With so many millions who are out-of-work and signing up on job boards, I believe it’s downright disgusting criminal behavior how these companies steal identities of those who are unemployed … below is just part of the story — the link will tell you more…

Cyber crooks are targeting a wave of new attacks at people searching for jobs online, security experts warn. Oddly enough, the criminals behind this scam appear to be just as interested in hiring you as they are in hijacking your PC.

Over the course of the past few weeks, virus writers have set their sights on users of job search giant Monster.com and at least one other jobs site with tainted online advertisements designed to install malicious software on the visitors’ machines, according to SecureWorks, an Atlanta-based security and research firm.

SecureWorks says that since May, more than 40,000 people have had their personal information stolen — including Social Security numbers, bank account data and job site credentials — thanks to a Trojan horse program that was planted in several advertisements running on the jobs sites. Some of these ads required a visitor to actually click on them before the Trojan could do its dirty work, while in other cases the Trojan appeared to swing into action as soon as the page hosting the ad was served, researchers found.

SecureWorks researcher Don Jackson said the Trojan was developed using a toolkit sold in black market forums under the name “icepack.” The toolkit is similar to the Mpack toolkit that surfaced earlier this year. It generates Trojans that probe for the absence of several software security updates holes that then permit the program to deliver its viral payload. Among the many weapons in its arsenal are exploits for recently patched security vulnerabilities in Apple’s QuickTime and Microsoft’s Windows Media Player. It also includes exploits for multiple Web browsers, including Internet Explorer, Firefox and Opera.

SecureWorks classifies the Trojan as a variant of the Prg Trojan, a fast-evolving piece of malware that appears to have been developed in tandem by different criminal groups. Secure Science Corp., the San Diego company that first spotted the Prg Trojan in late 2006, has a very detailed analysis (PDF) of the way it operates and some theories about its creators.

Anti-virus maker Symantec Corp. has been monitoring the attacks, which the company attributes to a Trojan its software recognizes as “Infostealer.Monstres.” According to Symantec, the malware steals sensitive data posted by victims to Monster.com and then relays that information to a Web site controlled by the attackers. The Trojan also directs a victim’s PC to blast out junk e-mail.

Symantec’s advisory doesn’t say what that spam looks like, but SecureWorks’s Jackson said the junk e-mails are typical work-at-home scams that include the Trojan as an attachment.

Part of the reason employment forums are being targeted may be that job search sites have truly massive numbers of visitors each day. But there appears to be another angle in play here: The scammers really are trying to recruit new employees.

Work-at-home scams propagated through e-mail are almost always recruitment schemes run by organized criminal groups. The groups typically troll job boards and forums looking for potential “mules,” people who agree — sometimes unknowingly — to launder stolen funds or reship commercial goods on behalf of fraudsters.

Would You Like A Job With That Virus ?

About two years ago, my good friend and mentor Tad Curtis became aware of certain allegations respecting the combat readiness of Army National Guard and Reserve units. These assertions, made by a member of a reserve unit, were pretty unnerving for someone who spent an entire career preparing Marines for the ultimate test of combat. The accusation included charges that guard and reserve units were little more than a “good old boy” network of lazy and inefficient folks who were happy to draw their paychecks and take advantage of their benefits, but who in fact weren’t doing much to earn those checks or subsidies. For example, they weren’t doing any field training; they were doctoring training records, falsifying equipment maintenance records, pencil-whipping annual weapons qualification, and doctoring personnel and equipment inspection reports. Of course, this speaks volumes about the lack of integrity among some officers and senior NCOs, but there is a much worse consequence than simple dishonesty: the troops were not prepared for their roles in combat.

Now, according to a report filed by Robert Burns with the Associated Press, the Pentagon is reporting soaring death rates among members of the guard and reserve serving in Iraq. This is precisely the concern of Colonel Curtis some two years ago, and it is what prompted him to write to the President of the United States about his concerns. According to Burns, “. . .Pentagon casualty reports show that the number of deaths among Guard and Reserve forced has been trending upward for much of this year, totaling more than 100 since 1 May [2005].” Burns reports that the Pentagon is rejecting any claim that Guard and Reserve units are more vulnerable in combat because they are only part-time military personnel. According to Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokes person, “We will not deploy a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who not fully trained and prepared for the mission.”

