Sons and Daughters of Liberty

2012-01-22T08:30:00.000-08:00

Cowardice has a new name: Schettino

There are few things more universally scorned than a leader showing cowardice in the face of mortal danger, especially when that leader is the captain of a sinking ship. The translated radio transmissions between Costa Concordia Captain Francesco Schettino and the Coast Guard Commander ordering him to return to the doomed ship gave a stunning glimpse into the bankruptcy of the moral and physical courage displayed by the fleeing skipper.

Schettino is now facing charges of manslaughter as the investigation continues into the actions that led to the Costa Concordia running aground and sinking. His future will be much grimmer than it already is if it is proved that the fatal disaster was the result of him purposefully steering the titanic ship off course to salute a colleague.

Those of us that voluntarily put ourselves in harm’s way to serve our community, our country, and in the defense of our fellow citizens, understand only too well the responsibility and inherent danger that comes with the respect, honor and prestige of such service. Nobody forces us to choose our career paths, just as no one forced Schettino to accept the mantle of leadership dictating that he be responsible for every human being’s safety on his ship.

That’s what captains of ships, planes, military units, and even civilian companies do, take responsibility. And when they fail in their duties, they need to be held accountable.

Imagine how different the “Miracle on the Hudson” aircraft water landing would have turned out if, after successfully gliding his plane to safety, Captain “Sully” Sullenberger had trampled women and children to be the first one out of the sinking craft, so that he could save his own hide. But he didn’t, because he’s the captain, and he waited with courage and integrity as every passenger got off safely. Only then, did Captain Sullenberger exit the plane, the last man off.

There is no excuse for Schettino’s abandoning his ship before the rest of the more than 4,000 souls aboard had been safely removed and accounted for. And his newfound story that he “tripped and fell” into the lifeboat that carried him to safety heaps even more disgrace upon him.

I’m reminded of how Civil War-era Dr. Samuel Mudd’s name became synonymous with shame and dishonor, upon treating the assassin of Abraham Lincoln. “His name is Mudd,” has been a predictor of future scorn to this day.

I won’t be surprised if the name “Schettino” becomes a verb, much like “Tebowing,” albeit in an infamous way. “He schettinoed out of there before the s—t hit the fan!” will become the new charge of shirking, running away, or not doing one’s duty.

Cowardice has a new name.

2010-09-08T20:46:00.000-07:00

General Petraeus Warns Against Freedom of Speech? Say it Ain’t So!

General David Petraeus may very well go down in American history as one of our country’s most brilliant military leaders, right up there with Generals Washington, Grant, Crook, Patton, and MacArthur. His leadership and vision during the Iraq War, especially in regard to the “Surge,” subsequent successes against Al Qaeda in Iraq, and with counterinsurgency operations in general, will no doubt be studied for decades to come. If there is one American who can inspire confidence among the public that what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, has any chance of success, it’s this guy.

That’s why I cringed when I saw that General Petraeus entered the national debate over free speech and the burning of the Quran by Pastor Terry Jones’ Dove World Outreach Center. Somebody should have pulled the General aside prior to his remarks and told him “don’t go there.” The last thing America needs is for General Petraeus, of all people, to call for an American NOT to exercise his Freedom of Speech rights. General Petraeus? Say it ain’t so!

According to General Petraeus, Jones’ Quran-burning would be exploited “for propaganda purposes, drumming up anger toward the U.S.,” and making the military mission more difficult. The most compelling argument the General makes is that the lives of American soldiers would be put at risk.

Forget for a moment that the reasons given by General Petraeus why Pastor Jones should not burn the Quran are, on their face, seemingly valid! That’s not the point. Burning a Quran, or a Bible, or an American flag, whether you support such behavior or the politics behind the threat, act, display, or utterance or not, is constitutionally protected speech! Do you understand what that means? It means that it doesn’t matter how many folks don’t like it, it doesn’t matter how many people it offends, it doesn’t matter how many people it drives to acts of conniption, craziness, or violence, Pastor Jones has the right—the freedom—to do so. This is what makes America America! This is what separates us from the rest of the world.

Even more disappointing than General Petraeus’ foray into domestic and constitutional politics, is the fact the he bites on the enemy’s (and the anti-war Left’s) most insidious propaganda lie about America’s war effort. That through the “actions” of the United States: invading Iraq, prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib, the accidental killing of civilians in air strikes, and the burning of a Quran by a no-name pastor in Florida, Muslims the world over will become “enraged,” creating “new terrorists” and causing irreparable harm to our image while endangering the lives of American soldiers.

That this is the single greatest lie perpetrated by the anti-war Left, and successfully exploited by our enemies, is irrefutable—proven by the fact that this fallacy has been repeated so often that it has become media, political, and international gospel—to the extent that there are those who think we shouldn’t kill terrorists, because we only create more terrorists! Do you see the idiocy in this argument?

For one thing: the attacks on September 11, 2001 occurred before we invaded Iraq, before the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib, before any Muslim civilians were accidentally killed by any errant bombs, and before any pastor decided to go around burning Qurans! In other words, there were plenty of “enraged Muslims” willing to murder American men, women, children, soldiers, etc., and they needed no extra incentive.

Secondly, the anti-war Left, pro-immigrant rights groups, and Muslim community can’t have it both ways. For years they’ve stated that Islam is a “peaceful religion” and that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and non-violent. Am I to understand then that photos of hooded prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Quran-burnings are suddenly going to make these “peaceful” Muslims hate America and turn into terrorists? So what is it? Is Islam a religion of peace, and are the majority of Muslims peaceful, or not?

The fact of the matter is that Islamist terrorists, and terrorists-to-be, are NOT coming from the “peaceful” Muslim camp—they already hated America and were on the road to jihad, and, as I mentioned before, they’re not going to be swayed whether we burn Qurans or not. They will still come after us. They hated America before 9/11, and they will always hate America. Even President Obama, despite all of his touchy-feely outreach efforts to the Muslim world, is still “Public Enemy #1” on Al Qaeda’s hit list, trust me. Contrary to what General Petraeus thinks, American soldiers aren’t going to be put in any more danger by the burning of Qurans than they already are just by being American, being non-Muslim, and being there!

At the core of the lie that angering Muslims only creates more terrorists, as well as the sad arguments that General Petraeus and others have laid out, is this: that by burning the Quran, fighting the location of the “Ground Zero” mosque, and criticizing Islam, you only sow the seeds of fear and hate, which are hallmarks of our Islamist enemies. And if you give in to fear and hate, somehow, Al Qaeda and the terrorists “have won,” and Americans have surrendered our values.

This is the biggest propaganda lie of all, and the one that the terrorists have used to their greatest advantage. Don’t criticize Islam, don’t criticize us, don’t fight back, don’t resist Islamic culture, because if you do, you’re anti-religious, racist, and imperialist, and you’re oppressing poor Third World peoples. And we’re going to exploit your liberal, Western post-WWII collective guilt, and make you feel like you’re surrendering your values, and shredding the Constitution of the United States…while we (Al Qaeda and the Islamists) do whatever it takes, and by all means necessary, to destroy you!

And you ate this bunk up, General Petraeus! Just keep your mouth shut, sir, and take the fight to the enemy like you’re supposed to.

Because you see, the truth is actually the reverse! Let this wacky so-called pastor burn all the Qurans he wants, let hippies burn the American flag, let lefties call Bush a criminal and a murderer, let American Nazis and skinheads march through downtown Skokie, and let the Klan wear their hoods. Because when this happens here, in the USA, and the world gets to see Americans exercising their Freedom of Speech—no matter how much it offends other Americans—and the world sees that no one is arrested, persecuted, imprisoned, censored, stoned, blown up by a suicide bomber, or has their head sawed off, guess what?

The terrorist lose, and we win.

2010-09-03T00:14:00.000-07:00

Legal Immigration vs. Illegal Immigration: America’s Dilemma

Sadly, the immigration debate in America today has been politicized, marginalized and split down party lines to the degree that true “reform” seems nearly impossible. The Left has portrayed Republicans, Tea Partiers, and all those opposed to illegal immigration as racists and bigots. While those on the Right have branded all those demanding “immigration reform” and “pathways to citizenship” for illegal immigrants as, at best, liberal proponents of “amnesty,” big government, and the welfare state, and, at worst, anti-American lefties who secretly want to undermine the “traditional” (read: white) fabric of this country. The truth, curiously enough, lies somewhere in the middle, and is being obscured by the fact that there are plenty of Americans, from every political stripe, who are pro-legal immigration, yet are staunchly anti-illegal immigration.

America has always had a love-hate relationship with its immigrants. Since the dawn of the good ol’ US of A, the Americans who were already here (ironically, the multi-generational descendants of immigrants themselves) were highly suspicious of those newly-arrived folks, dying (sometimes literally) to become Americans too. There are plenty of historical, military, and social reasons for this Nativist fear of “outsiders.”

The most obvious reason for 18th century American distrust of foreigners was that prior to and during the time of the American Revolution, foreigners came to our shores or encroached into our territory usually to attack us or create mischief (think French and British soldiers, their Native American allies and insurgents, Hessian mercenaries, etc.). The African slave trade further complicated things socially and politically for Americans, as half the country was opposed to slavery, and a great many were uneasy just having the Africans here at all, thanks to sensationalized slave revolts in the Caribbean.

In the 19th century, Americans feared, loathed, and tried to limit the immigration of all types of national and ethnic groups, including Irish, Chinese, Italian, Jewish, Polish, and Russian, most of whom were fleeing one famine, revolution, or other man or naturally-made disaster. Eventually these immigrants of old acculturated, assimilated, or integrated themselves into American society to one degree or another. They learned English, as did their children. They fought our wars, ran for office, and soon were part of the fabric—the so-called “melting pot”—of American society. Americans grew to love them, or at least “accept” them, because eventually they were us and we were them.

And they were “legal,” as far as immigrants could be in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They registered in places like Ellis Island or the Texas border, and most of them became law-abiding new Americans. And they really did do the labor-intensive jobs Americans “didn’t want” because back then, most Americans with high school diplomas had good-paying jobs at factories, warehouses, and manufacturing plants, shipyards, dockyards, and in construction. All of the jobs were here, most of them were held by Americans at “American wages,” and it looked like it was going to be that way for a long time.

Fast-forward to the 21st century. America is at war and the economy is in shambles. Traditional blue collar jobs are extinct due to international outsourcing for cheap labor. And a new type of immigrant has caught the ire of frustrated Americans—the “illegal” immigrant. As far as a great majority of Americans are concerned, illegal immigrants have disrespected our borders and our laws, they have overburdened our social services system, clogged our hospital ERs, taxed our police and fire services, failed to learn English, failed to fully assimilate or acculturate, and are having babies—so called “anchor babies,” automatically getting “unearned” citizenship for their offspring—which they are having at a higher rate than traditional Americans.

Meanwhile, Americans are seeing another class of immigrants who have done everything right, entered the country above-board, have patiently endured the paperwork, long waits, and labyrinthine bureaucracy to go through the naturalization process to become legitimate, legal Americans. Nothing stirs the patriotic fervor of natural-born Americans like seeing legal immigrants, en masse, with their hands held up, waving small U.S. flags, taking the oath of citizenship in convention centers around the country.

And who should Americans be cheering, supporting, and going to bat for? The immigrants doing everything right, waiting patiently, filling out forms, taking classes, sometimes for years, learning about our history and our culture, learning English, and integrating themselves fully into our society? Or the immigrants who have started their life here by breaking our laws, which only make them more prone to criminality? The immigrants, who, because of how they sneaked into our country, are more prone to commit hit-and-run vehicle collisions, more prone to lying to police about their identity, more liable to turn their formerly American neighborhoods into miniature versions of villages and towns in their home country, complete with foreign flags and signage in their native language?

This country is scheduled to become majority non-traditional American by the year 2050, and a great proportion of this new “majority” will be the offspring or second generation children of illegal immigrants.

Do you understand the dilemma Americans find themselves in? Liberals, Democrats, college-educated types, Republicans, Tea Partiers, right-wingers, artists, poets, writers, all find themselves, at one time or another, hand-wringing and getting angry over some aspect of how illegal immigrants have changed the fabric of this country. Many Americans want to do the right thing. Many of us are in support of legislation like the Dream Act, which aims not to punish the successful children of illegal immigrants, who, through no fault of their own, as they were babies when their law-breaking parents crossed the border, embraced their new home, thrived in school, and ended up getting accepted to places like Harvard and Yale, only to face roadblocks due to their immigration status.

But at the same time, Americans don’t want the United States of America to become Mexico, or China, or some other foreign country. If we wanted to live in those places, we’d move there. And we resent being called racists or bigots because we are standing up for enforcing our immigration laws, securing our borders, and demanding accountability and punishment for law-violators. We resent being told that illegal immigrants are working jobs that traditional Americans won’t do, because that is a distortion of the truth. Americans won’t do those jobs at the “slave wages” that illegal immigrants are paid. Pay Americans the traditional “American” wages that they used to be paid and they would all flock to those jobs!

We can support legal immigration, and be against illegal immigration. We can be for “immigration reform” that does not include amnesty, and that does include penalties for those who broke the law.

True immigration reform is not a one-way street. It will depend on good faith and cooperation from immigrants, both legal and otherwise, as well as from the foreign governments of those countries where the majority of illegal immigrants are originating from. And it’s going to cost law breakers something, and it’s going to hurt.

When Americans break the law, we have to face the music. It should be no different for law violators who are foreign-born.

2010-09-01T00:00:00.000-07:00

The Final Word on the Iraq War?

On the last day of August 2010, the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, President Barack Obama, faced the nation and explained what the “end” of combat operations in Iraq means for Americans. This wasn’t the speech the Left would have liked to hear, and perhaps some on the Right, while still skeptical of Obama, were pleasantly surprised. However, after this speech, maybe the bitterness and divisiveness of the last seven years can finally be put to rest. Whatever the end result, as Obama outlined, Americans have much to be proud of.

Obama acknowledged that our country still faces security challenges, and that we’re not out of the woods when it comes to fixing our domestic economic and social woes. Obama pointed out, though, that this “milestone” [the official close of Operation Iraqi Freedom] “should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment.” This is more FDR than Carter, and is certainly a far cry from the latter’s “malaise” speech. Here is a positive reminder that we are moving in the right direction.

As the commander in chief, and with many Americans unsure about his commitment to the military, Obama made it clear that not only does he support our troops, but insists that they are the ones that have shaped the Iraq legacy into the eventual “success” story that it appears to be evolving into, albeit slowly and still painfully. “Yet there has been one constant amidst these shifting tides,” Obama said, “At every turn, America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve.”

And these were not hollow words. Obama could have pandered to the anti-war critics, who still harp on the “illegality” of the Iraq War, the lack of WMDs, and how Bush et all led our country into war under false pretenses. Instead, Obama rose to the occasion as our new “decider,” acknowledging the final result and benefit of having removed Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party.

“The Americans who served in Iraq completed every mission they were given,” Obama said, “They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future.”

However, this was no flip-flop on Obama’s part. He dutifully mentioned that the Iraq War had been a “contentious” issue among Americans. He acknowledged having disagreed about the war with former President Bush. Yet in the same breath, Obama let America now, that he had respectfully called Bush on the eve of this historic speech, and added: “No one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security…And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.”

And he took no undue credit and laid no blame.

Thoughtfully, Obama spent the second half of his speech outlining his war plans for Afghanistan and the continued fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, while emphasizing that the military alone cannot deliver American influence globally, and that “we must use all elements of our power—including diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example—to secure our interests and stand by our allies.”

Obama outlined strategies for ensuring our continued national strength and influence by promoting domestic prosperity and growing our middle class. He emphasized the need for Americans to carry the same burden in reducing our dependence on foreign oil, changing our energy policy, and implementing education reform—what he refers to as the “tough decisions”—as that carried by our military over the last decade. And he looked ahead to ensure that our returning veterans were well taken care of with increased funding for benefits and health care, including a “post-9/11 G.I. Bill.”

Most poignantly, Obama echoed the reality of gauging military success in the post Cold War world. “In an age without surrender ceremonies,” he said, “we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation.” At the same time, he stirred the memories of Lexington, Gettysburg, Iwo Jima, and Khe Sanh, while summing up the hallmark of American military tradition and the true heroism behind those servicemen and women who laid down their lives in Iraq.

“Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries,” he said somberly, “They fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations—war—and helped the Iraqi people see the light of peace.”

If we needed any evidence that Obama has perhaps “arrived” as a Commander in Chief for all Americans, perhaps this speech is it. Obama, in all of his trademark eloquence and magnanimousness, declared not victory nor failure in Iraq, but that Americans had “met our responsibilities” and that it was “time to turn the page.” This is what we needed to hear from our commander in chief, that it was okay to stop playing the blame game and to accept all the good that had come from the bad. That it was all right to let history be the final judge and have the last word on Iraq.

And that “beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead.”

2010-08-30T17:41:00.000-07:00

Religious Tolerance Does Not Mean Cultural Submission

Lost in the heated debate over the so-called “Ground Zero” Park 51 Mosque is the question as to whether American traditional religious tolerance means that we must submit and give way to the “culture” of Islam. One, religious tolerance, is a pillar of our free society. The other, cultural submission, is what the Europeans and other social democracies have let themselves get caught up in through their hapless efforts to placate their growing and restless Muslim populations. Radical Islamist movements have taken advantage of misguided European “multicultural” tolerance policies, to push their agenda of cultural dominance over their European hosts, while retaining the right to cry “racism and bigotry” whenever a Western politician speaks out against the “Islamisization” of their continent.

As a progressively-minded, constitutionally-conscious American who believes in the separation of church and state, as well as the freedom to worship as one chooses, I’m all for “peaceful” Muslims doing their thing. From Presidents George W. Bush to Barack Obama, and from liberal to conservative champions of religious freedom, we’ve all been trumpeting the cause of tolerance and equal rights for the “peaceful Muslim.” The only problem is that the West is still waiting for that great mass of peaceful Muslims to rise up and let themselves be counted in their group-denunciation of terrorism, misogyny, mass murder, and state-sponsored religious and cultural imperialism.

Instead, the only “face”of Islam that has successfully been shown to the West, is the so-called distorted, perverted “Islamism”—the kind whose followers fly planes into our buildings to massacre thousands of innocent men, women, and children; who blow themselves up in crowded marketplaces and recruiting centers; who cheerful wage war against their own Islamic brethren; who detonate bombs in London and Spanish train stations, and Bali nightclubs; who support the launching of missiles and mortars into Israeli population centers; who saw the heads off of non-believers and stone adulterers; who frequently call for holy wars against Western countries, and for the state-sponsored assassinations of individual leaders and dissidents; who support and host terror training camps; who murder their own family members in honor killings; and the list of murderous deeds goes on and on. This is the only “Islam” that makes itself known.

One of the problems is that Islam is not just a religion. It is a culture. It is a political ideology. And for all intents and purposes, it is a race of people. You cannot separate the three—religion, culture, and politics—from the Muslim, because they are all intertwined and important to what makes them a Muslim. In a “pure” Islamic state, there is no separation of church and state because the church is the state, and vice versa. There is no religious tolerance because every Muslim is either a Muslim or an infidel. “Religious tolerance” on the part of Muslims, if you can call it that, only exists in Western countries where Muslims are still in the minority and not part of the power structure…yet.

Westerners are rightly confused and anxious, especially in the United States, when so-called “peaceful” Muslims talk about building bridges with Christians, healing old wounds, and making friends, then completely ignore American feelings when it comes to the location of the Park 51 Mosque. Wait a minute! I thought you guys cared about our feelings and building bridges.

Then by attaching the insidious name “Cordoba” to the project, even unofficially, only makes it appear that the Islamic founders are banking on American historical ignorance of the significance of that Spanish city to Islamic imperialism. They could have named the Park 51 Mosque anything, but to refer to it as the “Cordoba House,” which harkens back to the Caliphate of Cordoba in the Muslims’ attempt to conquer Spain and then Europe, is nothing but a slap in the face to Westerners, and will do nothing to promote interfaith dialogue. In fact, it only fuels Americans’ fears that Park 51 will actually be a subversive Islamist monument commemorating the September 11, 2001 attack.

You want a show of good faith dialogue—move the mosque then we’ll talk. Then the actions will match the words.

In the meantime, we have to read about Muslim efforts to do away with Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) and make “Mecca Time” the international time standard, as they build the largest clock tower in the world, atop the soon-to-be second tallest building in the world (the tallest is also in an Islamic country), in Mecca, which they view as the “center” of the world. We have to hear about Muslim children taunting their European peers in Holland, Denmark, and Sweden, that they will soon “take over” their countries (Muslim immigrants are having children at a rate of 4:1 over their European hosts), and how some parts of England might actually have to put up with Sharia Law.

Putting up with these efforts of the Islamic world to dominate the West, and eventually the rest of the globe is not religious “tolerance.” It is Western cultural submission, and that is something that we, as Westerners, and especially as Americans do not have to tolerate.

I’m all for any peaceful Muslim immigrating to America legally, applying for and obtaining his or her citizenship, getting educated, starting a business, and praying at this little mosque or that community cultural center. As long as that Muslim becomes an “American” Muslim, supports our socio-cultural-political foundations, keeps their “church and state” business separate, tolerates all religions, and denounces worldwide jihadist Islamism. And follows and obeys U.S., state, and local, civil and criminal laws and statutes.

