into Afghanistan are not the actions of a “partner” in the war on terror. Congress cutting 33-million dollars in aid to Pakistan this year to symbolize the 33-year prison sentence Dr. Afridi received is a good start. It’s time to cut all U.S. aid to the Pakistan regime and begin seeking alternative ways to resupply our troops in Afghanistan. This is the only way Pakistan will change its ways and eventually become a full-fledge member of the international community. Giving into Pakistan’s demands will only lead to other similar situations.

Obama's Naked Hispanic Pandering

Last week President Barack Hussein Obama took the unprecedented step to circumvent Congress and institute a form of the so-called “Dream Act” that the House of Representatives refused to enact into law. By directing his Secretary of Homeland Security to cancel deportations of illegal aliens between the ages of 19 and 30 who came to the U.S. with their parents, and directing U.S. Attorneys to use “prosecutorial discretion,” President Obama has unilaterally implemented his version of the Dream Act without any authority to do so. The president’s excuse is that “It’s the right thing to do.” With an election year, President Obama must rely on Hispanic voter support for a second term in office. Surely this didn’t have anything to do with his decision. The president said that each illegal alien affected by his decision would be reviewed individually. His order applies to those 30 and under who were brought to the U.S. as children, have completed high school or earned a GED, and who don’t have record of felonies or multiple misdemeanors. It seems to me that these illegal alien “children” have learned from their parents they are in the country illegally. A 28-year old high school graduate should be mature enough to know his or her mere presence in the country make them subject to arrest and deportation. They are now making a conscious decision to remain illegally in the country. Did any of these people consider “doing the right thing,” and returning to their home country to seek legal immigration? In reading an AP report on how this new protected class of people feel about President Obama’s decision, a recent UCLA graduate with a bachelor’s degree in sociology said she could now seek employment to put her education to work. How did this illegal alien make it through a prestigious California University without being questioned about her legality? Liberal California politicians see no problem with an illegal alien taking a highly sought after seat at UCLA. They ignore that illegal aliens are depriving the children of taxpaying U.S. Citizen California residents the opportunity to attend the college. President Obama has no issue with these illegal aliens joining the workforce to further deprive U.S. Citizens jobs despite unemployment rates above eight percent. About 30 percent of all people between 19 and 30 cannot find work; now it will even be harder for them to do so. College educated illegal alien children will now compete with U.S. citizen college graduates for the opportunity to launch their careers, all for the sake of President Obama’s reelection. What the Hispanic community should be focusing on instead is President Obama invoking executive privilege in the release of subpoenaed documents connected to the “Fast and Furious” debacle. Without the documents, it may never be clear if Attorney General Eric Holder, or possibly the president himself, was the “shot-caller” in the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms investigation that knowingly allowed fraudulently purchased semi-automatic assault weapons to be smuggled to Mexico for use by its violent drug cartels. Allowing those weapons to “walk” to Mexico without any chance of them being traced to the cartels and recovered, directly led to the killing of hundreds of Mexican citizens and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Where’s the hue and cry from the Hispanic community about this? President Obama is assuming two things: Hispanics will overwhelmingly vote Democratic this next election cycle because of his backdoor amnesty, and all illegal aliens want to become U.S. Citizens. Many Hispanics are social and fiscal conservatives, and many illegal aliens are simply in the U.S. to earn what they can before returning to Mexico or Central America with more money in their pockets then if they had worked in their home countries. Hispanics want the same things as other ethnic groups: financial security. When they realize President Obama’s economic and domestic policies have failed after three and a half years of trying, many will seek a change in leadership, trumping the immigration issue in favor of their own pocketbooks. Legal Hispanic immigrants realize that blanket backdoor immunity further lessens their chance of securing employment, and that is obviously the wrong thing to do.