But the Brookings Institute sees it differently. According to Michael O’Hanlon, “. . . though the performance of reservists has been generally excellent, some are shortchanged on training before arriving in Iraq.” Mr. Burns wrote, “The increasing death toll among Reserve forces in recent months reflects, at least in part, their more prominent role in Iraq. They represent about half of all U. S. combat forces there, or double their share in early 2004.”

In my view, there is no reason for any Reserve or Guard unit not to be ready to assume a combat role. That is the entire purpose of having reserve forces in the first place. That some units are ill prepared for that role suggests that it isn’t just unit officers and NCOs who are not doing their jobs; service inspectors-general are not doing their jobs, either. We can hope that the problem is with just one or two units, but we must ensure that it isn’t a force-wide concern; the situation demands the prompt attention of service chiefs and an insistence from the highest levels on optimum readiness and training of Guard and Reserve forces. There can be no worse example of poor leadership than allowing one’s troops into harms way when individual soldiers and units are not prepared to assume that role. The effect of substandard training, to put it bluntly, is a death warrant for troops who deserve far better than they may be getting.

If inadequate training is directly related to poor unit leaders, then someone needs to get rid of those officers and NCOs and cultivate leaders who know how to lead. If the problem is inadequate funding, then let’s stop buying jet aircraft for generals to ride around in and devote more attention to small unit training and individual combat skills. If this means extending annual training duty for members of the Guard and Reserve to 30 days, as opposed to only two-weeks a year, then that is what should happen — and it shouldn’t require a long-term discussion. As one Army reservist recently told me, “True professionalism [in the combat arms] requires both training and experience.”

While it must not give Colonel Curtis much satisfaction, he was apparently right to be concerned. He did what he should have done when he put his concerns in writing and forwarded them to the highest echelons of our government. It is pathetic, in my view, that no one was paying attention — until now, but even now the Pentagon is spinning the issue, and that too is an integrity problem.

The difference between physical science and social science is that in social science, the world is our laboratory. Now I wonder if we could apply the scientific method of investigation to our war on terror. Well, let’s see . . .

Observations

a) Individuals who profess a fundamental adherence to Islam have been engaged in serial murder and mayhem since 700 A.D. Based on historical information, it cannot be concluded that Islam is a religion of peace or tolerance

Note: Most religions have at one time or another pursued policies of aggression and conflict

b) Individuals who profess a belief in Islam have funded, housed, harbored, or cooperated with fundamentalists

c) Cooperative efforts range from active to passive engagements with fundamentalist

Hypothesis

a) For any number of reasons, none of which need to be logical from the western perspective, fundamentalist Muslims will continue to attack non-Islamic institutions, persons, or places with impunity

b) Individuals who profess a belief in Islam will continue to fund, house, harbor, or cooperate with fundamentalists because they believe that they are obligated to support, nourish, or succor fellow Muslims even in spite of their extremist views

c) Individuals who profess a belief in Islam will continue to cooperate with fundamentalists, even if only by their silence, in order to avoid danger to themselves, or chastisement from other Muslims

Deductive reasoning

a) Fundamentalists cannot be convinced of the error of their ways

b) It is impossible to distinguish fundamentalists from so-called moderates by their appearance, or from outside the Muslim community; it is therefore necessary to obtain intelligence information from within the community with those who are:

(1) Already Muslims (an unlikely event)

(2) Knowledgeable about the essential tenets of Islam and willing to infiltrate mosques for the purpose of obtaining intelligence information, or

(3) Willing to convert to Islam (at least, ostensibly) for the purpose of obtaining intelligence information

c) The only safeguard from acts of terror is to locate, close with, and destroy those who follow terrorist ideologies and acts, no matter whether such operations are conducted locally, regionally, or globally