That means no Sharia Law, no honor killings, no fatwas, no jihad, no female circumcision, no misogyny, no terror funding or training camps on U.S. soil, no damn “Mecca Time” and NO monuments or commemorative locations anywhere on U.S. soil, to honor or remember any Islamist attack, aggression, or victory against the West, ever. Don’t even think about it. Don’t even dream about it.

We must tolerate the religion of Islam, as long as it remains just that, a quaint, peaceful religion practiced in homes and community mosques. We do not have to tolerate Islamic attempts to push aside American and Western culture, and replace it with Islamic culture. It is every American’s duty to resist this always.

Our house. Our rules. Live with it.

2010-08-29T14:52:00.000-07:00

The Enemy Within: Legalizing Pot is the First Step on a Short Road to Total Moral Decay

This November Californians will vote on the future of this country. That’s right, the future of America. And it starts right here in California with the marijuana vote. Proposition 19 represents more than a misguided effort to decriminalize “casual” users and make a little money for cash-strapped California. This is ultimately an ideological struggle between one way of life, represented by all that’s good in America, and another way of life that has already torn our neighbor asunder and stands poised to destroy us from within. And it all comes down to whether voters think legalizing marijuana is a good idea or a bad idea.

We’ve all heard both sides of the debate. The War on Drugs is a failure. Legalizing pot can generate millions in needed revenue and eradicate drug trade violence. It eases the pain of terminal disease sufferers, and besides, weed isn’t half as bad as alcohol and tobacco. Look how many people booze and cigarettes kill, right? Opponents of the measure claim marijuana is actually more cancerous than tobacco, drug dealers will still have a market to minors, and that violence reduction will be minimal.

I’m going to present what should be the only argument for never legalizing marijuana or any other illegal drug for that matter—our children. And here’s the litmus test—would you want your kids smoking legalized weed?

Marijuana kills drive and destroys ambition, plain and simple. It zaps the zest for academic achievement and getting a job right out of a kid. Marijuana will make you do self-destructive things by impairing your judgment. It will inhibit your ability to be respectful and responsible. It will interfere with your desire to be a good son, daughter, boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, or wife, because you will no longer care about providing, being thoughtful, taking care of yourself, or making money (except to support your pot craving). You will also believe you can drive safely while under the influence of pot.

Does this make legalizing marijuana sound like a good idea?

If you’re a privileged teen from a good home, become a long-term pot smoker and at best, you’ll be a lazy, overweight, disappointment who’s financially supported by your parents for a while, until the marijuana exacerbates whatever underlying personality disorders you have. Then you’ll have your first mental health break, usually during your freshman year of college, if you even make it to college. You will drop out, move back home, and spend the rest of your days in and out of psychotherapy, becoming a burden to your family and to society. And your parents, being too naïve to put two and two together regarding the marijuana usage, will spend the rest of their days wondering where they went wrong, while waxing poetic about how they saved California’s economy by voting to legalize pot.

Now, picture if you will, an at-risk youth from a low, socio-economic neighborhood in Any City, USA. Throw in a non-existent or incarcerated father, a harder drug-addicted mother with a violence-prone boyfriend, street gangs shooting at each other outside, classmates waiting to assault you as you walk to and from school, sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, neuro-psychological issues like autism, ADHD, PTSD, Bi-Polar Disorder and let this kid get his hands on marijuana.

Still think legalizing marijuana’s a good idea?

It’s easy to preach about the benefits of a nightly, pre-coital marijuana joint, when you’re a privileged, self-absorbed, rich Hollywood type sitting pretty in your multi-million dollar home, or a childless, lefty hipster sneering at conservative American values or anything smacking of “Reagan-Bush.” Most of the Hollywood celebrities, rappers, and star athletes promoting marijuana usage are just mental health cases with money. They are just lucky (most of the time) to have sober “handlers” (assistants, agents, etc.) to keep them out of trouble, jail, or the psych hospitals.

But what if you don’t have money or a clean and sober sycophant looking out for you? What if you’re a poor kid from the inner city, self-medicating with pot because you just can’t bear the misery of your existence: no role models, no education, no jobs, no money, no self-worth, no self-respect, no hope, and no future? Now this kid is high on pot, with nothing to live for, and his buddy hands him a gun and says let’s go rob someone.

Legalize marijuana and drug dealers will still thrive, preying on children and teens. There will still be drug-related violence. The Mexican cartels will just tweak their operation a little and the war will continue. All the so-called taxes that you hoped to raise from the “legalized” pot (which won’t be nearly as good as the still “illegal” pot peddled by the dope dealers, who will of course branch out into the “legalized” pot business, pushing out the licensed dispensaries), will have to be spent on mental health, homeless, and joblessness benefits incurred by the drug users, as well as other medical and social services. Are you willing to explain all of this to your children, when they ask what went wrong?

The problem isn’t that the War on Drugs is a failure. You see, law enforcement held up their end of the war. They did their part. WE did not do our part. Parents, who should have raised their children with good morals, values, and behavior, so that their kids did not want to take drugs or involve themselves in criminal activity, did not do their part. Peers, teachers, coaches, and clergy, who should have continued reinforcing what the parents should have instilled, did not do their part. Academics, activists, journalists, sociologists, politicians, and the media, who should have supported law enforcement and the other pillars of the home front in strengthening family values and maintaining the positive fabric of our society instead of promoting divisiveness, victimization, race-identity politics, materialism, sex, violence, and tabloid journalism, did not do their part.

If every one of us had done our jobs properly, law enforcement and the courts would be just one successful spoke in a wheel of societal success stories involving education, empowerment, employment, leadership, and drug and alcohol treatment. But no, we all wanted to sit back and wallow in collective bad behavior, and then point at law enforcement, as if they were the only group that should have been tasked with waging a war on drugs, and blame them for the failure, as if they were supposed to play hand maiden to us all and raise our kids for us while interdicting drug smugglers.

All of us holding up our end of the bargain in the war on drugs would have required politicians and community leaders to tell parents that they were messed up! And that wouldn’t have got them re-elected. It would have required public school administrators and school board members to tell parents that the problem was at home, with them, and how they had failed in raising their children with good behavior and decent values, and not with teachers, and that wouldn’t have got them funding for their schools. It would have required greedy, sex and drug-obsessed CEOs, Hollywood celebrities, sports figures, musicians and rap stars to look in the mirror, and realize that they were part of the problem, and that wouldn’t have been good for business.

And it would have required doctors, scientists, professors, community advocates, you, me, all of us parents and citizens—people who should have known better—to say enough! Drugs are horrible. They ruin lives. They destroy our children. They tear up the fabric of our community, our neighborhoods, and just make all of society’s ills that much worse. It would have required us all to stand up and say that we’re no longer going to tolerate or celebrate law violators, criminality, illegal immigration, bad behavior, hate speech, flag-desecration, anti-Americanism, insidious teachers and college professors who preach anti-Christian “secularism,” socialism, and race-identity politics, and any others that would degrade our values, and that would have been politically incorrect.

I get that so many of our underprivileged youth are smoking pot, and that minorities seem to get hit the hardest with marijuana enforcement action. So the answer is to “decriminalize” their bad behavior instead of helping them to see a better way? Okay, sure. Legalize marijuana. Why not? Heck, all of our young people and our poor “oppressed classes” are doing it. At least maybe we can decriminalize them so they can “get jobs.” And some day, when enough kids are committing petty theft, we’ll say, aw, heck, let’s legalize petty theft, otherwise all of our kids will be criminalized even further. And some day, we might just tolerate the forcible taking of property from another person. Why not? It’s just property. Stuff. Let’s make robbery legal, too.

And where does it end?

I’ve seen first hand a woman from a good family in a wealthy neighborhood who called the police to deal with her 12-year-old son, who was “out of control.” This boy refused to go to school, had long, greasy hair, and only wanted to smoke pot 24-7. His room was in shambles, he cussed his mother out daily while screaming that he hated her, and had no respect for her. His one goal in life? He wanted to be homeless, so he could have the freedom to smoke marijuana. He was 12-years old! When I asked the mother where her son got his marijuana, she sheepishly told me how she grew marijuana plants because she had a “medical marijuana” card. She lamented that her 12-year-old wouldn’t obey her when she told him that he couldn’t smoke weed.

Where’s the modeling, people? Is this the message you’re willing to send to your children? That you, me, we all let the pot heads, the gang members, the American drug-dealers, and the Mexican narco-terrorists determine the future of our way of life? That we all waved the white flag and surrendered to them? That their way—a world with legalized drugs and who knows what else?—was the better way? Let’s just take the money?

If we all vote to legalize marijuana, we’ve lost our children forever. They will never respect you or me as parents or value anything we ever told them. Our children will think we are all hypocrites and liars. Our children will shake their heads in shame and say: “How could you—who always taught me to do the right thing and say NO to drugs—have voted for this!?”

Believe it or not, a great many of our young people, some who aren’t old enough to vote yet, want marijuana and other hard drugs to remain illegal. These kids actually believe in our great country and traditional American values. They go to church, serve as scouting camp counselors, participate in community service projects, feed the poor and care for the homeless, while relishing their role as “part of the solution and not part of the problem.” They cherish their loving parents who establish boundaries, enforce rules, and mete out discipline, along with praise, hugs, and kisses, because it makes them feel safe, and loved, and grounds them by giving them something they can believe in that’s bigger than themselves. These children, many of them teenagers, actually listen to and respect their parents, even over their peers. These might even be your children.

If you give up, and surrender to those who would undermine the fabric of our society, your children will give up. You can forget about your children getting good grades and going to college, your son earning his Eagle Scout, your daughter getting her Gold Award, and their continued affiliation with anything worthwhile, because what would it all mean anymore? They’re not going to care because the adults who want legalized drugs don’t care. Not about their children, their futures, nor about the future of our nation. These adults just want to smoke pot, cross their fingers, close their eyes and hope and pray they can at least make a little money in the process, and that the crime and bad guys will go away.

Do you think your children are going to feel safe with now-legalized pot dispensaries popping up at the end of your block, next door to your house, with riff raff hanging out, drinking, and smoking dope in front of everybody?

Marijuana is the broken window in the “Broken Window” theory of neighborhood decay. Perhaps you’ve heard of this legendary sociological theory of urban blight. Break a window in an otherwise nice urban area, and leave it broken, don’t fix it. A passerby will see the broken window and assume it’s an area that no one cares about and he’ll have no qualms about throwing his litter there. Now you have a broken window and trash in the street. Then a tagger will come along, see the broken window and the litter, think that nobody must care in that neighborhood, and then he’ll tag the walls with graffiti. Now you have a broken window, trash, and graffiti. Along comes a pimp, a drug dealer, and some gang members…and you can guess the rest of the scenario.

Marijuana is that “broken window.” It’s the first bad decision in an inevitable string of increasingly worse decisions, because after legalizing pot, legalizing cocaine won’t seem so outlandish, and then methamphetamine. Pretty soon people committing crime while high on drugs will just “come with the territory.” Then what else will we tolerate? Outsourcing our protection to armed gangs of narco-criminals like in Mexico? Doing away with law and order altogether? Forget the Pledge of Allegiance! What is America, anyway? Let’s all burn the flag! Hey, Sharia Law’s starting to look good.

Remember NIMBYs? NIMBY stands for “Not In My Back Yard,” and was usually the reaction by citizens whenever someone wanted to build, erect, or establish a program, project, or site that could have a detrimental effect on a neighborhood or property values (think parole office, drug-treatment facility, homeless shelter, toxic waste dump, etc.). Those concerned citizens who didn’t want anything to do with the proposed neighborhood site were called NIMBYs.

I’m going to coin a new term here, a NIMFAB—Not In My Flesh and Blood. And I’m going to stand up and be counted as the first official NIMFAB. I have an intelligent, kind-hearted, patriotic, religious, and beautiful daughter, who believes in giving back to her community and helping people. She gets excellent grades, plays the piano and the violin, and is growing as an athlete. And she is an outstanding Girl Scout, who will no doubt earn her Gold Award and make her Eagle Scout father proud. She already knows what college she wants to go to and what she wants to do as a career.

She is 9-years old.

I’ll be damned if I’m going to give up and surrender to legalized marijuana or any other legalized craziness. And I’m not going to sit around and watch a bunch of degenerate yahoos tear this great nation apart. I’m going to rail against this and stand up for what’s right, as long as I have to. I’m going to do it for my daughter, and for all of her awesome friends, and for all of our children. Because I’m not willing to sacrifice a whole generation of our young people so that pot-smokers can be “decriminalized” or so that California can raise money. Not drug money! Not ever. Legalizing marijuana is the first step to the social and moral decay of the United States, and that is a bad idea. And I feel the same way about that bad idea, as every dutiful parent feels about every other bad idea.

Not in my flesh and blood!

A shorter version of this article appeared in the Pasadena Weekly of September 9, 2010.

2010-08-25T09:21:00.000-07:00

American Lessons from Mexico’s Drug War

There is one city where, on average, four people are murdered per day. This city has the highest murder rate and has been dubbed “the most dangerous city in the world.” You might be wondering if this place is somewhere in Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iraq? Are these high casualties a result of horrific suicide bombings carried out by Islamist radicals? Try none of the above. This violence is a stone’s throw from the United States, in a place called Ciudad Juarez. This is a city in a country whose daily death toll in its drug war tops the daily death tolls for both Afghanistan and Iraq. And sadly, this is probably the most underreported story in America today.

As America wages its own drug war, albeit in a less violent way, and stands poised to vote on the legalization of marijuana in its most populous state, California, in November 2010, Americans need to do some serious soul-searching about the future of their country. And they need not look any further for answers than the tragedy that has become Mexico in the 21st Century.

Mexico has become a country where the myriad drug cartels have literally integrated themselves into every strata of Mexican society—the government, military, police, business, and the media. If you are an “honest” cop, or a soldier who supports the government, you must grow eyes in the back of your head. You never know if you will be killed in a gun battle with narco-terrorists, or by your fellow men, who secretly work for the cartels. Politicians are routinely ambushed and assassinated, along with their families, just for running for elected office.

No one is off limits. A new police chief in his first day on the job is gunned down. A man from the U.S. side of the border, visiting Mexico, is gunned down along with his first grader son. Teenagers and young adults post a Facebook note advertising a party, and cartel gunmen show up and massacre them. A Mexican Marine slain in a gun battle with gangsters is laid to rest on Mexican TV, as his female relatives mourn over his casket. That evening the women are brutally murdered in their home. Heads roll, literally, into businesses, down the street, or any place where intimidation is needed.

Freedom of the press? Forget it. Journalists are routinely murdered for writing articles critical of the cartels, and are often told exactly what to write if they want to live long. Businesses are extorted, family members kidnapped, pop singers threatened, car bombs detonated. And as many as 72 bodies are found in cartel “dumping grounds”—mass graves where their victims, usually rival drug traffickers or kidnap victims, men and women, are just tossed, like garbage in a heap.

It makes one wonder how long before the government starts teetering on the brink of becoming a national security issue for the United States, an extreme example being a failed state like Somalia. U.S. Joint Forces Command, predicting “worse-case” scenarios for North America, has considered the Mexican government’s collapse within 20 years.

Mexicans, media on both sides of the border, as well as Americans who are left of center and in the pro-drug legalization camp blame drug consumption in the United States for Mexico’s woes. The problem with that argument, is that we have drug-dealers here in the USA, both domestic and from Mexico, and we certainly have as many guns here, if not, more, than in highly gun-prohibitive Mexico. The U.S. has been waging our own “War on Drugs” since the 1980s, while President Calderón of Mexico’s war on drugs was launched in 2006, yet U.S. society is not teetering on the brink of failed-statehood, with U.S. troops and police forces battling drug cartels in the streets of Small Town, USA. Why is this?

One reason is history—although next door neighbors, the United States and Mexico could not be culturally farther apart. Mexico inherited a Spanish colonial system based more on wealth accumulation for the crown and individual soldier-governors, racial and social castes, and the social dominance of the Catholic Church. What followed independence was muted progress, several wars and political instability through years of dictatorships (think Santa Anna and Díaz). This set up a centuries old model of top-down corruption and governmental oppression which still exists in one form or another throughout Mexico today.

The United States on the other hand evolved from an English model of colonialism that established the thirteen colonies not as a far off land to be plundered by military conquistadors, but by religious refugees and learned men, who hoped to create a model of British society back home, based on the rights of man and the rule of law. The United States inherited this system, which enabled the Founding Fathers to create the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the separation of church and state, an armed citizenry, States’ Rights, and a cultural disdain of perceived oppressors, whether large or small, foreign or domestic.

For good or bad, the cultural tone was set for Americans in 1776, and we never looked back. Put simply: We love freedom. We believe in the rule of law, states’ rights, and the right to own guns. We love and respect our military and police forces. We hate corruption, whether in Washington or Bell, CA. And we hate bad guys, from Hitler to Saddam, from Castro to Chavez, from the Italian mob to the Mexican drug cartels. Except for the period leading up to the Civil War and for a brief time in the Vietnam-era, Americans have rarely had to fight each other for the “soul” of our country, what we stood for—we always knew what it was.

That is why the drug cartels, or even Al Qaeda for that matter, are unable to make the violent inroads in the United States that they are able to make elsewhere. The corruption level just isn’t high enough among Americans, who still believe in law and order. Americans, both in the citizenry, in government, and in our military and police forces, just wouldn’t tolerate or accept the levels of violence here that are being perpetrated in Mexico and elsewhere.

Mexico is fighting for her life. She is fighting for the “soul” of her country. Up until now that fight has been whether Mexicans will surrender to the rule of the cartels, in return for peace and a chance to make a living, or stand with a potentially corrupt-beyond-repair government that offers little but more of the same. It doesn’t matter how many guns are smuggled into Mexico from the USA and elsewhere. It doesn’t matter how much consumption in America drives up the prices and demand for illegal drugs. Until the Mexicans stand up and decide what they will believe in—the rights of man and the rule of law, or drug-fueled violence and anarchy—the war will continue south of the border.

So far, America’s “soul” has remained intact. Think about that in November, when Californians will go to the polls to vote whether marijuana should be legal or not.

2010-08-24T19:31:00.000-07:00

Seven Reasons to Ignore James Altucher and Send Your Kids to College

Thinking about sending your kids to college? Not so fast, says DailyFinance writer James Altucher. In his recent essay, “Seven Reasons Not to Send Your Kids to College,” Altucher, a proponent of legalized insider trading, argues that the college industry is a “self-perpetuating Ponzi scheme” that must be stopped at all costs. Citing the rising costs of tuition, college grads’ debt burden, and student borrowing, Altucher says that putting $200,000 you would have spent on your child’s college education into a municipal bond yielding 3% would be a better investment for said child 49 years down the road.

Altucher presents some compelling arguments for not going to college…if you were uneducated, greedy, and easily manipulated—you know, the kind of folks who actually do fall for Ponzi schemes. So your non-college educated child now has to wait 49 years for his or her cushy retirement gig? In the meantime, what is your blue-collar, minimum wage earner, if he or she even lands a job in today’s devastated economy, going to do to survive?

Here are some of Altucher’s alternatives-to-college suggestions: Give your uneducated teenager $20,000 to start “one to five businesses.” Altucher believes the so-called “education” your kid could get from this experience (having your business fail, and going from one unsuccessful venture to the next), would “last a lifetime” and generate invaluable knowledge. So much for the school of hard knocks. Most of the parents I know wouldn’t even give their kids the keys to their car let alone $20K.

And how about this winner—“travel the world,” he says, claiming that a global jaunt will “mature” your child and better prepare them for…college! Wait a minute, Altucher, I thought we weren’t supposed to send our kids to college. I guess even he can’t keep the secret in that, yes, eventually one needs a college education to advance in this life. This see-the-world scenario is probably his weakest argument since he points out that college tuition just gets more and more expensive. Well, it isn’t going to be any cheaper after they spend a year trying to find themselves, Eat Pray Love-style.

My favorite was his suggestion that you just basically leave your kid in a room full of books and let him or “home school” their college education. That way you can save yourself the $200,000. I guess you better hope your kids graduated from a high school that didn’t just “socially promote” them their HS diploma, while leaving them with a seventh-grade reading level.

The problem with Altucher’s wacky proposition is that it fails to take into account that American culture in the United States is set up, bad or good, to reward with the trappings of “mainstream success” only those individuals with a pronounced work ethic. While there will always be the exceptions to the rule, for the most part, if you want a high-paying career with benefits, a house in the ‘burbs, a spouse, and 2.3 kids, and you want to live comfortably, the best way to start is armed with as much college education as you can get. A college degree is the most visible, widely accepted “proof” that you have a high work ethic, and can be trusted with the reins of retail, corporate, or government leadership.

Having a college degree (or two) lets employers, CEOs, superior officers, etc., know that you: 1) showed up somewhere, every day, and usually bright and early, 2) knew how to follow rules, policies, procedures, as well as instruction, 3) are experienced getting along with people from different backgrounds, beliefs, etc., 4) worked long hours to achieve a set of clearly-defined goals, and 5) actually achieved said goals. That college degree also usually means you’re even tempered, well-adjusted, mentally sound, and probably morally straight(er) than most.

The ability to apply and get accepted to a college or university, and stay enrolled and maintain academic excellence, and then graduating, is a feat both rare and deservedly honorable. In American culture, getting one’s college degree is arguably the most prestigious achievement a young adult can earn. Don’t believe me? Just ask James “Don’t-Send-Your-Kid-To-College” Altucher, who holds a BS from Cornell University and a master's degree from Carnegie Mellon University! Don’t you love when people try to tell you NOT to do something that they benefited from? And for all you college-educated brainiacs, my “seven reasons” to ignore Altucher are buried in the body of my article. How many can you count?