Criminals’ Lack of Morals, Not Budgets or Bush, Cause Violent Crime

I remember watching an ABC World News Tonight Closer Look segment that featured a series called “Mean Streets,” which examined the reasons behind a 6.7 percent increase in the murder rate in the country in 2006. The murder of three promising black college students in Newark, N.J. was cited as just one of many examples of the rise in senseless killings occurring in the country. Mayor Cory Booker declared that “enough is enough,” when it came to violent crime in the city known ostensibly for violent crime. ABC conveniently forgot to mention that the oldest of the men and teenagers allegedly responsible for the murders was an illegal alien, and that he was on bail for repeatedly raping a five-year-old girl. Out on bail? Isn’t it reasonable that a violent criminal illegal alien not be eligible for bail because there is no reasonable expectation that the person will return voluntarily for trial? Apparently the violence committed by this alleged murderer-rapist wasn’t quite enough for the Newark mayor. Only two weeks after the victims were buried, he announced he would not direct his police department to turn over illegal aliens it came across to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation. I guess he didn’t want to offend his criminal alien constituents. In speculating why the murder rate went up, ABC rounded up the usual suspects for why violent crime was up – gangs, guns and a lack of social programs. Of course, they managed to find an unnamed criminologist who blamed the Bush Administration for “focusing too much on terrorism, and cutting funds for law enforcement on the streets.” The reporter also cited Orange County, Florida where a record 121 murders occurred in 2006. Sheriff Kevin Beary said that two of his deputies had been shot by three suspects who had a total of 88 arrests between them. Hands down, the sheriff gave the best analysis for the murder rate going up when he revealed that the three suspects had scores of prior arrests. In police work, that’s called a clue. Sheriff Beary placed the blame squarely on the prosecutors and courts where it justifiably belongs. His point is that if prosecutors weren’t afraid to litigate instead of conducting plea bargains, and if judges had incarcerated these three individuals for significant lengths of time, maybe his deputies would not have been shot. Are people more likely to become murderers and commit other violent crimes because they have easy access to firearms, do not participate in social programs or have George W. Bush as president? Or are they more likely to commit violent crimes because they lack morals? I submit there is no correlation between criminal activity and someone’s income level or being deprived of some federally funded after-school recreation program. Having morals is like having the winning lottery numbers. Either you have them, or you don’t. No matter what excuse you offer for not having the winning ticket, the lottery officials are not going to give you the payoff because you didn’t get to play midnight basketball. Excuses should not be accepted from those who commit violent crime either. The sooner the public realizes that there is a strong correlation between assured, longer prison sentences and an overall reduction of violent crime, including murder, the better off we all will be.

What I Don’t Want for Christmas: Everything but the Elusive ‘Middle Class Tax Cut’

With the holidays rapidly approaching, my wife and kids have asked me several times what I would like for Christmas. Like most men, it’s easier for me to identify what I don’t want, because most things I would like are out of range for my family’s budget, like a Bentley or a secluded vacation beach house in Maui. What I definitely don’t want is anything pitched by Billy Mays on television. I don’t need a liquid that mends rips in my jeans, or putty that can be used to replace the broken handle on my coffee cup. I would sooner go to an alterations shop and throw away the broken cup. I don’t need a worthless deed to property on the moon, nor do I need a star named after me, thank you. I also don’t want anything that comes with a certificate of authenticity. Please don’t give me a Chia Pet, or anything that remotely resembles one. Dittos for a device that allegedly sharpens my old razor blades to make them like new. The same goes for a computer gadget I saw that is a bikini-clad Barbie look-alike doll that pole dances on a small platform when you play MP3 music files. Please spare me. That falls in the category of the singing mounted fish I once received that I “accidentally” dropped and broke several days later. The money clip I received for Christmas several years ago still works fine, and now that I’m semi-retired, neckties aren’t as necessary as they once were. In fact, the last thing I need is anything that can be worn, so save your money there too. I can’t wear out the clothes I have, and don’t need to add more clutter in my closet. I’ve got shoes older than my married children, and I don’t hesitate to go to a shoe repair shop when needed. I don’t need any tools either. When a man gets in his 50s, he usually owns every known tool ever made and now spends more time searching for a tool then it takes to use it. So thanks anyway. Now my sons call me and ask what the difference is between an Allen wrench and an adjustable wrench because they weren’t interested in learning when I was trying to teach them when they were growing up. Any tools I get for Christmas will probably be duplicates, and I will promptly pass the old tools to my tool-challenged sons. What I would like for Christmas is the promised Obama tax cut for the middle class, but being a seasoned adult, I’m not holding my breath. If he lowers my income taxes by say, 3%, and then allows the Bush tax cuts to expire, I’ll have a net increase of about 3%. I don’t see Congress rushing to push legislation for middle class tax cuts so Obama can sign it on Inauguration Day. They’re too busy bailing out the auto industry and Wall Street. I’m afraid by January the Democrat Congress will tell us that it can’t afford middle class tax cuts because of all the bailouts. I waited eight years for Bill Clinton’s promised middle class tax cuts but they never materialized. Instead, he asked for and received the largest tax increase in history. Fool me once, shame on you . . . The Democrat-led California legislation could give me a state income tax cut as well for Christmas. But all I read in the papers is that it wants tax increases to make up for a projected $14 billion deficit. Why not demand proof of citizenship and legal residency before someone receives a free education, medical treatment and social services? That would balance the budget immediately. As it stands now, I’m in the 9.3% state income tax bracket. I could buy a home in an income tax-free state and comfortably make the mortgage payments with the money I pay the state of California every year. I might even be able to afford that Bentley.