Theoretical speculation

a) If we assume that 10% of all of the world’s Muslim population of 1.48 billion follow fundamentalist ideologies, or support in one way or another acts of terror (including silence) (percentage estimate low), then 148 million Muslims (worldwide) are potentially fundamental extremists (passively or aggressively)

b) The removal of top terrorist leaders will not alter the course of fundamentalist ideologies, including their activities which involve terror or subjugation of non-Islamic cultures

Predictions

a) Islamic fundamentalists will continue to groom their children to succeed them in terrorist roles

b) Incidents of terrorist attacks will increase in frequency and ferocity

c) The global war on terror will be an on-going event for the next 100 years

Premises

a) The United States and Europe will continue to resist terrorist attacks, but they will do so haphazardly and with questionable long-term successes

b) Muslim populations will continue to increase and so too will the percentages of people who adopt fundamentalist ideologies

c) Muslim organizations will continue to do their work of money laundering and public relations

d) No substantial gain will be achieved by western societies so long as they continue to adhere to political correctness for the sake of appearing “democratic” and enlightened

XPost from Social Sense

It may simply be that I am of an older generation, one raised immediately after World War II to believe that there really are some things that are worth more than life, there is a certain conduct followed in the presence of ladies, that honor is among the highest of virtues, and that the sum is greater than its constituent parts. It could also be that at my particular age group (the generation thing again), maturity demands that I see things differently than, say, among people who are a generation younger. I was also raised to believe that among enlightened members of society, treason was among the ugliest of words and that a man or woman who turned their back on their own or adopted country wasn’t worth the powder it would take to blow them to hell. Maybe you would never be worth a damn as a spouse, or a parent, or even within a hometown community — but to commit treasonous acts was simply out of the question.

We’ve had several people in the past who, in my view, committed treason but who were never charged with the offense. I’ve often wondered why . . . and a few that come to mind include Jane Fonda, who traveled to Vietnam and aided and abetted the enemy of the United States against our prisoners of war and warriors in the field. John Kerry, who in spite of his service in the Navy, provided psychological aid and comfort to North Vietnam. More recently, John Walker LIndh was discovered fighting alongside Afghani Taliban forces in opposition to American Marines and soldiers. What each of these persons has in common is the fact that none of them were prosecuted for treason against the United States. Why not? The official definition of treason, as taken from 10 United States Code, Chapter 115, (Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities), Section 2381 (Treason) states: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this Title but not less than $10,000.00; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

Treason is the only crime that is specifically defined within the Constitution of the United States, and yet it has been rarely charged. According to some legal eagles, a successful prosecution for treason requires proof of action over words. In the entire history of the United States, fewer than forty people have been charged with treason, and less than that were found guilty. Benedict Arnold, the first treasonous American, fled to Great Britain before he could be charged, and traitors Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were charged with espionage, rather than treason. American citizens who aided and abetted the enemy over radio broadcasts were charged with treason, but Jane Fonda, who essentially committed the same offense, was not. According to one theory, Fonda was not prosecuted because the Nixon administration did not want to make a martyr out of her at a time when Nixon, focusing on withdrawal from Vietnam, was also getting ready to run for reelection.

Personally, as a Vietnam Era Marine, I have always felt that Fonda and Kerry were traitors; they turned their backs on their country, and fellow Americans who were serving in harms way as members of the Armed Forces. I could not then, and do not now, understand how someone could give aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States; I do not understand how they could favor our enemy over their brothers and sisters serving honorably in uniform. I don’t know anyone, quite frankly, who ever reveled in war. I know plenty of veterans and retirees who would be willing to serve in Iraq, but only for the honor of serving America again, not because they loved being shot at, or killing others — and there is a difference. There is something very special about serving along side Marines and soldiers in a critical situation, of sharing the danger, as a team, that appeals to many in my age group. Fonda and Kerry, on the other hand, turned their backs on fellow Americans — and this is simply unforgivable. Whether John Walker-Lindh ever fired a weapon at our servicemen is unknown to me, but he was fighting along side the most insidious people of our present era and, in my judgment, Lindh deserves to be in prison.