VICTOR CASS is a proud Eagle Scout and college grad, holding both a Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree, Awarded with Honors, from Art Center College of Design, in Pasadena, CA, and a Master of Arts Degree from American Military University, in Manassas Park, VA, all of which prepared him greatly for life success. He highly recommends that parents encourage their children to earn their Eagle Scout, Gold Award (for Girl Scouts), and that they find a way to send their kids to college!

2010-04-20T08:22:00.000-07:00

American “Individualism” and the Housing Market Collapse

Culturally, as Americans, we are imbued with since birth, strive to maintain throughout our lives, and tout, almost as a badge of honor, our “rugged individualism.” It’s that Lewis and Clark, from log cabin-to-the-White House, pull yourself up-by-your-bootstraps identity that separates us from our foreign brethren across the seas and over the borders, who are more accustomed to “welfare state” big governments (at worst) and “it-takes-a-village” communal societies (at best).

I’ve often been asked by my more socially democratic friends (both non-American and American), if our cherished concept of “Individualism” hasn’t been part of our problem, as if, Americans, left to our own devices and without Big Government to reign us in, are the root cause of all of society and the world’s ills, from corporate greed, to global warming, and even our so-called foreign policy misadventures. This is an interesting and complex question, which deserves an equally interesting but not-so-complex an answer.

American “Individualism,” as forged by our founding forebears and honed by generations of builders of our great nation, is not a blank check to run afoul of morality and religious, societal, and civic duty. On the contrary, the very nature, spirit, and purpose of American Individualism is the cheerful acceptance and almost pious adherence to the concept of personal responsibility, which many people today have discarded as an annoying hindrance to the accumulation of fast money and fame, irresponsible Big Government “welfare reach,” and pie-in-the-sky, social programs that are great for getting votes and headlines, but are designed to be run and funded by “someone else,” usually to the eventual detriment of American society.

Interestingly enough, the housing market collapse of 2006-08 may rightfully (and hopefully) someday be viewed in its proper context as a failure of traditional and responsible American individualism. While politicians and media finger-pointers laid the lion’s share of the blame for the burst of the housing bubble on banks, mortgage companies, and “greedy” corporate CEOs, the fact of the matter is that without greedy and irresponsible home-buyers, there would have been no inflated housing market, nor a market crash.

This is where the “personal responsibility” part of American individualism comes into play. Yes, part of the American dream is owning one’s own home, but it was a dream that was earned—worked toward with blood, sweat, and tears. Owning a home historically was never a “right.” If you couldn’t afford home ownership, you had to be content with renting or living at home with your folks, while working hard to save money to someday (hopefully) achieve the goal of home-ownership.

Short-sighted politicians in the1970s laid the groundwork for the dismantling of the core foundations of American individualism when they passed laws forcing mortgage companies to offer loans they otherwise wouldn’t have to low-income Americans, under the “value-of-hard-work”-defeating banner of “everyone should own a home.” Should everyone own a home? Not if you can’t afford it, and there’s the rub.

Greedy Americans, who had long ago abandoned the tenets of responsible, good old-fashioned American work ethic, who had foolishly stopped believing in the value of a college degree, who had let their minds be poisoned by the Dot.com “easy money” fantasy, and who later bought into the notion that anybody could be a real-estate mogul or “house-flipper” by buying a how-to book or taking a class, and worse, that you could actually get something for nothing—no money down home loans—and that there wasn’t a dreadful catch down the line, started buying houses they couldn’t afford.

I don’t care how many greedy CEOs there are, or how many unscrupulous bankers or mortgage lenders or stock brokers looking to get rich quick off so-called unsuspecting home-buyers there are. None of their actions could ever affect say, someone like me. Why? Because I know the value of hard work and that there are no free lunches. I also know my financial obligations and limitations, and I believe in individual responsibility, not get-rich-quick schemes. In other words, if I can’t afford a house, I'm not going to try to get one. I certainly couldn’t afford any mortgage scheme back then, no matter how too-good-to-be-true it seemed, so I didn't get caught up in the housing "gold rush." I’m also not materialistic and I’m not greedy.

So I exercised the not-so-glamorous aspect of my rugged, American individualism, and chose frugality, savings, and slow, methodical, tried and true roads to wealth accumulation, including hard work supported by the knowledge, skills, and talents that I had earned, accomplished, and honed along the way. I chose to rent because it was cheaper and more affordable. I chose to live with my parents once in a while. Someday I may be able to afford the house I want, but that someday wasn’t then or now, and no fast-talking mortgage lender or real estate guru will be able to convince me otherwise. And I didn’t need Big Government to protect me from them.

Sadly, many Americans today have subordinated our traditions of individualism and personal responsibility to the passive, victim mentality of the welfare state recipient. This tragic mindset has led many to believe that nothing they do is ever really their fault, that there is always a corporation, government entity, historical grievance, prejudice, drug, mental illness, economic or societal disadvantage, upon which they can blame for all of their bad behavior or lack of success. They placate themselves with the lie that only Big Government can protect them through hand-outs and legislation.

Americans need to get back on track and re-learn the value of hard work through education and persistence. We need to focus on feeding the heart and mind with knowledge, morals, and our spiritual or religious beliefs, and not our stomachs with fast food and soda. American individualism isn’t about getting some other entity to buck the system, tweak the law, or hide the devil in the details so that you can get something you can’t afford, it’s about earning what you need or want through a cherished work ethic, doing things the slow, methodical way, and sometimes walking the harder path, not because it’s easy (because it isn’t) but because it’s the right thing to do.

2009-06-26T08:13:00.000-07:00

Iranian Oppression and the Small Arms Survey 2007

One thing that has struck me as I’ve watched the passionate street protests and demonstrations by Iranians clamoring for freedom and democracy, is how woefully vulnerable and defenseless they all are. I see grown men running in fear from club, chain and truncheon-wielding security forces, while teenagers and women flee from the sound of governmental gunfire. This isn’t a standard crowd control operation in a Western democracy, where professional police forces abide by constitutional law in dispersing an unruly mob. This is naked state-sanctioned violence and oppression of unarmed and peaceful civilian populations—a crackdown by a totalitarian regime, plain and simple.

Unless a great surge of the Iranian populace tips the scales in favor of the demonstrators by sheer strength of numbers, the Iranian government will most likely crush the protests, silencing all further dissent, arresting opposition leaders, and imposing even harsher population control methods. Sadly, it is a scenario the West has seen all too often when fledgling democratic movements have attempted radical political change, peaceful or otherwise, in countries ruled by dictators. The single most decisive factor in the totalitarian regimes’ ability to crush the uprisings has been the fact that the government had ample access to guns, and the people in opposition did not.

No matter which side of the national gun control argument you fall on, statistics show that those countries where the gun ownership and/or availability rates among the populace are highest are the most democratic and free societies on Earth. One needs to look no further than the Small Arms Survey 2007, of which the countries with the highest gun availability rates (guns per 100 residents) included: Switzerland (46.0), Finland (32.0), France (32.0), Sweden (31.5), Canada (31.5), Austria (31.0), Germany (30.0), and New Zealand (26.8). None of these countries is ruled today by an authoritarian regime.

The United States of America ranks number one on this list with 90.0 guns per 100 residents. This does not mean that 90% of the population in the U.S. owns a firearm. It means that of every 100 persons in America, dispersed throughout (whether one person owns 10 guns or none) there will be found 90 guns. Naturally, we are the most free and most democratic society of them all.

However, do not misconstrue the meaning here. High gun ownership rates do not make a society free and democratic. It is the fact that the people (government) of the United States of America cherish our institutions of freedom and democracy, as laid down by our Founding Fathers, so much, that individual liberties, including the right of our citizens to individually own firearms, are so dearly protected. Why is this important?

The text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as passed by Congress, reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Pay special note to the section “necessary for the security of a free state” (italics mine). Our Founding Fathers knew that the security of the United States, in essence, whether we, as a country, would succeed or fail, would rest, in a great part, on our ability to defend ourselves—to defend our freedom—from enemies, both foreign and domestic—which included any potential shift in the style of our own government. This could only be possible if our people had the liberty of individual gun ownership.

Totalitarian regimes crack down on unarmed populations. Armed populations can wage war against totalitarian regimes. That is why authoritarian regimes like Hitler’s Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, China, Iran, and many others like them prohibit or strongly curtail individual gun ownership. It is easier to stamp out individual freedom and oppress people if they can’t shoot back at you.

Naturally, what gun-control advocates blast as our “gun culture” has come at a price. The U.S. has some of the highest civilian gun-related homicide, suicide, and crime rates in the West. Of course there are many intangibles involved in controversial findings which compare anything from one country to the next. These factors include cultural differences, unequal immigration rates, the immense size and diversity of our population, and the fact that we have unique urban centers which have no equal in the world. Others would say, “Well, that’s a small price to pay for freedom.”

Because the flip side is that our police and military forces are among the most professional and respected in the world, especially by our own law-abiding Americans. We believe in the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States. Our government is not oppressing our women, imprisoning political dissenters, arresting peaceful protesters, silencing free speech, and the like.

Iran, by the way, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 has 5.3 guns for every 100 residents. I think I saw more than 5.3 security forces cracking down on the poor Iranian people.

2009-06-23T22:29:00.000-07:00

Go, Iranians, Go!

As I watched Neda Agha Soltan’s eyes turn toward the person videotaping her last moments, just before blood began pouring out of her mouth and nose and she lost consciousness, I knew the sick feeling I had was being felt by millions of people around the world who were watching this same grisly footage. I have seen death and dying before. I’m a police officer in the United States and I have watched homicide victims taking their last gasps, seen bullet-riddled bodies lying in the street. But the image of Neda dying affected me like no scene of death in real life.

Neda wasn’t a criminal shot dead by a rival gangster in an arcane turf war. She was not engaged in any self-destructive, nefarious behavior like some of the overdosed drug addicts I’d come across before. She wasn’t a troubled suicide victim, or a DUI crash fatality. Neda was a young, beautiful woman, in the prime of her life, murdered by a cruel and oppressive regime simply for being caught up in a glorious outburst of freedom—an angry, birthing cry of her people’s desire for justice and fair democracy.

Neda was killed for doing something that I and millions of other Americans take for granted, like standing on a street corner protesting the war, or voting for that matter. And right now, in Iran, thousands of Neda’s countrymen—elderly people, women, and children—are being beaten, whipped, imprisoned, and shot for marching, chanting, waving banners, and demanding that their voices—and their votes—be heard and counted. Here in the United States of America, we call this Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly.

There are those, mostly in the West, who say that “American-style democracy” won’t work in the Middle East, Asia, or Africa, and that we must accept Third World “democracy” even if the people “elect” Islamists, communists, or fascists. Well, let me clue you in on something. There is no such thing as “American Style” freedom or democracy, there’s only freedom and democracy.

And it’s not reserved only for Americans, or Westerners, or Caucasian people. It transcends borders, countries, religion, even the laws of man. Freedom and democracy are God-given rights belonging to all the people of the world, no matter where they are from. We deserve it, the people of Iran deserve it, Neda deserved it, and all freedom-loving peoples of the world deserve it. They deserve to be free and to fairly elect their leaders.

And bogus “elections” that install or keep oppressive rulers or regimes in power forever is not “democracy.” Know this. Free people also don’t elect Islamists, communists, or fascists. The people who adhere to those twisted political philosophies know that freedom-loving people would never choose to live under those murderous regimes. And dictators know they cannot hold onto their power without rigging elections, eliminating a free and critical press, oppressing women and minority factions, silencing dissent, imprisoning and torturing political opponents, and murdering artists and intellectuals.

So to the people of Iran I say turn to America for hope and inspiration. We are happy and free. We are not killed or beaten for criticizing our government or leaders. We can say what we want, wear what we want, go wherever we want to, and worship whichever God we want to. Our women are not oppressed. Our girls can go to school, read, and learn to be our future leaders. Our government cannot shut down our internet or phone access. Our votes matter. And we get to choose whomever we want to lead us, even when his middle name is Hussein. And after four or twelve years this leader must step down. And nobody here is murdered or imprisoned in the process.

America is with you all. We are rooting for the people of Iran to rise up and choose your own future. Choose freedom! Choose democracy! Choose happiness! Today in the United States we are all Iranians!

Go, Iranians, go!

2009-06-11T15:29:00.000-07:00

An American in Pasadena

The other night I met an old Art Center friend, Shlomi, and his sister, Bella, who was visiting him from Israel. I had not seen Shlomi for 10 years, so it was nice catching up. At the same time it was refreshing to talk to people who weren’t originally from here. Usually when I’ve been outnumbered socially by foreigners, it was me who was the foreigner (being abroad) and I found myself having to explain American culture or defend U.S. foreign policy to a pack of friendly but suspicious Germans, Britons, Spaniards, or a combination of all three.

This time, however, my friends were Israeli and Jewish, which meant a completely different type of dialogue. Shlomi, now American, and happy with his life here, saw nothing wrong with U.S. foreign policy, and was supportive of both Bush and Obama’s handling of the War on Terrorism. If anything, Shlomi, who served in the Israeli Army, was critical of what he saw as complacency here when it came to our internal security. He said we were lucky Osama bin Laden had not “green-lighted” suicide bombings among our populace.

He offered interesting insight into some questions many Americans had regarding the war. He didn’t believe that the U.S. and her allies couldn’t find bin Laden. He used Yasser Arafat as an example. “Several times, in the last Intifada, and in previous encounters,” he said. “The Israeli secret service or military could have taken out Arafat. And sometimes they were told to take out his number two or three. But each time they were denied removing Arafat for political and security reasons.”

Bin Laden, Shlomi theorized, might have issued an edict that if he is killed, a more radical successor can take off the gloves and attack American cities, population centers, etc., even with suicide attacks. The U.S. might know this, and for the security of the American public, feel it is better that bin Laden remain alive.

Shlomi agreed with my theory that suicide attacks against American civilians here at home have not been “green-lighted” by the Islamist leadership, because it is still considered a “legitimate” war-making tactic in the Middle East. Its use in America would just anger our public and distill the American anti-war movement, which Islamists, much like the communists in the Vietnam War, rely on as a strategic political weapon. “I’m just worried about a radicalized American doing something on his own,” Shlomi warned.

Bella, older and married, with three children, had been a recruiting psychologist in the Israeli Army. Her husband was a retired Israeli paratrooper who had been wounded in Lebanon in 1982. Her oldest son was in the army and her middle daughter would soon be drafted into the army upon graduating from high school. Years of living with danger and uncertainty showed on her face with each faded smile or watchful glance. She chided Shlomi whenever he said something with dubious authority, that she felt bordered on “conspiracy theory.” I smiled as I thought of my sister and I debating politics to the point of pinching and poking each other. Siblings are siblings no matter where you’re from.

The three of us discussed serious business, however. For Israelis, Islamic radicalism wasn’t an abstract concept. There was a shooting war right at the Israelis’ door. Bella looked with concern when Shlomi talked about a recent trip to Israel, in which he and his girlfriend ventured into Palestinian-dominated East Jerusalem. “I would not go there,” Bella said, frowning.

Bella spoke of having to say that she was “Greek” or “Italian” when traveling in Europe, for fear that she would be a target of violence as an Israeli. Shlomi said that he even had to hide his being American while in Europe, let alone an Israeli. Each of them lamented that radical Islam was taking over Europe at an alarming rate. “If you want to see Paris,” Shlomi said, “you better go now. In 20 years France will be Islamic.”

I couldn’t imagine having to deny my being American. Up to now, I’ve never had to and I never will. While I might not walk down Revolutionary Road in downtown Europe with an “I’m American, Shoot Me” T-shirt, I’m certainly going to leave this world as an American. I’d hate to have the last words out of my lips be: “But I’m Canadian!”

The only time our views differed was when Bella praised President Obama’s declaration that universal healthcare was going to be a reality for Americans. Shlomi and I both told her that it was most likely not going to happen. As much as I would love to see all Americans with health insurance, I would not be in support of a government-run program that penalized or heavily-taxed one portion of Americans to cover the uninsured. “Why not?” Bella asked. “The Europeans do it.”

2009-03-09T01:15:00.001-07:00

Pasadena's Blackboard Jungle

Public school districts and communities across the country are locked in heated debate over having police officers patrol their middle and high school campuses. Using cops to nail juvenile offenders is what many critics see as facilitating the so-called “School-to-Prison Pipeline,” by which otherwise “good” kids get caught up in the criminal justice system through citations or arrests, as opposed to their “behavioral issues” being handled internally by school administrators.

However, the idea that the police are targeting basically “good kids” engaging in garden variety mischief is a fantasy being sensationally touted by the media, special interest groups, anti-police activists, and out-of-touch parents. The hard truth that nobody wants to talk about is that many public schools in America are increasingly seeing violent assaults perpetrated by students on teachers, staff members, and each other. That is the real reason why public schools are becoming jail and prison preparatory centers.

Symbolic of being out of touch with these realities is Kris Ockerhauser, President of the ACLU Pasadena-Foothills branch, who said in the March 5 issue of the Pasadena Weekly: "The whole idea of a fistfight becoming a felony assault with a deadly weapon is too strong a response." Just below her remarks, the story discusses the case of a young African-American male who, with the help of two other African-American students, attacked and beat a Latino student with their hands and feet. The three students were charged with felony assault.

For one thing, a “fistfight” is when two people engage in basically “fair,” one-on-one fisticuffs. These were three African-American boys who attacked and beat a Latino boy, in what on its face seems like a racially-motivated hate crime. This Latino student was on the ground, being kicked (by shoes) in the head and face and punched by three people. This was no “fistfight.” This was a crime. This was an assault with a deadly weapon. Don’t think so? Lie down on the ground and get kicked and stomped in the head, face, and neck by three guys wearing shoes, who are also punching you with closed fists. Do you think hands and feet could kill you now?

Another misguided sage is Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, who writes in the Pasadena Journal (March 5, 2009): “The sense that too many schools are turning into prisons is very real. Students are learning that many school disciplinary incidents…that used to end with a trip to the principal’s office, can now lead to an arrest.” I don’t know what schools she attended, but in my day you got sent to the principal’s office for being overly tardy, or for ditching class, not for shanking a student with a knife, or bringing a gun in your backpack so you can shoot a classmate. Violent students assaulting, stabbing, and shooting other students, teachers, or staff, committing vandalism, or committing strong-arm robberies of other students’ belongings are the reasons schools are feeling like prisons. And we need police on campus to arrest these offenders, just like anybody on the streets would be arrested for committing the same acts.

Activists and media spend so much of their time sensationalizing the plight of the “poor” criminal students, disadvantaged from birth, who now have even less chances for success because the police are cracking down on them. How about interviewing, for once, the poor kid who got beat up? Let’s read about the Los Angeles Unified School District teacher who was sent to the hospital with the broken nose, eye socket, and jaw, after being assaulted by several of his own students. How would you feel, as a parent, if it was your child sent to the hospital by a violent student attack? Are you going to wring your hands over the “school-to-prison pipeline” or are you going to demand that the police do something?

There are violent student predators, many of whom are involved in gangs, drug culture, and street criminality. Others, like the Columbine killers, are obsessed with violent video games, bomb-making, and taking revenge out on their peers and society. These “children” have no qualms about bringing weapons to school and attacking classmates, teachers, or staff. Destroying property and stealing, whether by force or fear, is way of life for many of these kids.

Assaults and robberies against our public school children, committed by their peers, happen daily. The police have been decisive in campus crime prevention but are just one spoke in the critical wheel of society’s search for a cure to the ills that plague our public schools. Less crowding, proper funding, skilled teachers, as well as parental involvement, mediation, conflict resolution/anger management training, and access to mental health services will go a lot farther than worrying about a mythical, police-driven “school-to-prison pipeline.”

This article appeared in the Pasadena Weekly issue of March 26, 2009.

2009-03-08T03:28:00.000-07:00

President Obama Rides the Wave, but How Long Will It Last?

I always say ride the wave as long as it lasts. That is what President Obama is doing now as he enjoys 70% approval ratings. So far, like most Americans, I like what I see. Obama has picked a cabinet which I can safely refer to as a “Dream Team.” For instance, Secretary of State Clinton has shown to be shrewd, tough, and nuanced chief diplomat, smoothing out the frayed edges of America’s image overseas (I do not think the image of the U.S. is “broken” as many Bush-bashers would have us think). She will not be intimidated by any men from Russia or Iran, and will seek real cooperation from our European and Asian allies. Secretary Gates, along with our military leaders, have provided our Commander-In-Chief with realistic cause-and-effect scenarios and outcomes which have influenced Obama’s steady decision-making in regard to the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In regard to the economy, Obama has shown to be a diligent and tireless national leader, trying anything and everything to “stop the bleeding.” His federal stimulus package started infusing cash into critical areas, saving the jobs of 25 new Columbus, Ohio police recruits, just days after they were told they’d have to turn their badges back in. As a police officer who has seen agencies in Southern California having to contend with layoffs, this was a sliver of good news among the bad. Obama has his work cut out for him though as the Dow continues to slip and slide to who knows where, and experts across the board agree that things will get worse, perhaps even for several more years, before they get better.