For Blago and Illinois Friends, It’s Never Too Early to Say ‘Pardon Me’

The arrests of Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, made for an unusual event in federal law enforcement. Not that they were arrested for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and solicit bribes from those interested in being named as President-elect Barack Obama’s replacement in the U.S. Senate, but rather they were arrested prior to being indicted by a federal grand jury. Having worked many long-term federal criminal investigations as a Supervisory Special Agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration, I know from experience that a U.S. Attorney’s preferred method of operation is to indict someone first, then make an arrest as a result of his or her indictment. When someone is indicted, the assistant U.S. attorney will then go to a federal judge for the issuance of arrest warrants. Indictments essentially automatically generate arrest warrants without having to go through a complaint process, as was the case with Gov. Blagojevich. This tells me that the years-long investigation the FBI was conducting suddenly accelerated after the November 4th election when it became apparent that Gov. Blagojevich would be naming someone for Obama’s upcoming vacant Senate seat. That’s when it must have become very interesting to the agents listening to the court-authorized wiretaps and listening devices located in the governor’s office. It’s apparent to me that Patrick Fitzgerald, the same prosecutor who handled the Scooter Libby case, felt compelled to act now, rather than wait until after Gov. Blagojevich had named a successor. If he had, the successor would most likely also be indicted for bribing the governor, and the whole situation would have made an interesting discussion in a middle school civics class. The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Fitzgerald said at a news conference that he felt compelled to act because of a lot of “things going on that were imminent,” including legislation awaiting the governor’s signature that was allegedly being held, pending a potentially illegal payment to the governor. I’d like to read that piece of legislation. Unfortunately, Gov. Blagojevich can still appoint the next junior senator from Illinois and sign that legislation even through he’s been arrested. The Illinois legislature has made it known it will look into impeaching the governor, and that can’t come soon enough. In the federal complaint, Gov. Blagojevich is alleged to have solicited bribes from a Chicago-based children’s hospital in return for not cutting off state funding. I can only imagine how anyone who voted for this guy must feel now. When someone is indicted, this takes the place of a preliminary hearing. From a strategic standpoint, it allows the government to limit its exposure to exactly what evidence is on hand. That all comes out during the discovery process prior to trial. Knowing how assistant U.S. attorney’s think, there should be no doubt that the FBI has accumulated enough evidence to bring Gov. Blagojevich and his chief of staff to trial now. It’s a sure bet that Gov. Blagojevich and his chief of staff will be indicted before then, rather than go through a lengthy preliminary hearing, now scheduled for January. One question that remains is how many others will be indicted along with them. Mr. Fitzgerald has publicly said that there is no connection between President-elect Obama and the investigation. That may be true today, but it’s almost inevitable that someone involved in this scheme will be anxious to roll over on the other conspirators and cooperate with the government. The forthcoming trial and the people named could have a dramatic affect on the upcoming Obama Administration. Let’s hope that the arrest of Gov. Blagojevich is not a prelude to what we can expect from the upcoming Obama Administration. I say this because those you chose to associate with are usually a reflection of your own values. So far, Obama’s friend Tony Rezko has been convicted and now Gov. Blagojevich, Mr. Harris and most probably five or six others will go down that same path. The waiting list for pardons for Illinois politicians from President Obama will be lengthy by the end of his administration. But never fear. Attorney General-designate Eric Holder has plenty of experience from the Clinton Administration in securing presidential pardons for people like Marc Rich, whose ex-wife, Denise, made a substantial contribution to the Clinton Library. It’s never too early to ask for a pardon.