Today we have additional concerns. Do people who come here as immigrants, who having satisfied residency requirements and taking an oath of allegiance to the United States, and who later conspire with terrorist groups, commit treason? In the case of Yaser Humdi, an individual from Saudi Arabia, we learned that he was a naturalized citizen of the United States. This means that he swore an oath, and yet he too was captured in Afghanistan fighting on the side of the Taliban. Was he charged with treason? No, he made a deal with the government to renounce his citizenship and he was returned to Saudi Arabia. A man, who denounced America by word and deed, was effectively placed under the “honor” system to notify the Saudi government at any time he left that country. I think Humdi belongs in jail, and I think the “deal” struck with the Saudi government establishes a dangerous precedence among those people who are living in the United States as naturalized citizens who may later act treasonously. We have said to these people, in effect, “Your treason will be rewarded by sending you back to your place of birth.”

Apparently, taking an oath means very little to people today. Perhaps this is all part of the “feel good” generation. Does our government reinforce this behavior by making deals with traitors? Among Muslims, there is no oath that can ever mean more than their allegiance to Islam; does this suggest that any Muslim who takes the oath of citizenship does so with the foregone conclusion that it means nothing to them relative to their adherence to fundamentalist ideologies? Should we conclude that “honor” is subjective, and there can be no real dishonor so long as one adheres to religious teaching? And if this is true, and if our government accepts such assertions as a practical matter, then why even have an oath of citizenship?

There are many — and I mean to suggest too many — examples where Americans have taken oaths and later dishonored them. Politicians take oaths of office all the time, and we have seen entirely too many instances where these people seem to place personal advantage over service to America. People take oaths of enlistment, and then refuse to obey the orders of their officers. People take marriage vows, and then discard them. I was once told that integrity was very similar to virginity — one can only lose it once. Have we as a people reached that point where our words mean nothing, our oaths are simply taken because advancement is conditional upon doing so?

My grandmother, who was born in 1894, told me that “old age is over-rated.” I am beginning to understand her meaning. The more trends I see in my beloved America, the less happy I am as someone who was raised to believe that an individual’s word is a personal bond. I want our government to prosecute traitors for what they are. We the people should let everyone know who the traitors are; they should be barred them from public office; they should be reviled by refusing to buy their biographies; they should be placed into the deepest hole we can find, or exiled away from our beloved America. After all, they are traitors and, at least to me, treason continues to be among the most abhorrent acts.

I was reading a post at Jihad Watch yesterday. In simple straight-forward terms, Mr. Spencer said:

Ever since I began doing this work publicly my point has been simple and consistent: that the jihad terrorists are working from mainstream traditions and numerous Qur’anic exhortations, and that by means of these traditions and teachings they are able to gain recruits among Muslims worldwide, and hold the sympathy of others whom they do not recruit. This explains why there has been no widespread, sustained, or sincere Muslim outcry against the jihad terrorist enterprise in general.

The mainstream media, both liberal and conservative, does not want to face these facts. They think that by speaking about the Islamic roots of jihad violence they will undercut moderate Muslims. But in fact, no reform in Islam can ever take place without an acknowledgment of what needs to be reformed. The near-universal refusal to provide that acknowledgment is just one reason why that reform is virtually certain not to be forthcoming.

Mr. Spencer linked over to a recent article by Time Magazine, an interview with a homicide bomber waiting for his “mission” in Iraq. My frequent readers will note that I have written several articles that express my concern about the danger — nee likelihood of Islamic terror in the United States, but nothing can be clearer than what has been said by an actual, pre-mission terrorist. Read the articles and then ask yourself — if these people are so dedicated to fanatical terrorism “there,” what on earth makes us think that Muslims living in America are any less devoted?

In a conversation with my good friend “Always on Watch,” she pointed out that the Qur’an is taken quite literally by all Muslims, and any Muslim who does not take the Qur’an literally is an apostate him or herself and an enemy of the “true faith.” Quite simply, there is nothing about the Muslim faith that has been hijacked by extremists; and Islamic organizations that keep telling Americans that the views of extremists do not represent the point of view of moderates is a patent lie. There is only ONE point of view — the Qur’anic view.