Obama has shown moderate restraint by reigning in spending on all the typical Democratic pet projects lefty liberals are always trying to sneak into budgets. At the same time, he’s shown a fresh willingness to take on Wall Street and the corporate greed that continues to sicken us all. While some continue to throw around the “S”-word (socialism) in regard to Obama, most Americans can agree that all the billionaires and multi-millionaires running around can live with kicking in a little more to help get things going economically. Realistically, capitalism is nowhere near dead, nor is Obama trying to do away with it, but something has to be done. We all have to tweak the game plan a little, because the one we were working with before wasn’t working.

Obama is instilling confidence in those of us who admire a daring leader who is ready and able to take science and technology in new directions. His decision to rescind restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, he will have the courage to take on Big Pharma and get American medicine to actually start curing things instead of managing illness. This may be an uphill battle though, the opening salvoes that we may all get a glimpse of when Obama tackles national healthcare reform. This is one area where the President is at risk of having his approval rating slip.

I like that Obama is channeling the great American Presidents Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt as role models and for inspiration. However, there are dangers with too much comparison and imitation. The situation that America finds herself in now is vastly different than it was in 1861 and 1941. Lincoln and Roosevelt did things in those national emergencies that would make Bush’s steps to keep us safe after 9-11 seem tame in comparison. Lincoln had no problem suspending the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland, occupying Annapolis and Baltimore, and declaring martial law throughout. Lincoln had thousands of suspected Confederate sympathizers arrested, including the U.S. Congressman representing Maryland, numerous state legislators, and even the mayor, the majority of the city council, and the police commissioner of Baltimore. Most of those arrested were held without trial for several years! The lefty liberals of today would have been screaming for Lincoln’s head.

And if there are some who thought Lincoln was bad, President Roosevelt flat out lied to the American people during the presidential campaign of 1940 when he promised that America’s sons would not be fighting in the European war. Roosevelt knew, even when he made that campaign pledge that he would do everything he could to get the U.S. in the war. Before America’s entry into the war, Roosevelt had no qualms about waging illegal naval warfare on the high seas against Nazi U-Boats, in violation of international law. He also violated neutrality laws by aiding and arming Great Britain, again prior to our entry into the war. After Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt rounded up suspected Nazi collaborators and sympathizers, silenced anti-war dissenters, arrested newspaper editors, and herded thousands of non-enemy Japanese-Americans into so-called concentration camps.

While many of us centrist Democrats, and moderate Republicans as well, credited the Obama administration for continuing many of Bush’s security and war-fighting strategies, including troop surges, renditions, and Presidential state secret prerogatives, President Obama will soon find that his actions as Commander-In-Chief in waging the current war will come under increasing scrutiny from the anti-war Left.

That just might be when the wave Obama has been riding high comes crashing into the shore of harsh reality.

2008-11-26T21:40:00.000-08:00

Why this McCain-Palin Supporting Democrat Voted for Obama

At the start of the general election campaign, while still smarting over Hillary Clinton’s loss, I thought that this Democrat might have to go with John McCain. After all, McCain was the known quantity: the seasoned and patriotic American, who would stand tough against our enemies abroad while defending the American Way of life. Heck, I was even taken in by Sarah Palin and her wholesomeness, straight-shootin’ talk, family, and, uh…okay! I just thought she was hot! But seriously, I was unsure what would happen come Election Day, and believed that I wouldn’t know where my little stamper pen would land until I was inside that voting booth.

The problem was that I felt I just didn’t know enough about Obama. It irked me that shady foreigners and most-likely many of our enemies, wanted him to win the election. It was as if they thought that Obama, by virtue of his Islamic heritage, skin color, or unusual name, was “one of them,” or somehow would pander to them. I detested many of Obama’s radical left supporters and special interest fringe groups like MoveOn.org, Code Pink, and wacky “San Francisco Democrats” like Nancy Pelosi, et all. I thought that most of these groups just gave FDR-JFK “centrist” Democrats like myself a bad name.

With such a big, bad world out there, most of which just didn’t care for “America” and Americans, and wanted to see us fall, or at least humbled, I knew that they couldn’t wait for the naïve and inexperienced Barack Obama to ascend the White House, so that they could go after him!

See, Joe Biden was right! Our enemies would test a green President Obama, the same way they tested President Kennedy. After all, anyone who’s played football will tell you, the moment a team sends in a new player they go after him.

So, taking this football analogy and running with it, I came up with the following thoughts and reason for my change of heart toward Barack Obama, who I will dub “the new guy” in my “quarterback controversy” with McCain. Who would I go with: the steady veteran, McCain, or the flashy upstart, Obama?

The veterans, most of whom wanted a boring but reliable ground game, respected McCain. McCain, my starter, was like the quarterback who I thought would lead my team to victory; the guy I had touted all through spring practice, two-a-days, and even up until the start of the season and the big game. He had the guts and the experience to take it to the opposing side even if it was a long, drawn-out slugfest.

Obama, on the other hand, favored risky pass plays (running for President), flashy showmanship (the Democratic National Convention), and he catered to the unruly, younger elements on the team and the radical parents and boosters (Lefty supporters). Obama had never started or captained a team, and I wasn’t sure he could be trusted at the helm.

Like a good football coach, I knew what to do regarding my choice. In the end, it’s really all about the team, not the individual players. And in this case, the USA was my team, and all of them out there in the world, were the “other guys.” They didn’t think my team had it in them. They expected my team to fold; to crumble under the weight of a quarterback controversy. The opposing side relished an opportunity to go after our “new guy” if my starter fumbled. What was I to do?

In the opening game (the General Election campaign), McCain was in there for three-quarters. He never saw his open receivers and kept throwing to the one in coverage, who ultimately dropped passes and was too well defended (Palin). McCain flopped. He gave it his best; had some flashes of breaking out. But alas, ultimately he couldn’t get the job done.

And, as I alluded to before, every good coach must focus on the ultimate goal—what’s best for the team. I had to pull the seasoned starter. I had to turn to the new guy. The untested rookie who had done everything I asked of him, played a perfect spring game, executed plays flawlessly in practice, showed poise, confidence, and leadership—an inspiration to the entire team!

Barack Obama managed to appease his loud-mouthed younger teammates and the radical parents/boosters. However, secretly he was reading Bear Bryant and calling Lou Holtz; studying Pete Carroll and watching Norm Chow. He knew the opposing side couldn’t wait to go for him. And when I saw how he performed in the key practices (debates, financial crisis), and the brilliant (and centrist!) minds he was taking into his inner circle: Clinton, Collin Powell, and Warren Buffet, I knew the team was in good shape!

And I put in the new guy—voted for him!

Let the other side go after him, I thought. They’d be in for a big surprise, for I had a brilliant, talented young quarterback who had learned from the greats. The enemy would act foolishly and show their hand in going after Obama. And by doing so, they would open themselves up. All Team USA needs is that opening, that one small advantage. Whether it lasts two, or six months after he takes office, all America needs is that slight window of opportunity, when our enemies make a grave error, and our European “friends,” still drunk in their delight over Obama’s victory, let us have our way in the world, and that’s when we STRIKE!

Obama sees the opening, drops back and throws the long ball—we’re wide open!

TOUCHDOWN! Team USA!

2008-08-21T17:25:00.000-07:00

Texas Justice, Served American Style

Like many other Americans my interest was recently piqued when I read that “Mexican national,” Jose Medellin, was about to be (and has since been) executed for the brutal rape and murder of two teenage girls in 1993. Various editorials alarmingly tried to compare Medellin’s predicament to that of a poor American tourist, caught up in a legal situation while vacationing abroad, and being denied access to an American consul. The argument being that if the United States did not stay Medellin’s execution, as requested by the International Court of Justice (and subsequently, the Bush Administration), and have his, along with the cases of 50 other Mexicans on death row, reviewed to see if their right of consular access was violated at the time of their arrests, then Americans in other countries could be subjected to the same treatment.

The media threw around the phrase “Mexican national” as if poor Jose Medellin had been on vacation in the U.S. at the time he committed his dastardly deed, and longed to return home to his beloved Mexico. As a police officer who has arrested foreign nationals before, and has had to fill out the required consular access forms as required by law, I thought that if Medellin was arrested for a crime, of course he should have been notified of his right to consular contact.

However, as it turns out, Medellin was not here on vacation, or business, nor was he here temporarily. Medellin had come to the United States, possibly in violation of U.S. immigration laws, with his family or otherwise, at the age of 3. He grew up in Houston, Texas, where he no doubt went to American public school, at least for a time, and spoke English like most of his peers. As a gang member, probably with numerous prior police contacts and possibly arrests, he had some working knowledge of our laws, customs, etc. At the time he gang-raped and murdered two innocent girls, Medellin was 18 years old.

For 15 years, Medellin had grown up and lived in the U.S. He probably considered himself as “American” as anyone in his neighborhood. He didn’t move to Mexico first chance he got; he wasn’t yearning to be a Mexican national; he was happy and content going about his day-to-day criminal activities as an “American” who should have known better—wherever you live, wherever you’re from, you just don’t gang rape and murder children.

And you obey the law!

One of Medellin’s lawyers, Sandra Babcock, tried to argue that this case was “about the reputation of the United States as a nation that adheres to the rule of law.” I’ve got news for you, Ms. Babcock, Texan officials were adhering to the rule of law—their state law. Most law-abiding Americans expect their state judicial systems to punish wrongdoers appropriately, and according to state law. In other words, you murder somebody and you pay the price, whether it’s in Texas, California, or wherever. And no American, whether they be Texan or otherwise, is going to accept a foreign, UN-sanctioned judicial body in The Hague, telling them how to punish a murderer among us.

Despite the ICJ’s ruling, and no matter what President Bush would have liked, the State of Texas did what the majority of Texans wanted. Americans are rightly outraged that there are people in this country illegally, who rape and murder American citizens, assault police officers, and terrorize neighborhoods. Just ask the family of LA Sheriff’s Deputy David March, who was murdered by the same type of “Mexican national” as Medellin—an undocumented criminal thug who lived and plundered in the U.S., then tried to seek security in Mexico after doing his damage here.

Americans already know what would have happened to Medellin if the so-called International Court of Justice had got its way. Medellin probably would have been deported back to Mexico, where Mexican authorities wouldn’t have prosecuted him for anything, since he didn’t break any of their laws. Medellin would have easily crossed the border again to return to his “homies” in Houston, where he might have murdered another innocent American.

Interestingly, Medellin’s predicament got scant coverage by pro-immigrant rights groups. They probably didn’t want to touch this hot potato. You see, you can’t have it both ways. Is Medellin a “Mexican national” who should have been in Mexico, obeying the law, or is he as “American” as any hard-working immigrant who’s been here 15 plus years, trying to enjoy the “American Dream,” and therefore, potentially subject to American laws and justice?

The irony is that Medellin sat on Death Row for almost four years before deciding that he was indeed a “Mexican national” who should have been provided consular protection. Through the appeals process, both state and federal courts determined that Medellin’s case had not been compromised because he hadn’t been provided consular access.

It’s common knowledge that the International Court of Justice has had a checkered relationship with the U.S. government, and because of that, the U.S. Supreme Court did the right thing by agreeing to hear the case. However, they made the right decision in pointing out that the Justice Department had not requested their intervention, and basically left it up to the Lone Star State to decide Medellin’s fate.

Medellin, as a murderer who committed his gruesome crimes within the territory of the United States, got what he deserved in Texas—American justice, meted out by American judges, presiding over American courts. Medellin and his family chose to live in the United States and chase the American dream. Medellin chose to pursue this dream as part of a lawless, murderous gang of criminals. If you want to play the “American Dream” game, you better be prepared to live by the “American Dream” rules.

2008-08-09T15:26:00.000-07:00

Putting War Into Perspective

U.S. military deaths in the Global War on Terror have surpassed the total number of Americans who perished in the 9/11 terrorist attacks—over 4,500 Americans killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. But while this is a grim reminder of the horrific human costs of this conflict, it might help Americans and members of the media to temper talks of “quagmire” or hopelessness if they can regain their “historic memory” to better frame this war, and modern warfare in general, into proper perspective.

War is hell. Nobody can, or should, minimize that. And you don’t need to have experienced it firsthand to understand its brutality and misery. While some things never change, like the rough going of the footslogging infantry, advances in technology, medicine, and international law have mitigated some harsher aspects of battle when compared to the bloody meat grinders of World Wars I and II. While this idea may not be any comfort to a Marine under fire in Afghanistan, one can vicariously try to understand the vast differences between a “quagmire” of twentieth century war and what current politicians term a “quagmire” today. Trust this: few current military personnel or politicians have a thorough comprehension of what a real “quagmire” is.

Over 4,000 Americans killed in Iraq over a five-year period? That’s reprehensible. The loss of any U.S. soldier, sailor, or Marine is tragic. But in World War II, 4,000 Americans would have been killed in one battle, over several days! One thousand Marines were killed on the first day of Tarawa in 1943. In World War II, over 2,000 Americans were killed on Omaha and Utah Beaches in Normandy, France, on D-Day in a 24-hour period. In the month-long Battle of the Bulge in the winter of 1944-45, 16,000 Americans were killed in action. In the first day of the Battle of the Somme in France in World War I, the British Army lost over 50,000 men killed, wounded, and missing!

Unlike today, where newspapers print the death toll in Iraq almost daily, reminding us of the loss of our countrymen, in the two World Wars the media hardly bothered. Imagine reading The New York Times in 1945: “4,000 Americans were killed today…” Keeping our losses out of the media, which was easier in those decades due to a more limited communication system prevented Americans from being up in arms regarding the horrible toll of fighting for democracy.

One can only imagine how the world would be different if today’s media machine—faxes, Internet, cell phones, and all—had existed in World War II. Picture CNN covering the destruction of an entire American Army in the Philippines in 1942, as General MacArthur barely escaped with his life. Or imagine imbedded reporters with the green and ill-fated 106th Infantry Division in the first days of the Battle of the Bulge, a unit that was quickly destroyed by the Germans. Talk about quagmires! How would Anderson Cooper have covered General Mark Clark’s Italian Campaign of 1944-45, a bitter, hard-fought struggle in which Clark was all but told that he would never be given enough “boots on the ground” to “win,” but only enough to pin down as many German divisions as he could, so that Hitler would have them unavailable for use in Eastern Europe or France? Would Americans at home been able to stomach these disasters or the high casualties involved if they could see it on TV every night?

And what of the ancillary tragedies of war that shock the human consciousness: civilian casualties, friendly fire, and atrocities? We’ve seen isolated incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan—Haditha, Pat Tillman and Abu Ghraib come to mind—but keep in mind, that today’s military forces, for the most part, do as much as they can to keep civilians out of harm’s way. In World War II, targeting civilian centers was part of the “total war” package. Neither the Axis Powers nor the Allies had many qualms about destroying entire cities, many of which had little military value. And friendly fire incidents involving artillery or air strikes, as well as training accidents, sometimes killed over a hundred Americans at a time between 1942-45.

We get rightly shocked and outraged when we hear that an Iraqi mother and child are killed, inadvertently, when the car they are riding in fails to stop at a designated checkpoint and is fired upon. A Marine who is put on trial for possibly killing an unarmed and wounded Iraqi insurgent makes newspaper headlines, but few Americans remember the real atrocities from the European and Asian killing fields in the 20th century: the Rape of Nanking, Malmedy, or even the liberation of some of Nazi Germany’s worst death camps. In one instance, U.S. troops machine-gunned to death over a hundred lined-up and unarmed SS guards. Does the fact that they were SS butchers who had aided and abetted in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews and designated “undesirables” make it less of an atrocity?

Yes, war is hell, but it could be worse. We have seen world war, genocide, the Holocaust, and atomic obliteration. We have come close to nuclear Armageddon. Thankfully, whether we have meant to or not, we have progressed to the point that through collective international bodies and tribunals, modern technological advances, peace activists and movements, the media and the internet, and our own moral endeavors, we will never again (we hope) see the massive death and destruction that we witnessed in the early half of the 20th Century.

So let’s keep things in perspective (and keep our fingers crossed).

2008-08-06T13:48:00.000-07:00

Don’t Blame Society for Fat Kids

We see them everywhere we go: chubby children waddling, huffing and puffing, protruding tummies bulging over ill-fitting clothes. Then along come the activists and the media, themselves overweight with politically correct, misdirected “experts.”

Childhood obesity, they claim, is a national epidemic, whose root causes are the “supersize me culture” of the fast-food industry; food industry advertising; sedentary activities like watching TV and playing video games; cell phones; computers; public schools cutting back on physical education; poverty; racism; lack of universal health care; lack of parks to play in—on and on.

The fingers of blame and shame are pointed in every direction, it seems, except toward the main individuals who can actually impact the eating habits and healthy lifestyles of children—their parents.

These politically correct media types are often quick to point out disclaimers: Parents are too overworked trying to make a living. Or, they’re poor and can’t afford healthy food. Their latchkey kids are feeding themselves in the parents’ absence. How can parents control what their kids eat?

Politicians don’t get re-elected by telling parents they’re the problem. Nonprofits get funded more easily when it’s a case of government throwing big bucks at an institutional crisis, not parents. You see, parental behavior is, well, private. Doesn’t every family have the right to privacy, with parents raising their kids however they please?

A recent study in Pasadena, “Preventing Childhood Obesity: The Need to Create Healthy Places,” revealed that 23.9 percent of Pasadena school children were obese due to lack of exercise and park space. The study actually stated: “A concerted effort from all sectors of society is needed to address this epidemic.” The study’s answer: more parks, healthier menus in our public schools and “safer” neighborhoods so that children could walk to school. No mention of parents, by the way, as if they didn’t exist.

How can we zero in on the parents who knowingly or unknowingly allow their children to become obese, and therefore, unhealthy? How can we help them change tactics with their children?

While there are countless parents who do take their kids to the park, sign them up to play Little League baseball and soccer and who insist they eat their veggies, there are plenty of other parents taking their children to McDonalds and Taco Bell. These parents are the ones allowing their kids to get Venti sugar shakes with extra diabetes cream on top at Starbucks. Or, they model a lifetime of bad habits for their kids by facilitating the consumption of sugar and fat-laden foods by bringing and eating them at home. I don’t see the CEO of Nabisco feeding the obese kids—their parents are.

I’m a single parent, and I’m not rich. Yet the only two people who are to blame for what my 6-year-old daughter eats and how much exercise she gets are her mother and me. I encourage my daughter to eat only until she’s full. There is little or no snacking between meals. She is not allowed to drink sodas, or scarf down chips and candy.

My daughter has participated in Girl Scout camping and activities, as well as affordable classes in karate, dancing, and soccer. And, yes, her grandparents and/or I take her to the park (Eaton Canyon or Brookside Park) for weekend hikes. Sometimes we just walk around the neighborhood. It all matters.

I couldn’t get my daughter to eat a cupcake now if I wanted to. On special occasions, such as the movies, she is allowed a Sprite. And after church, she can have one of the small donuts or a cookie served on the post-church snack table out front. And TV time? She gets an hour a night.

I know many other parents like me: ordinary folks just trying to make a living but who care a mighty lot about their kids. We’re not infallible, but we’re reasonable. We try to envision our kids as adults, like us. Will they be healthy? Will they thank us for teaching them to care for their bodies and health in simple ways? We’re counting on the answer being “yes!” Their future, and the health of our nation, depend on us working together, as individual parents, to protect our children’s well-being.

Originally published in the Pasadena Star-News of July 6, 2008.

2008-03-11T09:21:00.000-07:00

Is Obama “American” Enough?

As Barack Obama continues to tally up delegates in his bid to win the Democratic presidential nomination, the question should be asked not if Obama is “Black” enough, “White” enough, or whether he has ties to Islam, but simply, is Obama “American” enough? Not in the technical sense, of course. The man was born in Hawaii, and is thus a U.S. citizen. I mean “American” in a cultural, socio-political way. This is an important issue, because we will be going to the polls to elect a President of the United States, not a “We Are the World” feel good ambassador who will cater to the international community. And let’s face it, Obama’s “Proud to be American” credentials are shaky at best.

Forget about Obama’s middle name. I won’t even mention it, for there are plenty of patriotic Americans with foreign names. What’s at issue here is his culturally “American” upbringing, which for most of us was formed by our parents’ views toward our nation, its history, its political and religious institutions, and whatever civic organizations and traditions they participated in, which in turn, influenced each of our own views toward the same. Granted, I’m painting with some broad brushstrokes here, but bear with me.

No matter what their ethnicity, political orientation, or socio-economic status, most multi-generational Americans basically believe in a lot of the same stuff. We believe in the “righteousness” of the United States’ place and mission in the world, despite any historical and current missteps. We believe that we’re the best country on Earth, despite our problems, because we know that it’s worse anywhere else. In other words, we’re a “good guy” country, whose intentions are noble, and whose countless global “good deeds” are in the historical record. We often face “bad guy” countries and organizations in diplomatic and military struggles, and we believe that “talking with them” doesn’t always work. We believe that freedom is not free, and must be defended and promoted, even abroad, and sometimes with military force.

Likewise, we believe in our founding as a nation steeped in the Judeo-Christian faith, whether we are adherents or not, and hold to the separation of church and state. Our parents join the PTA and take us to baseball games. We participate in the girl and boy scouts, pledge allegiance to the flag, sing the national anthem, and our hearts fill with pride at our Olympic victories. We’re never self-conscious about waving the red-white-and-blue, and a flag pin is what it is. When standing before our national shrines and historic battlefields, we get choked up and are proud of our ancestors’ sacrifices and of our country. And in a way, we all kind of expect the same from the man or woman whom we choose to lead our great nation.