Let 18-Year-Olds Be Kids

The recent debate about lowering the drinking age to 18 should be over by now. So long as 18-year-olds are allowed to vote, marry, enter into contracts and join the military, they certainly should be mature enough to handle a beer. Or are they? The debate has me thinking that someone who’s 18, still in high school, and barely shaves, probably shouldn’t be able to do adult things because they simply haven’t matured enough to make important decisions. Should an 18-year-old be charged as an adult for a crime and go to state prison because his brain hasn’t caught up to his rapidly maturing body? If young people were not allowed to marry until they were 21, maybe there would be fewer divorces among people married between 18 and 21 years old. Maybe if someone had to be more mature at 21 before receiving his first credit card, he wouldn’t be hopelessly in debt because the credit card company gave him a $20,000 credit limit, despite being unemployed. Federal law does not allow someone under 21 to purchase a handgun, but he can own a shotgun or rifle at 18. Apparently, lawmakers think young people are mature enough to handle some weapons, but not others. Maybe if you had to be 21 before you could vote, better candidates would be elected. Ever see the Jay Leno segments where he asks people on the street to identify a photograph of the vice president or Speaker of the House, and they didn’t have a clue who they are? But they can identify Brad Pitt, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton every time. That’s enough evidence for me to not let anyone vote until they are at least 21, expect for military members, of course. If they can go into battle, they should at least have a say in who their commander-in-chief is. If you’re old enough to carry a gun into battle, then I think you’ve earned the right to sit at the bar at the local VFW and tell war stories. My point is that if 18-year-olds cannot be trusted with alcohol, then they shouldn’t be trusted with credit, marriage or voting, nor should they be ask to give their lives while serving in the military. Or, looking at it another way, if 18-year-olds are trusted to vote, enter into contracts and serve in the military, they should be trusted to handle alcohol. Which way is society going to go with this issue? Obviously placing a prohibition on young people drinking before they reach 21 has been a dismal failure. Changing the drinking age back to 18 would probably be insignificant in terms of increased drunk driving arrests or death by binge drinking. But some studies suggest just the opposite. Drinking at a young age does not have the stigma in most countries around the world that it does in the United States. Youngsters around the world don’t sneak booze because it not stigmatized like it is here. They grow up with wine at the table with dinner, and mostly learn to drink responsibly. If it’s taboo, then young people want to experience firsthand what all the fuss is about. The mystery goes away once you have your first legal drink. Hundreds of presidents of prestigious universities around the country started this debate because they know it’s impossible to stop their students from drinking. Lowering the drinking age would probably shift some liability from the schools to the individual students who drink – but young adults shouldn’t have some of their rights restricted just because of their age. My whole point is that if someone is old enough to do some adult things at 18, then he or she should be allowed to do all things other adults do. I personally would like to see voting, drinking, marriage and other legal contracts restricted to persons over 21 years old, except for those in the military. Young people should be allowed to join the military at 18 and immediately emancipated and considered adults upon swearing in, because they’ve earned it. What’s wrong with expanding juvenile status to persons until they reach the magic age of 21? It was that way in the past, and it wasn’t such a bad thing. I think those between 18 and 21 would benefit from waiting a few more years and gain a little more maturity before they are thrust into full-fledged adulthood. Because life’s too short as it is, they should enjoy their youth while they can.