Let’s take Barack Obama on the other hand. He’s not sure whether we’re the best country. He thinks there’s all sorts of things wrong with America, and keeps talking about how the rest of the world mistrusts us, has lost respect for us, and how, if elected president, is going to “unite everyone” and make the world like us again. Even his wife, Michelle, only recently felt proud to be an American. I wonder if in the past, she claimed to be “Canadian” whenever she traveled abroad.

Obama wants to “sit down and talk” with dictators like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who’s fomenting communist revolution throughout South America, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who’s defying the U.N. at every turn in his efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq. Obama believes in the “nuanced” diplomacy of his European counterparts. And apparently would only go to war in specific instances, in which the international community agreed that the U.S. had a legitimate fight, like Afghanistan, which Obama thinks is the only place we can rightfully fight Al Qaeda. Obama puts a lot of weight in how other countries view us—his is almost an “internationalist,” it-takes-a-village, welfare state outlook so common in other countries.

It’s no surprise that Obama sees himself as a “world citizen.”

Obama was born to Barack Obama, Sr., a Black African Muslim from Kenya, who married a self-proclaimed atheistic American college student who came of age during the turbulent Fifties. Obama, Sr., apparently had little interest in becoming an “American” for he moved back to Kenya to start a career in the government. As for Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, she spent her formative years outside Seattle, WA, at Mercer High School, where the chairman of the school board testified that he had been a member of the Communist Party. Two of Ann Dunham’s favorite teachers taught across the hall from one another, a hallway dubbed “Anarchy Alley” because of the discussions generated by the teachers, who had their students read “The Communist Manifesto” and “Atlas Shrugged,” among other controversial texts, all the while asking their students to question authority and the existence of God.

Shortly after Obama was born, his mother married an Indonesian Muslim, and they moved to Indonesia. It was there that Obama attended a school where he learned about other faiths (i.e., other faiths were “tolerated”), the way a student might learn about capitalism versus socialism, or of the philosophies of Kant or Plato. Obama himself has said that in his home there was always a Koran, a Bible, and a book about Hinduism. This is just the kind of smorgasbord, here’s-what’s-out-there “education” an intelligent, left-leaning, atheistic mother, who apparently didn’t care for her homeland or American men, might provide for her multicultural son, whom she was going to influence in the best manner she saw fit.

If one were going to come up with a plan on how to raise a patriotic, “Proud-to-be-an-American” child, Obama’s early years would not be the model. The fact that Obama himself touted his Indonesian experience as qualifying him, in terms of his “international relations” resume, for President of the United States, is naïve and suspect. He proudly likened family gatherings at his home, where one could find relatives of different ethnicities and nationalities, to being “more like the United Nations,” as opposed to an American “melting pot.”

The United Nations?

Obama’s later scholastic, legal, and early political career are typical of the left-leaning pursuits of the “oppressed classes” of newly minted lawyer/activists. Championing civil rights for minorities, women, and other underrepresented groups is admirable, and is what America stands for—freedom for all. But there are certain activists, lawyers, and politicians who “fight the power” at every turn, often to the point of overtly or covertly maligning the “mainstream culture/society”—as if just being a white, Christian American who’s patriotic and wears an American flag pin, automatically makes you offensive to minorities and foreigners across the board; as if having voted for George W. Bush makes you a war-profiteering violator of international law and human rights.

Speaking of Bush, Obama is always careful to state that Bush “invaded Iraq,” a place in which the former believes we should never have gone. Does this mean that President Obama would have continued to let the Iraqi people suffer under the murderous Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein? I would love to see someone ask Obama if he would like to see the United States succeed in Iraq. How would he answer that? Could he answer with a definitive “Yes,” as Senator John McCain would? Or would Obama suddenly lose his poetic eloquence, and start stammering with explanations about how we shouldn’t have been there in the first place, how Bush misled the public, etc.

Obama gets uncomfortable talking about his so-called Christian faith, as if he just bought it on eBay and is not quite sure how to put it together because it didn’t come with instructions. All we know is that his “faith” came later in his life (no doubt on the day he decided he wanted to run for public office), and he views it the way a biology student looks at a dissected frog. In fact, he’s very non-religious about his religion, latching onto the general, humanistic “do as to others…” aspects that are found in almost every other “spiritual” type of belief system. The fact that Obama belongs to the controversial, “Pan-African” Trinity United Church of Christ, whose pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, frequently makes racist proclamations about “White America” while fraternizing with the anti-American, anti-Zionist Louis Farrakhan, is troublesome.

When Obama speaks eloquently of “bringing people together,” just what does he mean? One could argue that Hitler and Stalin brought people together too, often at the point of a gun. I’m not comparing Obama to those evil men. I’m just making a point that flowery rhetoric can get people into just as much trouble when the substance behind the words aren’t examined. When Obama has to explain why he doesn’t wear an American flag pin, what is he really saying? When he intimates that the United States might not necessarily be the best country in the world, who is he talking to? And just what country might he think is better? And why not run for president of that country? Do Americans want a president who has to squirm in his seat when speaking about his religious beliefs or his patriotism? Is he really secular? Is he a socialist at heart? We don’t know yet, but we have a right to.

Obama has a tough road ahead of him, whether he wins the democratic nomination or appears as the number two on a ticket. He has a lot of questions to answer, a lot of explaining to do—in essence, he has to prove to the voters that he is a loyal, patriotic American who will put our country first. The President of the United States’ number one job is to do what’s best for America, first and foremost! Sometimes, what’s best for America isn’t always best for Europe, or Iran, or even Al Qaeda. Would Obama, as President of the United States, do what’s best for America and Americans? Or would his presidential actions be guided by what he thought the rest of the world wanted America to do?

Who would President Obama root for in the finals of the World Cup, if Team USA was playing the underdog, newly independent Palestinian National Team, while all of his European friends were watching?

Troublesome thought, isn’t it?

2007-12-27T21:36:00.000-08:00

Priority Check: It’s OK to be Against the Chinese Government, but Don’t Object to its Olympic-Themed Rose Parade Float

Few Americans remember the 1980 Summer Olympic Games in Moscow. The United States was one of several countries that boycotted the games in protest over the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union’s efforts at hosting the renowned event were considered subpar by many in the West. As usual, Eastern Bloc athletes dominated what seemed like the “Commie Olympics,” and nothing tangible was accomplished politically—the Soviets remained in Afghanistan for a decade.

The real “losers” in this case were the American athletes who had trained for years to compete against the Russians. American Edwin Moses, who won the gold in the men’s 400-meter hurdles in Montreal (1976) and again in Los Angeles (1984), would almost certainly have done the same in Moscow. If not for the “Miracle on Ice,” in which the US men’s ice hockey team upset the defending Olympic champion Soviet squad in the semi-finals of the Winter Games—which thankfully were not boycotted—the 1980 Olympic year might have vanished entirely from the American consciousness.

Why is this important? Because there are many good-intentioned activists both in Pasadena and throughout the nation, who are vilifying a Rose Parade float commemorating the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing. Human rights watchers have pressured local politicians to ban its appearance in the parade. Many will line Colorado Boulevard protesting the float, as if it was being driven by Mao himself and decorated with the blood of the millions who died under his brutal regime. Still others both here and abroad who might tolerate the float, will call for a boycott of the Beijing games, as well as affiliated American corporate sponsors.

There is no question in many Americans’ minds that the Chinese Communist Party is one of the most brutal and evil entities that have ever existed on the planet. Millions of people, in China and elsewhere, have been tortured, murdered, left to starve to death, or have been killed in armed conflict, at the hands of the communist Chinese and their agents. The Chinese government has also historically and currently collaborated with, armed and supported many of the world’s most despotic regimes and organizations, including the former U.S.S.R., North Korea, then-North Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Islamist terrorists, just to name a few. Chinese Communist forces are actively preparing for a future war with the United States, and may have already launched its opening salvoes by probing the weaknesses in our cyberspace and economic defenses.

Still, sport is sport.

Just as most Americans cried foul when Don Imus called the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hoe’s,” athletes, and the world they exist, excel, and compete in, should be off-limits to political and social demagoguery. Yes, we are all appalled at the human rights abuses that are occurring in China and elsewhere. We would love to put a big asterisk in the future Olympic record books next to the year 2008: “Beijing—we went, but with great disgust at their awful regime!”

WE WENT.

Because we need to go. Just like the athletes, sportscasters, journalists, diplomats, and tourists from the United States went to the 1936 Berlin “Nazi” Olympics, where Jesse Owens won Gold for Team USA, and that Son of Pasadena, Matthew “Mack” Robinson won Silver. Americans didn’t boycott, shirk or hide from the Nazis’ brutal regime. We stood proud in the Olympia Stadium, faced evil and spit in Hitler’s eye! Germans got to see firsthand what we were all made of, what living in a free society produced, and that there was no such thing as an inferior race.

Protesting a float in the Rose Parade is self-destructive and superficial, and rings hollow. The float’s not a communist float; it’s just a float representing the Olympics, sponsored by our own Avery-Denison Corp. Americans can do much more to assist those being oppressed by the Communist Chinese by facing them, not by avoiding them, bad-mouthing the Olympics, or putting a political damper on our cherished Rose Parade. In other words, don’t be a Colorado Boulevard, lawn-chair activist!

You want to stand up for freedom? Speak-out against the tyranny, genocide, and torture that are occurring in places like Darfur and China? Then pack your bags and get on that plane with Team USA. I guarantee that there will be more American flags flying in Beijing that summer than ever before. Go to the heart of the lion’s den and plant Old Glory for all the Chinese to see. Go talk about the benefits of living in a free society to the Chinese men and women on the street, network with Chinese students and free-speech advocates, fire up the laptops and drop the seed of democracy in China, like a cancer that even the communists won’t be able to stop.

The Olympics is the greatest sporting event in the world. It shouldn’t matter
whether it’s held in Nazi Germany, Moscow, or the heart of Communist China. It is a once-in-a-lifetime moment where glorious athletes from the free world get to compete against those representing often oppressive governments. It’s an opportunity for Americans to spread freedom and democracy, not at the point of a bayonet, but by example, grace, and talent.

This article originally appeared in the Pasadena Weekly, December 27, 2007.

2007-05-15T09:58:00.000-07:00

Taking Early Steps Can Prevent Shootings

Within hours after Monday’s tragic shooting at Virginia Tech everyone began the traditional hand-wringing, and soul-searching that follows a horrific event, asking the age-old question: “Why?” along with “How could this have happened?” followed by the more insidious, “Who’s to blame?”

The real national debate that should emerge after this “watershed” moment in the history of workplace violence is why, we, as a community, continue to ignore the warning signs of those among us prone to murderous behavior?

These events never happen in a vacuum.

From Charles Whitman at the University of Texas, to Columbine, to Virginia Tech, somebody, somewhere, had foreknowledge that a person was on the verge of committing an act of violence, up to, and including killing.

At a 1966 press conference shortly after Charles Whitman murdered 16 people and wounded 31 from atop the University of Texas Tower, Dr. Heatly, a part-time UT psychiatrist, read some notes he had taken after Whitman’s last office visit. Dr. Heatly related how Whitman admitted to “having overwhelming periods of hostility with a very minimum of provocation.” Dr. Heatly also wrote of Whitman’s “vivid reference ‘to thinking about going up on the tower with a deer rifle and start shooting people.’” Do you think Dr. Heatly ever contacted the police or university officials about the fact that Whitman might be a danger to society?

Of course not.

Fast forward to 2007, and we’re hearing about how students predicted that Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech shooter, would commit an act of violence. Ian MacFarlane, a former classmate, wrote that he had discussed with other students about “whether [Cho] could be a school shooter.” Another classmate, Stephanie Derry, mentioned that: “We always joked we were just waiting for him to do something, waiting to hear about something he did.”

Professor Carolyn Rude, possibly in a vain attempt to distance herself from collective culpability, stated that Cho’s writing disturbed the university’s English Department enough that he was referred to counseling.

Okay, so far so good. Don’t ignore stuff. Refer to counseling. But then comes the clincher. Rude, the chairwoman of the English Department, never knew when, or if, Cho got counseling, or what the outcome was!

It’s been reported that Cho had been responsible for other disturbing and violent behavior prior to Monday’s shooting, including setting fire to a dorm room and stalking women. How much more evidence does a university, or a high school, or a corporation need, before they realize that a person may be a threat to the facility’s safety and security? When does somebody with leadership and courage step in and say: “This person may or may not have committed a crime yet, but we no longer feel safe having him or her employed by us, or attending school here.”

But what about discrimination? Those people have rights, too! Yes, but my daughter has the right to show up for class every morning and not get murdered by a classmate that the school and everyone else knew might kill people someday. We all have the right and responsibility to stand up and take action when faced by a potentially violent member of our society. We must never ignore the warning signs because they will always be there. So what can you do?

Once you realize that somebody might be “on the edge” or headed in that direction, and if you have some kind of relationship with that person, start off by talking with him or her. In a friendly and concerned manner, ask how they are doing, how they are feeling, if there is anything that you can do to help. We’d all be surprised how a few kind words might help do de-escalate someone with hostile feelings—most people want to know that “somebody cares.” This will also give you a handle on their volatility or hostile intent. If you do not have the type of relationship where you can speak to the person, then tell somebody!

Talk with other co-workers or students to get a better handle on the group’s concerns. Then go to a teacher, counselor, or supervisor at your work. Recommend that the person you go to take some kind of early intervention and demand follow up, and that the concerned students/employees be told what action was taken. If there were criminal threats involved, or some other crime, like assault and battery, stalking or annoying phone calls, call the police. Demand that officers, at the minimum take a “Suspicious Circumstances”-type report and get a case number. Often, early police contact with the person at risk will help to jolt the subject back into reality and may help to diffuse the situation.

If restraining orders are needed to add to the level of security and protection, then they must be obtained as soon as possible. Information about any and all potential threats, students or employees who were dismissed or fired because of threats of violence, must be disseminated to the faculty, staff and students.

Include a photograph of the person who is no longer welcome on campus or in the office, due to a restraining order or what have you, so that they can recognize the dangerous person when he or she returns wearing hunting gear and carrying the duffel bags with 2,000 rounds of ammunition.

Employers should discuss emergency escape plans at office meetings, active shooter scenarios, etc., and ask police to give a workplace violence presentation. Many police departments, like the Pasadena Police Department, have a psychiatric evaluation team. Ours, the Homeless Outreach/Psychiatric Evaluation (HOPE) Team, of which I am a member, is often called out to evaluate someone who hasn’t committed a crime yet, but may be exhibiting behavior or thoughts that would lead us to believe that the person is a danger to themselves or others, and we can place them on a mandatory 72-Hour Psychiatric Hold.

Workplace violence incidents cannot be totally prevented. But such early intervention suggestions can help decrease the possibility of a workplace violence incident, or minimize the lethality of one.

Originally published in the Pasadena Star-News of April 20, 2007.

2006-12-29T21:04:00.000-08:00

Why Saddam Hussein Had to Hang

Today Saddam Hussein swung from a rope until dead, as did his cohorts. This was a pivotal event in the history of human rights for it marked the first time that a bloodthirsty former ruler faced the hangman’s noose for mass murder and crimes against humanity. This execution was all the more significant because it was an Iraqi court that tried Hussein, composed of Iraqi prosecutors, and the chief executioner was an Iraqi. Not even the Germans who were anti-Nazi had the satisfaction of bringing Adolf Hitler to justice.

For the West this should be a time of reverent celebration. Aside from ordering the 1982 murder of 148 Shiites in Dujail, for which he was condemned to die, Saddam Hussein faced charges in the 1987-88 massacre of approximately 180,000 Kurds in Northern Iraq. His Baathist Regime was notorious for the wanton rape, torture, and murder of countless thousands of Iraqis throughout his rule. Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, which led to the Persian Gulf War. During this conflict he was responsible for the kidnap, torture, and execution of many Kuwaitis; the launching of SCUD missiles against a non-belligerent, Israel; the damage to the environment by the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields; and for potentially destabilizing the entire Middle East.

If these atrocious crimes had been committed by any Western ruler, the United Nations, the EU, and human rights watch groups the world over would have called for that leader’s head on a silver platter. Because of the partisan unpopularity of the Iraq Campaign in the current conflict, there were many in the West who cynically viewed Hussein’s trial as a kangaroo court whose strings were pulled by the United States in a twisted sham of justice meant to exact revenge by the Bush family. Some Westerners felt a strange anti-American sympathy for Hussein, which they cloaked in calls to spare him from death lest he be turned into an Islamist martyr. There was no other bunk further from the truth.

If Americans, the West, and the rest of the world were to move forward in creating a global village in which human rights, democracy, and freedom were respected, valued, and defended, then Saddam Hussein had to hang. If world leaders were to be held accountable for their actions, especially if they were responsible for genocide, mass murder, and other crimes against humanity, Saddam Hussein had to hang. Even if you were one of those people who thought Bush launched an illegal war, lied to the American people, was guilty of war crimes, and should be impeached, Saddam Hussein had to hang. No matter what your political bent, if you believed that no man was above the law, then Saddam Hussein had to hang!

Know this. Saddam Hussein did not go to the gallows behind any American grudge against him; he didn’t swing because of his planned attempted assassination of George Bush, Sr.; he didn’t hang because he invaded Kuwait or because George W. Bush invaded Iraq to remove him and his evil regime, whether or not he had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was executed for the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Kurds—innocent men, women, and children—plain and simple.

2006-12-07T10:43:00.000-08:00

Isn’t Freedom Wonderful?

Anti-war protesters gathered to block the entrances to and disrupt the activities of the U.S. Armed Forces Recruiting Center in Pasadena, CA today. As I thought about the act of protesting—a long-held American tradition and right—steeped in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I got to thinking. How many of those protesters understand from where their rights originate? Perhaps many of them do, maybe some of them don’t. I felt that they needed a reminder, an open letter to help them understand the significance of their actions.

So here it is:

Greetings protesters! Isn’t freedom wonderful? We live in one of the few countries where its citizens can congregate to criticize the government and its policies without fear of paramilitary crackdowns, the jailing of dissidents, or the censoring of our voices. It is our cherished and God-given right to speak our minds, express our opinions, and to cry out for justice. Do you appreciate this cornerstone of American culture—freedom? Are you fully aware of where our freedoms come from?

If you said the Constitution of the United States, you are mostly correct. It is the United States Constitution that spells out our freedoms, but don’t forget that it is only a document. A powerful document, but a document nonetheless. A piece of paper! Many governments have tried to establish “peace in our time” or guarantee the rights or freedoms of their people with pieces of paper, most of which turned out to be worthless scraps that led to the deaths of millions of people.

What makes our piece of paper—the Constitution—meaningful and powerful is that the most potent military force that ever existed backs it up. And this is not just any military force like the fascistic Nazi juggernaut or the oppressive Soviet machine of years past, composed of poor conscripts or brainwashed fanatics. Our military is made up of proud, educated, and patriotic volunteers, from all walks of American life: construction workers, teachers, musicians, doctors, artists, lawyers, police officers, firemen, students, Democrats and Republicans alike, rich, poor, and middle class, who all believe in FREEDOM, and understand that freedom is not free. That is why they continue to re-enlist and volunteer to return for second and even third tours of duty to places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

There are currently evil forces throughout the world trying to deprive the West of our cherished freedoms. They hope to isolate America and reduce our influence in places like Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, so that they can make inroads in those places. Soon, the flags of our enemies will fly over European, North African, and Middle Eastern capitals, as they rape, pillage, and murder to expand their empire of hate; spread intolerance of freedom and education; and continue the subjugation of women and non-believers. Only one thing stands in the way of their ultimate victory and world chaos: the United States of America!

So as you protest our recruiting station today, as you exercise your freedom to condemn the war and speak out against U.S. efforts to stop the rapid spread of Islamo-fascism, remember this. It is our servicemen and women, as well as our police forces, which have earned your right to protest freely. It will be American sons and daughters, whose blood will be spilled to protect you all from the evil horde sweeping across Southwest Asia and into Europe. Our enemies don’t care if you sympathize with them. They won’t be moved by your acts of protest. They won’t spare you from the head tax or give you reprieve from having your head sawed off because you stood against the deployment of U.S. troops anywhere. You won’t be given favorable treatment because you carried signs that read: WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER. Because you got it wrong. War is not the answer, but it is an answer. And sometimes it’s the only answer, in the end, that our enemies will understand. So as you gather here today, be sure to thank the people you’re yelling at, whose doors you are blocking, whose mission you are criticizing, as well as the police officers you’re taunting and preventing from protecting the rest of the city—THANK them profusely for safeguarding your cherished right to behave as you do.

Isn’t freedom wonderful?

2006-11-11T02:29:00.000-08:00

High School, Twenty Years Later

Tonight at the Westin Hotel, I will co-emcee my John Muir High School Class of 1986 Twenty Year Reunion, “A Red Carpet Event.” Twenty-years! It’s hard to believe that it’s been that long. Luckily, I’m still good friends with several of my classmates, which will help cushion me against the nervous excitement of seeing people I haven’t laid eyes on since our 10 Year Reunion. However, I know I’ll have to dust off the old yearbook and bone up on some of the names and faces. Seeing them will bring back a lot of memories.

We got a head start on those memories and the reunion festivities Thursday night. There was a special section for our class at the annual Turkey Tussle football game at the Rose Bowl, where Muir beat PHS, 21-6. It seems like some things never change. Still, John Muir is always changing.

When I was a Mustang, Muir was a different school. There were still teachers there from the “old days” of the 1960s and 70s, who seemed more like college professors than high school teachers—Walter Mack, Richard Zweers, Victor Reyna, and Marilyn Stalder-Burke—to name a few. Advanced Placement and Honors classes were plentiful, and five languages were taught: French, German, Latin, Spanish, and Armenian. Coach Jim Brownfield ran a disciplined and talented football program that dominated Pacific League and CIF play. Our class included writers and artists, one of whom was the daughter of a Nobel Laureate; a soon-to-be world- renowned violinist; budding business and professional leaders; and an aspiring astronaut and future rocket scientist. Muir graduates went on to attend Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech, and Art Center.

Twenty years! I can hardly remember what we were like. One thing I know for sure. When we were kids then we didn’t know what e-mail was. We still wrote letters by hand and dropped them in the mailbox. DVDs, iPods, and MySpace didn’t even exist. Nobody had pagers yet, let alone cell phones. You had to wait until you got home to call your friends. Our “remember where you were” moment was the Challenger space shuttle disaster, and there was no such thing as “80s Night” (since we were still living it!). Cassette tape and Sony “Walkmans” were all the rage, and you could still buy 45 RPM records at the store. Starbucks? What was that? I mean, how did we get by without Razor cell phones, digital videos, and YouTube?

Indeed a lot has changed in the two decades since we graduated from Muir. Many of us are married, divorced, and have children. They may even be a grandparent or two already in the group. And sadly, there are some members of our class who passed away. Tonight will be an evening of celebration, remembrance, discovery, reconciliation, closure, and perhaps old friendships will be rekindled, strengthened, and who knows, there may even be romance in the stars for some of us.

I’m still trying to talk a couple of my friends into going, just as I tell anybody that they should always attend their reunions, even if they hated high school. You never know what you’ll discover about yourself and your high school experience with the passage of time. I know that from our 10-year reunion, we’ve grown up and matured. Hopefully, we have become better people. I’m very excited to see everybody. I’m proud of being from Pasadena and of having graduated from John Muir High School. We’re all gonna look fantastic!

“MUSTANGS!…Hell yeah!”

2006-10-13T12:16:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on an Immigration Forum

Last night I attended a forum on immigration hosted by the City of Pasadena’s Human Relations Commission. This took place at the Jackie Robinson Center in Pasadena’s Northwest neighborhood—an area affected the most by immigration issues, especially between the African-American and Hispanic communities. The event was well attended by a cross-section of concerned citizens and outspoken community leaders. As I listened to the speakers, many of whom were immigrants, both undocumented and documented, I was made aware of how volatile the questions raised were; how far-reaching, both into history and to the future, this debate could rage. As a Pasadena police officer with many years of service in an area with a high immigrant population, I had several thoughts about this very important discussion.

It would behoove all of us that are involved some way in the national immigration debate to consider a broader range of issues than just “English”-only laws, border fences, and the splitting up of families. Immigrants, whether illegal or legal, are a fact of life in America. Our nation was founded by immigrants, and continues to be strengthened by many immigrants and their descendants. Criminalizing a group of people who come here seeking a better way of life is not the answer. However, neither is blanket amnesty nor a defeatist resignation that nothing can be done to change the flow and system of immigrant integration into our society.

The news reports it. Americans see it. Immigrants feel it. The police, fire, public education, and social services agencies are stretched to the limit by it. Immigration is affecting everybody in our society, whether immediately or tangentially. Unemployed Americans blame undocumented workers for taking their jobs away, while the government views our porous borders as a threat to national security. Whatever the perception or reality, a growing segment of our population throughout America views unchecked immigration as destroying the very fabric of our American culture.

However, until several broader issues are addressed, tackling the immigration issue at the local or state level will be nearly impossible. We should all be working to convince our political leaders, immigrant outreach groups, and grassroots organizations to compel the foreign governments where the majority of immigrant communities hail from to enact real economic and social reform at home. Many members of our immigrant communities would never leave their countries if the same economic opportunities existed there—they love their homelands. The foreign governments involved are able to avoid changing the status quo because they have the United States to absorb their economically depressed and politically disenfranchised masses.

Imagine if there was no United States for these people to go to. They would become the vocal, and possibly even revolutionary catalyst for their home governments, many of which are rife with institutionalized corruption, to make political and social improvements.

As to the charge that undocumented immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, this question is debated incorrectly I believe. It’s not that Americans aren’t willing to do the work that the undocumented perform, it’s that American workers aren’t willing to do those jobs for the slave-like wages that are paid to the undocumented, and that corporate America gets rich off of.

We are all partly to blame for this. We like our products, groceries, our fine dining, and our home improvement labor at the nice cheap prices that we pay. We have become complacent and in a sense, consumer “greedy.”

If Americans were paid what American workers would be traditionally paid, they would pick grapes, cotton, dig ditches, etc.—I mean, who wouldn’t, if they were getting paid $18-25 an hour? The problem, of course, is that the costs of everything would go up. Well, is that a problem? I don’t know, I’m not an economist. But I got a good feeling that all of our wages would go up across the board along with the cost of living increase. I’ve said before that I wouldn’t mind paying $25 for a head of lettuce if I was pulling in $150,000 a year.

The immigrants who come to the U.S. seeking a better life also need to take “ownership” of their new status. They need to make a good faith effort to try to become documented through any and all legal channels. They should look into English classes and learn about the history, government, laws, and customs of Americans and the United States. If they want to become accepted more by native-born and loyal, naturalized Americans, new immigrants should “cut the ties” politically to their countries. They should seek to assimilate and acculturate into American society, participating in our civic organizations and structure, raising their children with traditional American values and norms of behavior. If they don’t know what these are, or are having trouble understanding them, they should seek out classes and people who can guide them.

It’s not enough for new immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, to say that they pay “sales” taxes, or contribute to the “economy” by using their buying power in their neighborhoods. What does that matter if they are only forming “Little Mexicos” or “Little Hong Kongs” here, complete with signs in their own languages? How are they going to convince Americans that they, too, want to become “American” if they are still living life as if they were in their native land, flying foreign flags and casting absentee ballots in their home country’s elections? Being part of the “American Dream” doesn’t mean coming here, making money, shipping half of the cash back to Mexico or wherever, where you still have your family, and then bad-mouthing “gringos” while claiming that we “stole your lands.”

Being part of the “American Dream” means coming to the United States because you want to be “American.” It means embracing our way of life, our culture, and our customs while still retaining the flavor and memory of one’s own immigrant culture.

2006-10-11T11:49:00.000-07:00

Be Proud To Be American

The other day an American girlfriend of mine talked about how when she traveled in Spain, she dodged any and all debates, hassles, and other potential trouble from the locals by claiming that she was Canadian. “I’m Canadian,” she would tell the inquisitive Spaniard who picked up on her American-sounding accent. I understood her reluctance to have to defend her nationality. Any American who’s ever been abroad knows that the minute they are identified as “American,” they are instantly transformed into AMERICA! Suddenly they represent every U.S. foreign policy decision of the last fifty years and are asked to answer for President Bush, capitalism, our way of life, etc. Even if one’s foreign hosts “like” them, they are grilled to no end by a bevy of smug, anti-American experts on our culture, who have gained all of their knowledge of our country and our people by none other than…you guessed it—Hollywood!

Ready? Americans are loud and obnoxious, nothing but phonies! Why do you all smile all the time and say “hi” to strangers? Americans are superficial slaves of pop culture and money—just look at your TV shows and national “icons.” Americans are ignorant of other cultures, languages, and geography—you all think you own the world and can throw your weight around. Americans are imperialist warmongers. Americans never travel. Americans are all simpletons whose lack of a strong, public education system has made them the laughing stock of the industrialized world. Blah, blah, blah…We’ve heard it all before.

The problem is, most Americans who are bombarded by this litany of charges are usually too stunned—appalled is a better word—to muster an intelligent and rational defense. Well, I’m going to give that defense to you right here and now, and it starts with this: Be proud to be an American!

Americans aren’t loud and obnoxious. We’re a cheerful, confident, and friendly people, with a strong tradition of “neighborliness” and “customer service.” Rena Moore, an Australian friend of mine who lives in London and recently traveled with me in New York, was shocked at how friendly Americans are.

“You would NEVER see people like this in London,” she said. “Nobody smiles or says ‘hi’. People here are amazing!” Even the wait staff at our restaurants blew her away. “You would sit for an hour at a place in Europe as the waiters ignored you,” she commented. “They’ve never heard of customer service in London or Paris!” She later realized that everything people thought about Americans where she’d traveled was wrong.

“We used to always pick out the Yanks on the ‘Tube’ [London subways] because we could hear you all talking and laughing. Now I see that Americans aren’t loud and obnoxious, as we all thought” she pointed out. “It’s just that Europeans never talk on trains or platforms!”

I thought about my own experiences in Europe and saw that she was right. Most Europeans never interacted on trains and subway platforms the way we do here in the States. They minded their own business, kept their noses buried in books or newspapers and kept their mouths shut. I wonder how much of this comes from experience living under the Nazi or Soviet jackboot, where the passenger sitting next to you could have been a Gestapo or KGB agent. Interesting, isn’t it?

The funny thing about the charge that Americans are uncultured boors who never travel, is that it usually is directed at a college-educated Yank who happens to be…traveling! Point that out to your foreign inquisitors next time. Americans travel plenty and many of us have attended some of the most prestigious colleges and universities in the world. Hey, foreigners are coming in droves to our universities, not the other way around! Plus, when we travel and interact with foreigners, and vice versa, we tend to only associate with like-minded, cultured types who travel frequently. Tell your hosts that there for every moo-moo-wearing, Hometown Buffet-eating, uncultured American, there’s just as many ignorant, fat provincials hailing from their own French, English, and German country sides, who couldn’t point out Rwanda on a map or speak their own language properly to save their souls.

As for Americans being greedy, superficial slaves of pop culture and money, look around you. Most of the so-called “Americans” who spend all their time chasing fancy cars, Rolexes, fast cash, and the “bling bling” are actually transplanted foreigners! They are the ones who don’t get what it is to be American; don’t understand our culture. They weren’t raised here in our country, with our values, and therefore don’t have the spiritual and emotional “cushion” to properly absorb the negative aspects of our culture and put it into its proper context. They are the ones who think “America” is about greed, cars, and cash. And who do you think is importing and buying “American culture” up the yin yang? It’s the European, Asian, Middle Eastern, and African folks who can’t get enough of our “stuff,” even while they denigrate it. It’s not us shoving it down their throats.

And Americans as “imperialist war mongers”? Next time, ask your friendly neighborhood foreigner what “empire” the United States ever had? The last time I checked my history books, the British had an empire, so did the Italians, French, Islamists (and they’re still trying to get it!), Germans, Dutch, Japanese, Russians, Spanish—heck! In fact, in the last 100 years, the United States was usually trying to liberate poor people from these empires, as we still are today. And, as Colin Powell once remarked, the only land we ever asked for in return was a little space to bury our dead. The United States doesn’t have an “empire” and we never did.

If your foreign inquisitors still aren’t satisfied, leave them with these points to ponder. The United States has produced the most Nobel Prize winners in every category except literature, and recently just swept all the science prizes. The United States has the most Olympic medals, including Olympic gold medals, than any other country. The U.S. has participated in more humanitarian relief missions, either by supplying aid personnel, military troops, supplies, or money, than any other nation. As one of the youngest nations on Earth, the United States has the oldest, continuous form of government. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are the most influential and enduring political documents ever produced, copied or emulated by more countries than any other. Our military power and reach is unsurpassed, and is matched only by our humanitarianism and good will. Our culture sets the tone for the rest of the world, our language is the language of the world, and if that is not enough for them…

…hey, who went to the moon?

2006-09-06T07:28:00.000-07:00

The Democratic Party Needs Reform

If the Democratic Party hopes to make any gains this November and in 2008, they will need a major overhaul of their leadership, image, and their message, plain and simple. The Democrats in Washington have lost touch with the vast “Silent Majority” of American people that President Nixon once spoke of. From the Global War on Terrorism, to immigration reform, homeland security and the values that Americans hold dear, the Democrats have positioned themselves as weak, appeasing Europhiles, whose hatred of President Bush has blinded them to the realities of the global Islamist threat while preventing the Democratic leadership from developing any coherent war strategy or foreign policy.

Democratic double talk about “strengthening America at home” and troop “redeployment” just makes most Americans scratch their head and go “Huh?” Strengthen America here at home? We haven’t been attacked since 9/11; and where would the Democrats propose we “re-deploy” the troops we pull out of Iraq? Cleveland? We’re fighting Al Qaeda and their allied Islamist groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, and places where we already are. Is the Democratic Party fighting the same war everyone else is?

We’re in big trouble, people, and I’m a Democrat! Joe Lieberman was one of the few party giants who realized that despite one’s personal feelings for President Bush, the man, for better or worse, was taking the fight where it needed to be—to the enemy! So what can we—as Democrats—do to return our party to the glory days of FDR and JFK, and away from all we seem to be able to offer anybody—Bush-hatred?

For one thing, FORGET ABOUT BUSH! Can we get off him already? It’s killing us! George W. Bush didn’t steal any elections. He won them fair and square. We lost. Let’s move on. Besides, President Bush is halfway into his second term. He’s going to be history soon, and there’s nothing anybody can do about it. Then the conduct of the war and the direction that our nation takes might be our problem, so let’s be careful what we wish for. The Democrats need to put a halt to any and all talk of impeaching Bush. We need to stop saying he lied to America about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction—everybody knows he didn’t. There are books about it. You can find his exact quotes.

We need to stop the propaganda that Bush took America to war in Iraq “unilaterally,” without the consent of Congress or the U.N. These are lies that just make Democrats look stupid, whiny, and vindictive. Bush had the authorization of Congress, he had the authorization of the U.N.—hell he was enforcing U.N. resolutions authorizing force against Saddam Hussein’s government! I’m not making this up, all of this can be found out there—look it up. And yes, Bush assembled a coalition of almost thirty nations for this effort, including the UK, Spain, Italy, and Poland. He did not “go it alone.”

Secondly, we need to get rid of the “Michael Moore” wing of the Democratic Party. These people aren’t Democrats. Who knows what they are? They might not even be Americans. The collection of Bush-hating Hollywood crackpots like Martin Sheen and Whoopi Goldberg; along with the radicals and socialists like Cindi Sheehan, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Reid, Maxine Waters, and (thank goodness she was voted out of office) Cynthia McKinney—that enemy of American law enforcement—are doing more to prevent Democrats from being elected that anything Bush could do. If Senator Hillary Clinton doesn’t become the first American woman to be elected President of the United States, it will be the fault of Democratic “Michael Moore” types. Sweep them out of office. We need to purge our leadership of these folks. They need to break away and form their own progressive socialist party or something.

How else can we clean up our act? The Democrats need to stop sucking up to Europe and the United Nations. They are not going to help us. A lot of the time they are trying to hurt us or see that we hurt ourselves. The Democratic Party is correct to cherish long-standing foreign alliances and to value diplomacy, but not blindly and with just anybody. A perfect example is France. Aside from nefarious business ventures with Saddam Hussein’s government on the eve of the launch of the Iraq Campaign in 2003, the French authorities actually provided information and “blueprints” to the Iraqi military regarding many of the weapons systems that the U.S. was prepared to use against them. It becomes quite clear why France and the United Nations were opposed to military action against Saddam’s regime. After all, U.N. Secretary General Khofi Annan was up to his neck in the “Food for Oil” scandal with Saddam Hussein.

What else can we do? President Bush and the Republican Party have been weak on immigration reform. But are the Democrats stepping up? No, and I’ll tell you why in a single word—AMNESTY! As long as we are perceived as the party supporting calls for amnesty for illegals, we’re doomed. The Democrats need to come forward with a realistic, definitive program for stopping the flow of illegal immigration while addressing the threat to our security that a porous border poses. The Democrats need to call for an end to “slave labor” wages that encourage the hiring of illegal immigrants while hurting American workers. Yes, paying American workers “American wages” would make the costs of everything rise, but that also means that salaries across the board would be raised too, evening it all out. I wouldn’t mind paying $20 for a head of lettuce if I was making $150,000 a year!

The Democrats are going to win the White House during this war. It is inevitable. The Global War on Terrorism—which may very well become World War III—isn’t going to end soon. In fact, our children in pre-school and Kindergarten today might be in uniform in fifteen years, fighting it. So we need to do more than the current administration has to prepare the American people for the struggle ahead. My biggest complaint against President Bush isn’t the cockamamie things Democrats have been harping on for the past five years. My concern is that Bush hasn’t done enough. He has yet to come out and identify Islamic fascism as the “enemy,” not “terrorism.” He has failed to put America on a “war economy,” nor has he asked Americans to sacrifice anything for the war effort. These are things that the Democrats need to start thinking about.

How’s this for a scary scenario—in less than twenty years, France will be an Islamic Regime, and the moon and crescent will fly over several other European capitals on that continent’s way to becoming an Islamic caliphate. What will we, as Democrats, be talking about then?

2006-09-05T01:57:00.000-07:00

Americans Learn Lessons From History the Hard Way

It is a blessing that the military and political leadership of the United States seems to be the most historically knowledgeable element of American society. If what appears in the media is any indication of what the American public understands about the Global War on Terrorism, we can all sleep better knowing that our common defense isn’t in their hands. Phrases like “No Blood for Oil,” and “War Is Not the Answer,” and the ridiculous attempts to get city councils to pass anti-war resolutions reveal how far removed many Americans are from historical and geopolitical reality.

The American public has always been slow in recognizing external threats not only to our own, but also the world’s collective security. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are but the most glaring and shameful examples of American reluctance to look past our isolationist natures. That US military and materiel contributions in World War II more than made up for our late entry does not excuse American lack of foresight and resolve during the 1930s and early part of the war.

FDR and our military leadership were not to blame. Roosevelt early on recognized the threat to world peace that the Axis Powers represented, especially Hitler and the Nazis. It is a dark stain upon the American conscious that while Nazi panzer divisions were rolling across Europe subjugating millions of human beings, and Japanese forces were raping and murdering millions more in China, we had to wait until American lives were lost at Pearl Harbor before our “public” would stomach sending American troops to fight against tyranny. Ironically enough, there were still voices in the United States who questioned why we needed to focus our main effort against Nazi Germany, when it had been Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor! As if Nazi aggression wasn’t linked hand-in-hand with that of Imperial Japan.

Does this sound familiar?

There are Americans all around us today who do not understand that we are already at war. They seem to have forgotten that we have been at war since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001. United States military forces have been in continuous military operations in Afghanistan, and later, Iraq, ever since. We have military advisors and Special Operations forces fighting in the Philippines and East Africa. Currently, our military is preparing, if necessary, to launch another campaign in this war (not a “new” war) against the nuclear ambitions of the psychotic dictator in Iran. North Korea may be next.

Yet what do we hear and read about everyday? Americans asking why we are in Iraq, and perhaps later, North Korea? They’re not the ones who attacked America! It was Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization, backed by the Taliban government of Afghanistan. The Taliban’s fallen, and bin Laden’s probably dead, so we should all pack up, go home, and call it even, right? September 11’s been avenged. This war’s taking too long, it’s messing up my travel plans! Let the UN and Europe take care of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—heck, Germany, France, and Great Britain got the world into the mess it’s in today, anyway! Who cares if Tehran and Pyongyang are trying to get nuclear weapons, we have them, too, so who are we to tell them what to do?

Can Americans really be this ignorant? Does anybody really believe that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are completely separate organizations, with no ties whatsoever to any other militant Islamic group or Arab government? Does American public and UN/world opinion actually need President Bush to conjure up evidence that Iran and North Korea are threats to world peace? What will be good enough? A photo showing Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad shaking hands with bin Laden? North Korea declaring a resumption of nuclear development, and a right to preemptively attack the US? They’ve already done this. Captured plans revealing Ahmadinejad’s intention to bring “Death to the United States” and “Death to Israel?” We already know he would love nothing better than to achieve this goal. What kind of “smoking gun” does the US have to find that will make folks put down their “War Is Not the Answer” bumper stickers, and make the UN actually do something to fight evil?

Is this what Americans want? A world where US leadership, power, and the right to defend ourselves has been subordinated to a consensus of timid appeasers both here at home and in the United Nations, whose sense of history goes back only to the point where America became the world’s sole superpower? These people are cut from the same cloth as those who let Hitler march into Austria and annex Czechoslovakia. Today, those who would want “Peace in Our Time” are begging that “diplomacy” and “talks” run their course. They want “inspections” before action. They will do anything to delay a US attack on our enemies for who knows what reasons! Maybe so they can continue trading and cutting “Food for Oil” deals with them.

America did not wake up after September 11, 2001. Trust me, we are still asleep. We will continue to be asleep until Americans realize that there are evil forces in the world that hate us “just because.” They hate our culture, our power, our wealth, they hate how free we are, and they hate all the good that we have contributed to humankind. They will hate us whether we support their causes or oppose them. They will try to destroy us whether we march for peace or war. Even if we stopped backing Israel, withdrew all of military forces from every corner of the globe, and gave every poor person in the world a check for $1,000, those forces would still hate us and want to destroy us! They are only emboldened by timidity and appeasement, and understand no diplomacy other than violence. And we are in big trouble if we refuse to accept the fact that at this very moment, there are groups of people—agents of Al Qaeda, Ahmadinejad, Hizbollah, and North Korea, who are planning to seriously harm Americans and the United States. No, America will not wake up until one of our cities is destroyed.