Liberals Win: Crack Dealer Sentences Slashed, So the Good Old Days Are Back

Earlier this year, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Commission finally succumbed to years of immense political pressure from the NAACP, Left-wing judges, the ACLU and other liberal groups to decriminalize the federal penalties for trafficking in crack cocaine. Now upwards of 20,000 crack dealers will be released back on inner-city streets within the next 12 months. They’ve all had years of a steady diet of “gangsta” rap music and made new drug contacts in prison, and now will not be intimidated by the new, puny prison sentences for selling gram amounts of crack cocaine. Many argued that the mandated five-to-10-year sentence for selling five-grams of crack should not be the same as another defendant selling 500 grams (one-half kilogram) of powdered cocaine. For you metrically challenged, a gram is the amount contained in a single packet of Splenda®. Liberals long ago drew the race card when they first cited the fact that 80% of persons convicted for crack sales are black, insinuating the government only targeted blacks. If that were true, only blacks would be in prison for crack sales. As far as I am concerned, the sentence for selling five grams of powdered cocaine should be the same as the old crack penalties, and hardly any blacks are convicted for that. Remember the mid-1980s “crack epidemic?” Remember all the violence and drug-related homicides that were occurring in inner city communities across the nation as organized traffickers fought for control of the new, emerging market? Remember “crack babies,” who were born mimicking the same symptoms of their drug-induced mothers? Liberals would like you to believe the crack epidemic never happened. And if it did happen, it wasn’t as bad as the government predicted it would be. Tell that to the mother whose son was killed by a stray bullet from warring crack gangs, or to the grandmother whose grandchild she is raising suffers from a myriad of learning disabilities because her daughter, the child’s mother, used crack while she was pregnant. The epidemic was not as bad as predicted because DEA task forces, which included state and local police agencies, aggressively attacked the problem. And those convicted were given substantial prison terms depriving them of their ability to continue the havoc. The “let ‘em out” crowd would also like you to believe there is no difference between crack and powdered cocaine. That’s just not so. There was a good reason why crack cocaine penalties were much higher than selling an equal amount of powdered cocaine. Crack requires 100 times less weight than powdered cocaine to achieve an even greater high. When additive-free crack cocaine is smoked, the fumes from the pure drug create an intense euphoria superior to that of powdered cocaine, although for a shorter duration. The intense euphoria is what makes it so much more psychologically addicting. It’s also much cheaper. Users only pay $10 to $20 for a pea size amount. Crack cocaine suddenly provided a cheap, intense high that attracted poor drug users and rich ones alike. By the way, if it makes liberals feel any better, most crack users are white and they come from all socioeconomic backgrounds. Well, now that the liberals have finally prevailed, get ready for a repeat of those dark days, which is what prompted Congress to enact longer sentences in the first place. Haven’t we learned anything about what works, and more importantly, what doesn’t work to lower the crime rate? Sentencing guidelines coupled with mandatory minimum sentences worked well, perhaps too well, sending liberals in a tizzy. Sentencing drug dealers to lengthy prison sentences prevents them from further selling poison to our children and committing other crimes. Having fewer drug dealers means a significant decline in the overall crime rate, especially homicides and other crimes of violence. Putting bad guys in jail and leaving them there for substantial periods of time lowers the crime rate every time it’s tried. Why is that so hard for liberals to understand?

Why the Republicans Lost

Contrary to popular belief, Barack Obama didn’t win an historic presidential election – the Republicans lost one. What do you expect when the Republican candidate was the most liberal of the pack to run during the presidential primaries? The choice the voters had during the general election was to vote for a liberal or vote for a far-Left-wing liberal. There wasn’t a conservative Republican on the ballot for president. Several years ago, John McCain seriously considered switching parties. Isn’t that a clue about his political leanings? He seriously considered being John Kerry’s running mate in 2004, and his first choice for his vice-presidential running mate was Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat who turned Independent when he got screwed over by the Democrat National Committee. And on top of all that, during the primaries, where allowed, Democrats in droves switched party affiliation to vote for McCain for two good reasons. First, they knew McCain was the most liberal candidate who would bring divisiveness within his party and help their man, Obama, or whoever their candidate turned out to be. Second, with McCain’s nomination, they could live with a Republican in name only, if by some miracle he was elected. Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” attempted the same thing in reverse in an attempt to deplete Obama’s campaign war chest. I think it’s time to end the practice. Either you’re a Democrat or a Republican, but you can’t be both during the primaries. Republicans are more than capable of selecting the wrong candidate at the wrong time, thank you very much. To make matters worse, the New York Times endorsed McCain over the other Republican contenders during the primaries. That’s another clue he’s a liberal. But the minute he was nominated, the newspaper wouldn’t accept an editorial column he wrote, despite having just published one by Obama – that’s fair and balanced, NYT-style. Not surprisingly, the newspaper later endorsed Obama for president. How could McCain run as a tax cutter when he voted against the Bush tax cuts twice, saying they helped the rich out too much? How do you convince someone you really are in favor of expanded domestic oil drilling when you still oppose it in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? How do you convince people you are a conservative when every successful piece of legislation you’ve co-authored has the names of Kennedy, Lieberman or Feingold attached to it? How do you convince your party members you’re a conservative when you wanted to essentially grant amnesty to illegal aliens under the guise of immigration reform? The correct answer is you can’t. What McCain learned, and the Republican National Committee must realize, is that if the electorate wants to elect a liberal for high office, they’ll vote for a Democrat, and not someone posing as one. In its quest to be all things to all people, the Republican Party lost its compass and instead of turning right at the next intersection, it turned Left. In order to appease the Republican base and make himself look more conservative, McCain made a brilliant selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. She energized the base because she was a stunning contrast to him. She said and did everything the conservative Republican masses wanted to hear and see. Republicans win when there is a conservative on the ballot. Take my home state of California for example. Out of all of the ballot propositions, Californians voted against gay marriage, additional state spending on “green” issues and reduced prison terms for drug dealers. I wonder which way McCain would have voted for these issues. There is no question how Palin would have voted, and that’s what made her so attractive to the Republican base. Throughout her short political career, she has always been guided by rock-solid conservatism, and she is the most popular governor of any state. The Republican Party must have a strategic plan to win in 2012 and quit trying to be something it’s not. Sticking to Reagan conservative principles will win every time it’s tried.

Will the Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up?

Like the decades-old television game show, To Tell the Truth, it’s time for Barack Obama to stand up and tell us exactly who he is and what he intends to do as president now the election is over. Is he a centrist who can reach across the aisle to Republicans, a pseudo-conservative tax cutter or a socialist who wants to redistribute wealth? The last few weeks of the campaign have been revealing. Obama professes that he will cut taxes for “95%” of all Americans, yet only about 60% of Americans pay federal income taxes. He says anyone making under $250,000 will definitely receive a tax cut; or is it $200,000 like he said in his infomercial? That figure may even deteriorate down to $150,000 as Joe Biden has said. Which is it? Either way, the math doesn’t add up. When Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, your taxes will go up for sure, assuming you pay income taxes. And, when confronted with an innocent question by “Joe the Plumber,” Obama was most candid. With his off-the-cuff remark about “spreading the wealth around,” Joe successfully unmasked the covert socialistic candidate for what he really is. In Obama’s mind, when you pay no federal income taxes but receive a check from the IRS, that’s somehow a “tax cut.” In my mind, it’s welfare under the guise of spreading the wealth. If you voted for Obama, then I’m sure you’ll like his picks to replace the two most liberal Supreme Court Justices who are expected to retire soon. Why not expand the number of Justices on the Court and fill them with his cronies? The Constitution doesn’t mandate a certain number. Because liberal Democrats control both houses of Congress, what will stop them? Obama also said that he wants to create a “Civilian National Security Force.” At a campaign rally he said, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.” Can anyone explain to me what that is? He wants this new bureaucracy to have the same funding as the Pentagon. That’s another $400-plus billion right there. But wait! He wants to cut the Pentagon’s budget, so maybe it will only be $300 billion more after he cuts the Department of Defense 25% as Rep. Barney Frank says will happen with a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress. Either way, the concept is scary and reminds me of a secret police force that will take conservatives to a re-education camp for compulsory lessons on sharing, tolerance and why abortion is a good thing. On the energy independence front, Obama said that the coal industry will be bankrupted because of his policy of capping greenhouse emissions, and this would “necessarily” raise energy costs. So you can count on higher electricity costs as well as higher taxes, because he will not expand domestic oil drilling. The American system allows the opportunity for an extreme liberal, closet socialist, who has American haters and domestic terrorists as friends, and advocates higher taxes, a weaker national defense, direct talks with dictators, and has the middle name of “Hussein” to be president. What a country. At least I will have four years of material to write about.