In a side note, the Pasadena Unified School District Board once tried to get one of those anti-war resolutions passed just before we launched the Iraq Campaign. Part of the wording of the resolution reads, in effect, that the school board “opposes any military action against Iraq unless as a response to a direct military attack by that country.” Ironic, isn’t it? I wonder if Americans would think differently if on September 10, 2001, all of the companies in the World Trade Center had signed a similar resolution opposing military action against Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime, “unless as a response to a direct attack” by them.

Preemptive attacks always seem more attractive when you’re the one who’s going to get killed waiting for a “smoking gun.”

Any volunteers?

2006-08-31T08:04:00.000-07:00

Being “American” Is a State-of-Mind

Talking with an acquaintance recently about what it means to be an “American,” he pointed out that it was more a matter of state-of-mind than a place one was born. As an example, he pointed out that the U.S.-born child of an illegal immigrant family from Latin America, whose first language spoken was Spanish, whose culture was the transplanted culture of the parents’ home country, and for all intents and purposes was raised as a “Mexican” or “El Salvadoran,” complete with the display of their national flag in the home, as well as the celebration of traditional customs and holidays, could hardly be considered an “American” in the nationalist sense. While technically this child would be an “American” due to the de facto interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, in reality he or she would be a “Mexican,” “Guatemalan,” or “El Salvadoran” who just happened to be born and raised in the United States.

So what is the “American” state-of-mind that so defines us in action and outlook? Is there a distinct American culture, complete with a worldview and belief system uniquely our own, that separates us from other cultures? I say there is, and it’s something to be proud of and to hold up as a model for the advancement of Western Civilization.

In World War II, a French civilian saw a column of American G.I.s marching by, not in the goose-stepping rigidity of the fascist Nazi invaders who had oppressed the poor Frenchman for four years, but in the typical, disheveled manner of the American fighting man, uniforms uniquely mismatched to fit each soldier’s personal style, helmets at a jaunty tilt, and full of easy smiles and friendly waves to the locals. The Frenchman commented about the Americans he saw: “They walk like free men.”

Free men! That French guy summed up in two words the rock-solid foundation of our “culture” that can be found in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident…”—got that? Self-evident! There’s no argument. No way they can be discredited, disproved or debunked.
“…that all Men are created equal…”—No one will ever oppress us, enslave us, or subjugate us under a brutal, dictatorial regime!
“…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”—God-given rights that transcend the laws of man, and that no one can take away from us.
“…that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”—Understand? We are a free people, with the God-given right to live our lives the way we want in a manner that may afford us the most happiness.

A majority of cultures around the world, even in Europe, diminish and dismiss the importance and worth of the individual to the needs of the tribe, clan, community, political party, city-state, and government. In American culture, our sense of freedom is defined and epitomized by the “individual”—the self-made man or woman, often from humble origins, who beat the odds and rose above their poor beginnings, to educate themselves and forge ahead, tackling the “wilderness” (literally or figuratively), to rise to the highest office, rank, station, or level of wealth that they could. Often the rugged American would be forced to “go it alone” due to the timidity of others.

Americans’ belief in freedom doesn’t mean do what you want or live by your own rules. Americans have a deep-rooted and almost pious belief in the Law. We freely and willingly vote to elect men and women in whom we trust to pass the laws that we all agree to follow, obey, and enforce, and that we trust in to be for the good of the community. That’s why you would never see the type of lawlessness and depravity here as you’d find in Somalia, Rwanda, Serbia, Chechnya, and other places around the globe, where there is no respect for human rights and law and order. Americans abhor criminals, especially those among us, and we have a tradition of highly respected law enforcement agencies, which we applaud and encourage in fighting crime, chaos, and disorder.

Americans believe in “God and Country,” as corny as that sounds. We are traditionally not a secular people, as many in Europe proudly claim to be. Our ancestors were Quakers, Protestants, Jews, and Roman Catholics, and many Americans attend church services every Sunday, while turning to prayer frequently. With our strong belief in God, comes our strong belief in our country, the United States of America. Americans are extremely patriotic, waving the red, white, and blue from our homes, to our sporting events, and proudly at the Olympic games. We unashamedly believe that our Creator has blessed the United States, and we continue to ask for blessings for our great nation, its political leaders, and our men and women in uniform, in our daily prayer.

Americans believe in “citizenship”—service and civic duty—a proud tradition that makes us stand apart from people in other countries and cultures. From the local level to the White House, Americans believe in participating in the political process, in serving their community on city councils, and in running for state and national office. We believe in participating in community organizations like Neighborhood Watch, the Girl Scouts, PTA, and the Boy Scouts of America. While many Europeans remain suspicious of such activity, as they recall the Hitler Youth and the Nazi Party, Americans are proud of our civic institutions.

Americans proudly serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. We treasure our families’ military heritage and sacrifice in the cause of freedom, the promotion of democratic ideals, and the liberation of oppressed peoples. This is unique to our culture (perhaps the British and their former Commonwealth have the closest parallel). From Europe, to Latin America, and to the far corners of Asia and the Middle East, most people look suspiciously upon their own military forces, as they recall periods of oppression and cruelty perpetrated upon them by these same armies, who were usually composed of draftees and under or uneducated societal fringe elements, criminals, and outcasts.

This is not the case in the United States. Our military forces have never been used to oppress our own people, as they have in places like Europe and Latin America, and have served honorably throughout our country’s history. Our service personnel are all volunteers, who more often than not, re-enlist to return to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, where they believe in what America is doing to bring freedom and democracy there.

There are cynics who’ll claim that our military is a pawn of big corporations, that they are just advancing the nefarious economic ambitions of capitalist conspirators. How wrong they are. They underestimate the intelligence of the average American soldier—remember the individualist? To the American fighting men and women, it doesn’t matter why George W. Bush asked Congress to authorize military action; the combat troops don’t care what Halliburton stands to gain economically from a democratic Iraq. Each American soldier is his or her own general, with their own reasons for fighting. I have talked to many veterans myself, and they have all said the same thing: “I was in Iraq for the elections. To see the looks on the Iraqi men and women who voted for the first time made it all worth it.” Whether it’s a personal goal to improve the lives of the formerly-oppressed Iraqis, or to support the cause of women’s rights, or to just kick some terrorist butt, each American knows why he or she is fighting.

Now I’ve talked a lot about what Americans believe in, and it’s time I spent some pixels on what we don’t believe in. Americans don’t believe there’s honor in losing. We don’t believe in a so-called “nuanced” diplomacy that leaves terror groups like Hizbollah still armed to the teeth. Americans don’t believe in appeasement. Americans don’t believe in dual citizenship, dual nationalities, European Unions, the subordination of our laws to any United Nothings, or the holding up of our service personnel or national leaders to a biased, anti-American International Criminal Court. We don’t believe that the UN or the EU or any other international group of weak-willed appeasers will protect us or look out for our interests. But then again, we don’t really have to worry too much about all that stuff, do we? Because we’re Americans…

Now there will be people who read this and say, Wow, that sounds pretty nationalistic, maybe even jingoistic. Does it? I’d say it sounds like FREEDOM. Guess what? Americans know that freedom isn’t free. And you can’t buy it safely and cheaply at the corner store. You can’t order freedom on-line from the comfort of your own home. You can’t buy it at Wal Mart, or bid for it on eBay. It’s expensive and you gotta get dirty. You want to know what freedom costs? It cost 260,000 Americans killed-in-action in World War II. That’s how much that “freedom bill” cost us.

Americans are the most peace-loving, forgiving, tolerant people in the world. There’s nothing we’d rather do than never have to “send in the Marines” anywhere. If only the world was a better place and everyone behaved. We just want to have picnics, attend weddings, and go to our children’s graduations. We just want to be happy and raise our families, go to work in the morning everyday to become prosperous, and not have to worry about Islamist fascists flying our airplanes into our buildings! Do you get the picture?

So ask yourself this question. Do you consider yourself an American?

2006-08-23T23:45:00.000-07:00

An American On Tour With Contiki

Ask any Australian between the ages of 18-35 what Contiki is and you’re liable to get sold on a fun-filled vacation package that takes young adventure-seekers from around the world, throws them all on a tour bus or cruise ship together, and lets them explore historic and exotic locales while mingling in a party-like atmosphere. Sound like fun? That’s why Contiki—the number one touring company among young Aussies—has become the worldwide leader in travel tours for 18-35 year olds. By offering over 100 unique and diverse itineraries throughout Europe, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, at amazing value, it’s no wonder more Americans are catching the Contiki bug.

For young, single Americans taking a semester off from college, Contiki can be the perfect “road trip”-type getaway. Or maybe you’re a working stiff in your late 20s or early 30s, engaged or married, single or attached, Contiki can be just what the doctor ordered to recharge the batteries or bring back the romantic spark, without worrying about traveling alone, or getting stuck on the tour with a quarreling couple and their screaming kids, or the white-haired retirees strolling at a snail’s pace. By limiting the tours to travelers between the ages of 18-35, Contiki virtually guarantees that the Americans will bond with their young, foreign travel companions, making the “connecting” as much a part of the fun as sightseeing.

Contiki’s “themed” tour packages include regional trips to places like Great Britain, Ireland, and Italy; island hopping and cruising among the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea; to a 30-day European “Panorama” adventure through 12 countries. For more experienced and affluent travelers, Contiki’s “Superior” tours guarantee private rooms for couples and three to four star hotels for the more comfortably minded. Contiki’s “budget” tours are geared toward the frugal students and single travelers, or the backpacking set used to campgrounds and pensions. Almost all meals, ground transportation in an air-conditioned luxury motor coach, and lodging are included in prices ranging from $719 for an 8-day Berlin-Prague getaway, to $4,285 for the 36-day, 12 country “European Explorer” trip.

Having been on a Contiki vacation myself, the “Eastern Road” tour through Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland, I can attest to the lure and excitement of seeing the sights while forging friendships with foreigners that makes Contiki travelers return for second, third, and even fourth trips with the legendary company.

Our veteran Contki tour guide, Louise “Lou” Clarke, a “Kiwi” (New Zealander) by nationality, along with our Dutch driver, Arend Van Bokkum, led 46 “boys and girls” (as we were called) through our six-country tour. The majority of the group was Australian, followed by the second-largest Canadian contingent. I was one of eight Americans, being the only one from the Pasadena-Los Angeles area; Our tour was rounded out by two Mexicans, two Italians, two Welsh, and one each from South Africa, England, and South Korea. It should be noted that the women outnumbered the men, and there were only three couples attached, two of whom were engaged.

The tour began in Berlin, Germany, where we were treated to an orientation dinner at the beautiful Park Plaza Hotel. It was here where we made first impressions; filled out important paperwork; and where Contiki veterans and rookies alike sized each other up, wondering how the group would “gel.” Later, during an introduction exercise, Lou made each of us give our “traffic signal” color: green for “single and available”; yellow for “dating someone back home but open to new possibilities”; and red for “taken—not interested.” Needless to say, most of the group claimed “green” as their traffic light.

From Germany, it was on to Prague, in the Czech Republic. Our bus ride was reminiscent of the latest spate of reality TV “road trip” shows, where the young and beautiful jockeyed for social status, friendly alliances were forged, and flirtatious conversation bloomed. Before even reaching the golden city on the River Vltava, the question on everyone’s mind was “who’s going to hook up with whom?”

Prague, one of the crown jewels of Eastern Europe and now inundated with Western tourists, dazzled the Contiki travelers with its rich, ancient beauty. Although the tour was fast-paced, the group’s youthful energy propelled it through Prague’s narrow cobblestone streets, down to Hradcany Castle, the Cathedral of St. Vitus, and Wenceslas Square. We explored the “Golden Road,” where Franz Kafka once rented an apartment, and crossed the Charles Bridge, lined on each side with religious statuary. Our evenings were spent dancing to the techno music at Karlovy Lázně—Prague’s famous four-story discothèque, which boasted of being the largest in Eastern Europe, or dining on traditional cuisine at Chez Michel, while watching beautifully costumed Czech folk dancers play their instruments and sing.

After Prague, it was off to Vienna, the home of classical music and the Hapsburgs. The splendor of this very Western capital was not lost on the group as we drove around the Ring Road, getting an eyeful of the Palace of the Hapsburgs, St. Stephen’s Cathedral, and the State Opera House. In the evening, we were treated to a classical music concert in Schönbrunner Palace, where the six-year-old Mozart first played for the Empress Maria Theresa. By the time we left this grandiose city, we were already debating which city—Prague or Vienna—had been our favorite.

From Austria we headed east, across the Hungarian border and on to Budapest, actually two “cities”—Buda and Pest (pronounced “Pesht”)—built on both sides of the River Danube. This grand city, with stunning castles and palaces towering over the Danube, rivaled Prague in Eastern beauty. The highlight was a nighttime river cruise, complete with fine dining and flowing red wine. By that time, several members of the group had become cozy on the top deck, and leaned in close to stay warm in the cool night air, hands clasping, arms hugging. Lou looked on with mild curiosity at scenes she’d witnessed countless times before.

Soon, we were in Slovakia, where Lou and our driver Arend, arranged for a surprise lunch stop in the quaint city of Banská Bystrica, fifth largest in Slovakia. A Soviet World War II memorial in the town square reminded us that the entire region was once under Nazi occupation, and was “liberated” by the Red Army in some of the severest fighting of the war.

World War II sites of historic interest became some of the “highlights” of the trip as we entered Poland. In the surprisingly beautiful city of Krakow, there was a walking tour through the former Jewish “ghetto”, the liquidation of which was portrayed in the Steven Spielberg film Schindler’s List. Speaking of Schindler, we also saw his original factory in Krakow, where he employed the Jews that he saved from certain death, making faulty equipment for the German Army. These visits, along with our subsequent stop at the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp, held special meaning for one of our Contiki travel mates, Rena Moore, 26, from Canberra, Australia, who was half-Polish—her Jewish grandfather was murdered by the Nazis in a concentration camp in Poland.

Our visit to the campsites at Auschwitz I and Birkenau (Auschwitz II), at Oświęcim, Poland, admittedly the #1 draw to the “Eastern Road” Contiki trip by the majority of us, was our grimmest time on the tour. Lou had told us, eerily enough, that in all of her travels throughout Europe, she noticed that the “sun never shines on a concentration camp.” Despite the sunny day in the surrounding area, once at the death camp, the sky turned overcast and gray. I felt that the ashes of the dead would forever block out the sun to remind visitors of the horrible atrocities committed at this evil place. Seeing the actual thousands of clumps of shorn human hair, many still in braids; the hundreds of suitcases marked with the names and addresses of the Jewish inmates; and the baby clothes and shoes, all taken from the dead, was too much for some of the group to bear, as many of us walked away wiping tears from our faces. The Contiki “bonds” were strong by this time and comfort was readily available.

After a stop at Jasna Gora, the Christian pilgrimage site of the famous “Black Madonna,” we were on the road to Warsaw, once the model of communist capitols after Moscow. Despite its imposing “Palace of Culture” Tower with 30th floor observation deck—one of five similar buildings constructed throughout Russia under Stalin’s regime—the city is as “Western” as any back home. Poland’s economy is booming and many of us commented that their shopping centers look just like those in L.A., Sydney, and London; their styles were “hip”; the Polish women beautiful; and the city more alluring than we would have thought.

The long bus ride from Warsaw back to Berlin was taken in stride. The various groups of Contiki “cliques”, new friends and lovers, roommates, etc., played guessing games, read, or caught up on much-needed sleep. Once in Germany’s capitol, the bus stopped at the East Side “Gallery” for photos of one of the last-remaining segments of Berlin’s infamous wall, completely covered in period graffiti.

The final full day in Berlin included a “Third Reich Walking Tour” that began on the Under den Linden and took us past the Bebelplatz, scene of the infamous 1933 Nazi book burnings. From there we braved the hot August sun and made our way to the “sites” (they no longer exist) of the Reich Chancellery and Hitler’s bunker; as well as the SS and Gestapo Headquarters locations, now an open-air museum exhibit called the “Topography of Terror.” We also got a look at the Holocaust Memorial, the famous Brandenburg Gate, the Soviet World War II memorial, flanked by two original T-34 tanks, and the “new” Reichstag (parliament) building, complete with a giant glass dome and observation deck on the roof. At night, we celebrated with a “pub crawl”—an organized tour of several of Berlin’s bars and nightclubs, where the group toasted newfound friends and reminisced over our twelve-day adventure.

By the time the Contiki veterans, old and new, exchanged tearful hugs and kisses, e-mail addresses, and cell phone numbers, we did it with the knowledge and satisfaction that we had not only experienced the beautiful and amazing panorama of Eastern Europe, but that we had met young people like ourselves, foreigners with many of the same dreams and desires, with whom we partied, debated politics and world events, and shared laughs over our different accents and cultural quirks. We had, in effect, formed bridges between each other. As tiny ambassadors, we had improved, in our own small way, the relations between all of our countries.

2006-08-22T00:13:00.000-07:00

Why Americans Fight

Any student of American history becomes acutely aware that our story is that of a people and nation forged in war. Most of our history revolves around one conflict or another. Most Americans can point to at least one ancestor who defended the Republic in one of our nation’s armed struggles. There are people here and abroad who ignorantly refer to us as warmongers and our politicians or military leaders as “hawks.” There can be nothing further from the truth.

There are probably no more inherently peaceful people on the planet than Americans. Almost as cherished as our freedoms is our desire to live in peace, raise our families, and enjoy the “American Dream.” However, Americans are acutely aware that peace comes with a price, and that freedom is not free. One need not look further than our national symbol than to understand what a nation must be prepared to do for peace. Clutched in the claws of our proud and fierce looking Bald Eagle are the olive branch of peace, and the arrows of war. You cannot have one—peace—without being prepared to defend it with military force.

I was going to write an article explaining why Americans fight. I was going to talk about our belief in freedom and democracy, and how it is every human being’s God-given right. I was going to search for poignant examples when I came upon an e-mail at work, from a La Habra Police Sergeant, Jason Forgash, also a Marine Corps Reservist, who was recently severely wounded-in-action in Iraq. This is a letter he wrote about his best friend, a Marine Captain who was tragically killed-in-action. In this letter, Chief Warrant Officer Forgash sums up why Americans are fighting in Iraq and elsewhere in this global struggle, and it has nothing to do with oil, George W. Bush, or any of the other reasons put forth by those who would discredit American resolve in the current war. This letter stands alone, as I can add nothing more.

“Brother in Arms”

May 3, 2006

I lost a brother today. Marine Corps Captain Brian S. Letendre died in a well coordinated insurgent attack conducted against one of our strongpoints here in Ramadi, Iraq. A U.S. soldier was also killed and another fellow Marine was wounded in the same assault. As a police officer and Marine, I’ve experienced death before, but this one hit especially hard. Brian and I are part of an eleven-man team assigned as advisors to an Iraqi infantry battalion here in Ramadi. I was on the three vehicle gun truck convoy that took him to the strongpoint where he was to begin operations with one of the Iraqi battalion’s infantry companies. Prior to leaving Brian at the strongpoint, I shook his hand and told him to keep his head down. Brian laughed and said he had to, “because I owed him.” Brian was a college wrestler and managed to pin me the last time we practiced ground fighting. It was our running joke that I would one day return the favor. Brian will never grapple again. Nor will he be there to see his three-year-old son, Dillon, wrestle or play his favorite sport, soccer.

In the hours following Brian’s death, my emotions have run the spectrum. This evening, we went to the morgue on the local American base to retrieve Brian’s body for the “angel flight” home. Servicemen in combat don’t have the luxury of attending funerals of fallen comrades. The next best thing is to honor them as pallbearers from the morgue or ambulance to the helicopter in which their journey back to the states will begin.

In the morgue, I was able to spend a few minutes alone with Brian. I fought the tears but they too won their battle this night. As I held his head in my hands, I felt rage toward God and hatred toward Iraqis that I was unable to dispel. Standing up, I walked into the next room where Marines and soldiers were waiting quietly to carry Brian’s body to the helicopter. I walked to the back of the room, the anger still seething. I stopped. There on the wall hung two flags, one American, one Iraqi. I paused. In addition to the American casualties, an Iraqi soldier was killed and several others were wounded during the day’s battle. I glanced to my right. There, standing next to me was one of our Iraqi translators, mourning for Brian with tears streaming down his face. My hatred and rage melted away.

I reflected. This wasn’t about Americans and Iraqis. This was about a noble man dying for a cause he believed in. I don’t care about the reasons this war began, I cannot change the mistakes that have been made in its prosecution, and I have little stomach for the negative banter about the war that goes on back home in the U.S. In my simple way of thinking, we are allowing the Iraqi people the opportunity to experience freedoms they would otherwise never know. On an individual human level, life does not get much more meaningful than that. I put my arm around my interpreter’s shoulder and pointed at the two flags. I looked into his eyes as tears welled yet again in mine. “We are brothers,” I stated softly. His gaze met mine. He nodded and replied, “yes, brothers.”

Hours later as we walked solemnly and silently to the helicopter landing zone in the early morning darkness, the Muslim call to prayer soulfully sounded throughout Ramadi. To my ears, it was a song of tranquility. This day, as all days, the sun will rise with the hope of peace. No matter the bitterness in how the day may end, it is that hope of peace in the dawn that gives life its precious meaning.