Why Liberals Cannot Be Trusted With National Security

In the October 25, 2008 edition of the Standard-Times, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) provided some insights as to what we can expect if he and his fellow liberals win both houses of Congress and Sen. Barack Obama becomes president. According to the article, he called for a 25% cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs. “The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner,” he said. Then he added, “We don’t need all these fancy weapons.” Does cutting defense 25% while engaged in two wars make any sense? It does to liberals. Despite the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers were in this country illegally, and many possessed multiple genuine driver licenses, liberals continue to push legislation to grant licenses to illegal aliens. Sen. Obama is in favor of illegals obtaining drivers licenses. Sen. Obama proudly reminds voters at every opportunity that he was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. John Edwards said his vote was a mistake. If the overwhelming intelligence available at the time couldn’t convince Sen. Obama that Saddam Hussein was a threat that had to be stopped, I’m afraid nothing would have convinced him to go to war to protect this country. If someone showed Obama a photograph of Bill Clinton or John Edwards passionately kissing his wife, would he say there wasn’t enough evidence to question her about it? Stanfield Turner almost single-handedly dismantled the CIA when he was Jimmy Carter’s liberal director, but he did succeed in destroying the morale among the ranks of intelligence case officers with loony ideas like only using persons with clean records as informants to gather intelligence. Please show me an informant for the CIA who doesn’t have baggage like drug dealing or human rights violations. These people possess valuable information only insiders like them have and they are willing to trade it for something valuable. The idea of only using priests and rabbis as intelligence gatherers is a very bad idea. Yet it was hailed by liberals as a necessary reform at the CIA. Liberals are also the ones who built the “wall” within the FBI’s criminal and foreign intelligence divisions and between the FBI and the CIA so they could not share information about terrorists operating in the U.S. Then liberal members of Congress had the gall to appoint Jaime S. Gorelick to the 9/11 Commission. Gorelick, as an underling to former Attorney General Janet Reno, actually wrote the Department of Justice policy that erected the wall! The commissioners didn’t have to go far to find out who was partially to blame for the tragedy. All they had to do was turn their chairs to the far Left and there she was. Despite liberals’ dismal track record on national defense policy, they claim to be every bit as patriotic and concerned about national security as conservatives. Even if you gave them the benefit of the doubt about their patriotism, they cannot point to a single policy or achievement since the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki that has enhanced national security. Advocating a nuclear freeze during the Cold War when it was needed most, defunding anti-Communist guerrillas in Central America, voting against a missile defense shield, leaving town for a recess instead of voting on an important terrorism wiretap bill that was about to expire, and not allowing off-shore drilling for oil, readily come to mind as other examples of the weakening, not strengthening, of national security. Democrat vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden said to mark his words that a President Obama would be tested with a foreign policy crisis within the first six months of his presidency. I think he may be right, given Sen. Obama’s liberalism and lack of any meaningful experience. Putting liberals in charge of this nation’s security is a fool’s bet. In this dangerous era of Islamofacism and Russian reemergence, a liberal in charge of our national security is a nightmare that might come true this election. I’m going to go out on a limb and predict the American people will come to their senses and elect Sen. John McCain by a two-to-five point margin. We don’t have long to find out if I’m right.