Jason Forgash
Sergeant, La Habra Police Department
Chief Warrant Officer, United States Marine Corps Reserve

P.S. My advisor team is putting together a scholarship fund for Brian’s son Dillon. If anyone finds it in their heart to contribute, I request that the La Habra Police Association Board open an account on my behalf to collect the donations. Our team will be opening the scholarship fund and transferring all monetary donations to it when we return from Iraq at the end of this year. If you think it is appropriate, feel free to disseminate this e-mail to other agencies and service organizations. I offer heartfelt appreciation to all of you in advance.

Semper Fidelis

2006-08-21T01:25:00.000-07:00

Humanitarian Crises Illustrate Democrats’ Achilles Heel

The war-driven humanitarian crises in places like Lebanon and Sudan’s Darfur region are textbook examples of the number one hurdle the Democrats must overcome if we hope to gain the White House in 2008. Even liberals and those socialists on the Left, who hope to dislodge Republican control of Washington, know they must bridge the “security” gap that voters on both sides of the political spectrum feel is the Democratic Party’s main weakness. This is a harsh reality hammered home with blunt frankness in Paul Waldman’s book, Being Right Is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006).

Waldman lauds the Democrats’ traditional stance on a foreign policy “based on the progressive principles that enjoy wide support: a commitment to human rights, an unwillingness to send Americans to die without good cause, and an understanding of the importance of strong alliances between democratic nations.” However, what happens in Lebanon and Darfur will make or break the Democrat’s credibility on defense, and will seriously erode what little American confidence there is in multilateral cooperation with the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, and the entire concept of “carrot and stick” negotiation.

While many Americans agree with aspects of a progressive foreign and national defense policy, Waldman writes, “they will need to be convinced that progressives have the toughness and strength to do what is necessary to defend the country.”

Americans must seriously examine the credibility, motives, and willingness of the United Nations to enforce their ceasefires and resolutions. The U.N. was impotent in Lebanon regarding Hizbollah. They are also notoriously composed of member states like Sudan, who in no way want to be on the receiving end some day of a U.S.-backed resolution to have foreign “peacekeepers” invade their soil and ruin their gig. United Nations peacekeepers are neither united nor can they successfully keep the peace. Remember Somalia? Rwanda? African Union troops are even more ineffective.

The murders, rapes, and genocide in places like Darfur, Rwanda, Somalia, and elsewhere will never be stopped by UN or African Union peacekeepers, because there is no “peace” to keep in those places. The so-called “ceasefires” and “peace agreements” are political ploys and outright shams, which are ignored as the shooting and hacking starts anew the next day. These regions are torn by full-blown civil war and fighting by warring tribes and factions jockeying for power and wealth. Understand this: civil war and fighting!

Despotic regimes with battle-hardened militaries and irregular militia forces aren’t afraid of “peacekeeping” troops, who aren’t really combat soldiers trained and equipped for serious, sustained offensive and defensive military operations against an enemy determined to hold on to power and execute genocidal plans. It remains to be seen whether or not UNIFIL, in addition to whatever scratch force Europe can muster, will be able to eventually disarm Hizbollah in Lebanon.

And there’s the rub.

Democratic politicians and activists, who have made a staple out of calls for bringing home the troops, while brandishing bumper stickers that read: WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER are caught between Iraq and a hard place, pardon the pun. The so-called Iraq “debacle” has honed Democrats’ anti-interventionist, almost isolationist tendencies, making them squeamish about sending American sons and daughters anywhere to fight for freedom. This is nothing new since the Democratic Party has always been reluctant to distance itself from “Vietnam Syndrome,” the last residual symbol of anti-war activism’s power, which it clings to like a tattered badge of honor (look how many times Democratic and leftist anti-war advocates have tried to compare Iraq to Vietnam).

The nobility of the Democratic Party and its activist stalwarts is that deep down, we’d love nothing more than to “send in the Marines” to kick butt in places like Rwanda and Darfur, crushing the dictators and smiting evil warlords, while dragging those guilty of mass murder in chains before international war crimes tribunals. We are torn by sensitive political issues, not least of which is the misplaced feeling among many Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Africans that sending European (read: white) troops to these Third World crises would smack of colonialism, triggering painful memories.

Democrats must realize, however, that enforcing U.N. resolutions and preventing genocide can only be done by NATO or U.S. combat troops, not U.N. or African Union “peacekeepers.” Many of us just can’t get ourselves to say it. It’s like the “Fonze” trying to say he’s sorry: “I’m saw…I’m saw…”

Can you imagine so-called “Progressive Democrats” Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry calling for U.S. military intervention in Darfur? “We need to in…inter…inter-vuh-vuh…” How do the Democrats tell their anti-war base “Iraq BAD! Darfur GOOD!” In the meantime, Republicans continue to launch broadsides against this “Achilles Heel,” accusing Democrats and “liberals” of being soft on terrorists, weak on defense, of appeasing dictators, and of being U.N. sycophants. This message will sink in and get through to the “security moms” across America, who think Al Qaeda is shopping at the mall down the street, and that a pansy Democrat in the White House will spell doom for the free world.

Americans need to wake up! What’s going on in the world is going to continue to affect the United States in a variety of ways; and it’s not about Democratic “Bush-hating” or Republican “war profiteering” either, although that is what the leftists in the party have tried to frame the debate as. Senator Hillary Clinton is wise to distance herself from the radical elements in our party, but she has a long way to go if she hopes to become the first woman President of the United States.

2006-08-20T15:33:00.000-07:00

Who’s Afraid of Big Brother?

There’s a huge debate underway in America about government infringement of our civil liberties, domestic spying, and the “shredding of the Constitution,” all in the name of security. There are politicians and bloggers calling for charges of treason against The New York Times for exposing state “secrets,” blonde, trophy wife CIA agents are being “outed” (does anyone really believe she was a covert operative anywhere?), and peace activist tree-huggers are looking over their shoulders, lest covert operatives swoop in and rendition them to shadowy, torturous allies in Eastern Europe. The recent arrests in Great Britain, of over twenty suspected terrorists, many of whom were apprehended by utilizing the same controversial phone wire-tapping and financial transaction-snooping that have civil libertarians wringing their hands has only made this topic more complex. Are Americans’ freedoms really in danger? Is Big Brother for real?

For all of those Americans who are afraid that the Global War on Terrorism has pushed our country into a neo-Orwellian age, you all need to take a step back while taking a collective deep breath.

For one thing, quit looking over your shoulder. If you were a real threat, and I mean a real threat, and the government was really after you, you’d be gone! Dead. End-of-story. Say bye-bye to that iPod and your laptop. The people who need to know who the bad guys are already do, and you aren’t one of them. And trust me, the bad guys aren’t sitting where you are, checking their e-mails and reading my blog. They’re assembling a suitcase nuke right now in a rented apartment with no furniture in some God-forsaken neighborhood somewhere—now that you should worry about.

Secondly, do you actually think that anyone from The New York Times or any other paper, blogger, anchorman, or petty congressman serving on a red-tape committee has any real secrets to “leak” to the enemy? I’m talking hard-core, double secret probation, triple XXX, top, top secret stuff. Not “oh, look, we’re following the bank money” fluff—everyone knows that! I’m talking about the D-Day-landing’s-gonna-be-at-Normandy-type stuff. Of course not. Anything you read and see in the media, I guarantee you George W. Bush and his people wanted you (and the enemy) to see, hear, read, etc., no matter what it is. Get real. There’s a war on. This is life-and-death stuff we’re talking about.

And wake up! CIA Agent Valerie Plame wasn’t deep undercover in Osama bin Laden’s headquarters either. She wouldn’t have been able to get her oil changed at a Jiffy Lube in East LA without being noticed. In fact, it was probably the best thing that ever happened to her. I’m sure she already has an agent. And don’t put it past Playboy to offer her a cool mil for a photo shoot. It’s all smoke and mirrors, people! The real spooks doing the real spy stuff are slitting the throats of our enemies as we speak. They’re not getting “outed” by Robert Novak.

How do I know this stuff, you might ask? I’m an agent of “Big Brother”! As a police officer I stop paranoid people all the time who think their rights are being infringed upon by a corrupt government out of control. You’d be surprised how many folks don’t carry one stitch of identification on them.

“You have nothing with your name on it? Not even a Blockbuster card?” I ask. “Don’t you know there’s a war on? Patriot Act II and all that? Two, three…”

I don’t even know what Patriot Act we’re on anymore. They question me as to why I want to know their name, date of birth, home address—like I’m gonna steal their identity or something. I dunno, ‘cause it’s the law! Hey, I’m just trying to get an iced tall mocha at Starbucks, okay? Hurry up and gimme your info!

I mean, if the aforementioned interchange between a governmental stormtrooper, pig, cop, whatever you want to call it, hasn’t convinced you that Big Brother really isn’t watching you, I don’t know what will.

Seriously, though, if you are a true American, and by that, I mean that you have no “dual” nationalistic loyalties, and you believe in what the United States stands for; if you truly want us to vanquish our enemies in the Global War on Terrorism; if you do not wish ill will upon our country, or our troops overseas, no matter how you feel about President Bush; if you do not support or aid, either directly or indirectly, any anti-American causes, beliefs, organizations, not limited to, but including terror organizations, whether foreign or domestic, socialist, communist, or fascist-sympathetic or aligned groups that seek some anti-democratic, anti-capitalist “utopian” world order, and international organizations that seek to undermine our government or laws; if you do not engage in criminal activity that seeks to undermine the fabric of our American society, then you have absolutely NOTHING to fear from the U.S. government or its agents, in any of its manifestations, whether federal, state, county, or local. Got it? No one’s gonna get you, or spy on you, or infringe on your civil rights.

It boggles the mind that in the fifth year of a war against a determined, sadistic enemy, which shows no mercy, abides by none of the so-called “rules of war” that Westerners try to cling to, murders innocent women and children without remorse, literally saws the heads off civilian non-combatants, publicly declares their intention to wipe Israel from the map and bring death to America, that there are people here in the U.S. more afraid of bureaucratic stuffed shirts sifting through their Verizon bill and eavesdropping on their boring phone conversations.

What is the real issue here? The civil rights and anti-war activists have beaten the drums of our slowly-eroding freedoms for nearly half a decade now. I don’t know anybody—and I know hundreds of people—who have had their “freedoms” infringed upon by the Federal government’s war effort. I can’t think of any ordinary Americans who have been oppressed because of what’s happened at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib. Secret agents aren’t arresting Mr. Brady and George Jefferson as they head home from a hard day at the office. Soccer moms aren’t getting dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night by Delta Force troops dropped out of “black helicopters,” and Big Brother isn’t infiltrating PTA meetings and Eagle Scout Courts of Honor.

The only people who need to fear, say, the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, are those individuals and groups, many of them already here on U.S. soil, who mean to do us real harm. The majority of Americans, thankfully, won’t know for a long time how close many of them came to death; how their lives were spared from a dirty bomb detonation, or a terror attack upon a shopping mall, because the U.S. “war machine”—including the military, NSA, CIA, FBI, state, county, and local law enforcement—used all the tools they had at their disposal, including phone records, to identify, detect, intercept, apprehend, and in some cases eliminate, terrorists and terror cells as they devised or were about to execute their evil plans. As a member of our police forces, I can tell you that these clandestine “battles” occur every day in cities throughout the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

Protesting governmental policy, whether national or local, is a vital and cherished right of Americans everywhere. We need to use it wisely and pick and choose our battles. Not all domestic spying is bad. This isn’t the 1960s anymore. The “enemy” isn’t college hippies, Chicanos, and Jewish and African-American civil rights activists. The enemy is a brutal international cabal of radical Islamic murderers—Islamists—who will stop at nothing to kill you, your whole family, your neighbors across the street, all of your children’s classmates at school, your friendly neighborhood cop you see at Starbucks every day, our servicemen and women around the globe, and every other Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc., and even Muslims who aid the West, in their thirst for a global Islamic caliphate.

As cops we tell people all the time that the only ones who need to fear the police are the criminals. Law-abiding, truly innocent people are friends of the police. Ergo, only evil-doers need to fear domestic spy programs, wire-tapping, rendition, Guantanamo, the CIA recruiting on college campuses, Ann Coulter, Girl Scouts selling cookies. The government has better things to do than spy on “Joe Sixpack.” If, after reading this, you’re still unconvinced and mistrust the Federal government and want to really do a number on them, just let them peek at your Verizon bill. Have you ever tried to decipher that thing? Let the NSA listen in on your phone conversations, too—you’d kill them!

“Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Where you at?”

2006-08-19T00:55:00.000-07:00

America vs. The World, or Why a Rogue World Hates Us

Noam Chomsky, the literary and philosophical guru of the American Left, recently declared that not only was the United States a “failed state,” but even worse, a “leading rogue state” whose leaders and policies he likened to the Nazis who were tried at Nuremberg. Americans, according to Chomsky, and especially American soldiers, must “pay massive reparations to the victims for the crimes they committed.” Do you want to know what “crimes” Chomsky said have been perpetrated against poor Third World people by Americans? Economic sanctions against Iraq, and ostensibly enforcement of the United Nations’ “No Fly Zone” zone are some of them. Chomsky included 1980s support for Saddam Hussein’s regime as an American atrocity against the Iraqis, which conveniently allows him to blame all of Hussein’s atrocities against his own people on the U.S., even after the first Persian Gulf War.

The fact that, as Chomsky claims, much of the world considers the U.S. as “a threat to their existence,” and that the war in Iraq has “raised an enormous hostility throughout much of the world, and particularly the Muslim world,” shouldn’t particularly worry any historically-minded American. It just means that the real bad guys have been put on notice. Much of the world should consider us a threat to their existence. You want to know why? Because what the average happy-go-lucky American and politically-correct-even-unto-their-own-undoing European on the street doesn’t realize, is that most of the world is not like “us.” Most people in the world live in real rogue states where dictators and warlords rule with an iron fist and an AK-47. There is no such thing as freedom and democracy, they’ve never heard of civil rights, and you could be killed for being a woman walking out by yourself or holding hands with someone of the same sex in public.

Further more, the notion that the Islamist-controlled Muslim world has been outraged by our mission to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East doesn’t concern me one bit. The Islamists have been angered by our existence and have terrorized Americans since President Jefferson’s time. They cold-heartedly flew airliners packed with innocent men, women, and children into our buildings, filled with more innocent men, women, and children, long before we ever “invaded” Iraq.

As for the other countries that are “threatened” by us, whose people mistrust us, or wish us ill will, well, let’s take a look shall we. Russia and China certainly have reason to fear us. The Russians once murdered millions of their own countrymen during Stalin’s purges, and their communist yoke enslaved much of the European and Eurasian world. They miss the good ol’ days and are eager for revenge against the Americans, who brought down the Iron Curtain, freed millions of Europeans, and won the Cold War. The Chinese, under Mao Zedong, murdered just as many, if not more of their own people than the Soviets did, and were checked by American forces in their attempt to take South Korea during the Korean War. And dang it, the pesky U.S. Navy keeps them from attacking, subjugating, and oppressing the people of Taiwan.

The French thought they could stick it to their old nemesis, Great Britain, by throwing their lot in with the early Americans and helping us defeat the British. All along, however, the French wanted nothing to do with the new United States or democracy, and thought we didn’t have a chance in heck of succeeding. As it turned out, our democracy not only prevailed, but its spirit eventually led to the collapse of France’s ruling monarchy, as well as many of the dictatorial monarchies of the world. France, once the epitome of “global” leadership and culture, has since taken a back seat (they might actually be in the trunk!) to America, whose so-called “Cultural Imperialism” (i.e., everyone in the world likes the stuff we make more than their own stuff) the French claim is taking over the planet. So, yeah, the French don’t like us at all and are always secretly helping our antagonists, like Saddam Hussein, et all. Actually, in World War II they openly helped the people we would fight, when the Vichy French government sided with the Nazis.

I won’t even get into why the Germans aren’t fond of the United States. Historically, American-German animosity goes back a long way, to the days when Hessian mercenaries mercilessly bayoneted surrendering American soldiers during the Battle of Long Island in the American Revolution. Therefore, events like the Battle of Trenton, World War I, and World War II become symbols of obvious, simplistic reasons. The United States occupied West Germany outright for ten years after World War II, and to this day we still have military bases and nuclear weapons there. Ironically, the Germans depended on the United States the most during the Cold War, to protect them from the Soviet Union.

The rest of Western Europe can’t stand us because we stand up to the Islamists, unlike the Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes, Swiss, Italians, Spaniards, etc., whose societies are being overrun by self-ostracized, disaffected Muslim youths being indoctrinated in European state-funded mosques to turn Europe into an Islamic caliphate. Yea, multiculturalism! Many of the Europeans might be alarmed if they weren’t too busy lambasting the United States and Israel, while carrying out their usual anti-Semitic antics. The Europeans, much like many leftist Democrats here, would love nothing more than for the U.S. to be “humbled” (read “defeated”) in the Global War on Terrorism, if anything, so that they could look down their noses at us while sipping café au laits and say: “I told you so!” while paying tributes to their new Islamist masters.

Perhaps what really riles all those people, groups, and nations who “hate” us, many of them who once had powerful empires stretching across continents, is that our nation has become the world’s sole superpower not at the point of a bayonet, as they did it, but through the success of our ideas and our economic and political model. Americans don’t have to invade, conquer, occupy or annex. Nobody can point to any real imperialist “empire” Americans cling woefully to, as the French, Dutch, Germans, Russians, Italians, Spanish, and British all tried and failed in. Peaceful, freedom-loving people aren’t afraid of American soldiers, the way Europeans feared the murderous Nazis or marauding Soviet troops. Our military isn’t made up of poor, uneducated draftees. American soldiers are volunteers who believe in what they are doing, without promises of empire or war booty. That’s what galls these rogue regimes—that our country is the only nation whose sons and daughters volunteer, and are willing to fight in foreign lands they’ve never heard of, for oppressed people whose customs and language they don’t understand, so that those people might become free.

Just think about that for a moment. Americans have gone off to fight and die in places like France, Belgium, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the only land we’ve ever asked for in return, as Colin Powell once said, was a little place to bury our dead.

That is why we are hated. Because our enemies cannot understand this type of person—the American—tolerant, generous, free, and independent-minded. Our enemies know that the United States can never be defeated. America isn’t a place whose capital you can occupy, or whose buildings you can destroy, to make us surrender. You can’t defeat an idea, and that is what America represents—freedom, democracy, and a scorn of oppression—that burns in the heart of each one of us.

As for the other countries in the world who consider us a threat to their existence: Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea (many of these countries, by the way, are, or were members of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council—go figure!), as well as the groups who also consider America a “rogue state”: Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Ansar al Islam, Islamic Jihad, etc, etc., I just have one thing to say to them: Be afraid! Be very afraid!

2006-08-18T10:18:00.000-07:00

What does it mean to be an American today? Whether you are a U.S. citizen by birth, or a naturalized American, you should think about this daily. What is an American? What is it about our way of life and culture that makes millions of foreigners risk life and limb to get here? Do we have a unique American culture?

The United States of America is one of the youngest nations on the planet, yet we have the oldest continuous form of government in existence. Americans have played a major role in world affairs over the last 100 years. We have stood as democracy's bulwark against imperialism, fascism, communism, and now, Islamism. We have helped to liberate oppressed peoples; participated in post-war reconstruction, nation-building efforts, and peace-keeping operations; created global peace organizations; and offered aid and relief to disaster, famine, and war victims around the world.

Americans, individually, engage ourselves in grass-roots peace and political movements; create, support, and work for Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) dedicated to world peace and poverty-relief; and have the freedom to protest or support both our own governmental policy, and those of other nations.

Despite all of these proud and genuine accomplishments, there are people, groups, organizations, and governments that are not only ignorant of Americans' contributions to world peace and security, but are actually hostile to our efforts. Ironically, they see the United States of America as a threat to the "balance of power" in global affairs. Why are so many groups arrayed against us? Why is there so much anti-Americanism, even among so-called Western "allies" like France, Germany, Spain, and Italy?

These are tough issues that demand hard questions. Many Americans will be tempted to question our role in the world, or to forget that there was once a Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union that impacted many of the trouble spots and hotbeds of anti-Americanism today. There are those in this country who will proclaim that we are "hated" throughout the world, but they will fail to point out that those who "hate" us are members of, or supporters of terror groups, fascist and socialist organizations, and dictators in communist and Islamist regimes dedicated to the execution of war and tyranny against the U.S. and her allies.

We live in a very unstable world full of dictatorships and evil. Historically, and to a greater extent even today, the projection of American military power, combined with our diplomatic efforts, are the only things standing in the way of global chaos and anarchy.

So where do you and I, as Americans, fit in? What do Americans believe in? What do we stand for? What do we believe our role in the world should be? As Americans we are all in a unique position to effect change, whether at the local, county, state, national or even global level. It is our responsibilty to promote and support freedom and democracy throughout the world; to aid beleaguered democratic governments being assaulted by oppressive movements; to liberate freedom-loving peoples from dictatorial regimes; and to thwart, dismantle, and in some cases, destroy, any and all groups that would seek the destruction of the United States of America and our allies.

Think about America every day. Stay informed! Read your history. Each one of us should talk to at least one person a day about America, what it is to be American, and what our role and obligation to the cause of freedom and world peace is. This is our mission. It is the mission of every American Son or Daughter of Liberty.