I asked my friend, “Why do you think our government and our fellow citizens so miserably fail to take terrorism in America seriously?” Her response was typically blunt:

“Americans are so optimistic that they don’t want to believe that evil exists. Multiculturalism has taken its effect in the United States, and our people open their arms to embrace it. They do not understand, or believe, that Islamic culture has but one goal — and that is the domination of their culture over all others.”

She then went on to say that another writer opined a few weeks ago that it will take no less than three mushroom clouds over American cities before Americans finally begin to wake up and understand that the horseman of the apocalypse has arrived. Now, I ask you . . . the reader . . . how pathetic is that?

XPost: Social Sense

Andrew. J. Whitehead operates a website called Anti-CAIR. Many of you are familiar with it, but for those of you who are not, I urge you to click over and take a look. At the very beginning of the home page, Mr. Whitehead asserts: “We are a group of concerned Americans dedicated to eliminating the Islamist Terrorist Threat to the United States Constitution. We believe that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a clear and present danger to our Constitution and our way of life. We will continue to expose CAIR’s involvement in supporting Islamic terrorists, terrorist sponsored organizations, and groups in the United States.

The site appears to have a very clear purpose, not only in the mission of Anti-CAIR, but also in it’s process of informing Americans of the dangers that confront them by terrorist front organizations operating inside the United States. The principal manner of presenting this information to the American public is quotations that are attributed to CAIR staff members. So as I said, take a look and form your own conclusions.

Recently, however, Anti-CAIR has been sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, alleging libelous defamation, even in spite of the fact that democratic senators Dick Durbin (Illinois) and Chuck Schumer (New York) have both been quoted saying that “CAIR is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its association with groups that are suspect,” and “We know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism.”

The banner of Anti-CAIR includes the following statement:

“Since its founding in 1994, CAIR and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”), and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam. CAIR, and certain of its officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy.”

I hope that the reader will be as interested in how this all turns out as I am. You can subscribe to the Anti-CAIR newsletter by visiting the site and entering your email address. It appears to me that some of our citizens ARE taking a stand, and that’s a good thing. I’m sure Mr. Whitehead would appreciate knowing that he is supported by his fellow Americans, and a subscription to his newsletter may be just the way to signal our support.

XPost: Social Sense

When the Marines entered the small rural town of Karbila, Iraq they repatriated four hostages within a torture center, previously held captive by Muslim insurgents. Present within the establishment were electrical wires, a noose, handcuffs, and a 574-page manual on Jihad. According to a story filed by journalist Sabrina Tavernise, writing for the New York Times and published in the International Herald Tribune, four shackled and severely beaten Iraqis told the Marines that they’d been beaten and tortured for over four weeks.

Uncovering such places is not uncommon for American troops seeking to pacify hostile fire zones. What is unusual is that this time, the Marines actually found captive Iraqis alive. One hostage, 19-year old Ahmed Isa Fathil, told Tavernise that the insurgents killed someone everyday. Claiming that he had been held captive for 22 days, Fathil said the insurgents never questioned him, but told him everyday that they were going to kill him.

The Jihad manual, entitled The Principles of Jihadist Philosophy was a well-worn paperback written in Arabic; it included instructional materials such as “How to select the best hostage,” and “The Legitimacy of Cutting the Infidel’s Heads.” [Is anyone willing to place a bet that the Jihad manual is a production of Saudi Arabia?] Explosives handling instructions were also uncovered, along with three automobiles already rigged to become car-bombs.

When the Marines discovered the four badly beaten hostages, they called for medical evacuation helicopters to transport them to a proper care facility. In spite of severe wounds to his face and arms, leftover reminders of his captivity, the young Fathil asked not to be evacuated; he instead asked for assistance in relocating his family away from Karbila to a safer location.

In spite of the political rhetoric being spewed out by such people as Senator Durbin (Illinois) and Senator Leahy (Vermont), it is readily apparent to me which side of this conflict represents the good guys, and which side represents the bad. For the record, our soldiers and Marines are the good guys. Risking death, they move in to areas controlled by deadly insurgents to kill these people, which is the only sure method of providing local Iraqis with any chance of a peaceful future.

Normal people, absent a political agenda, should be able to recognize a “gulag” when they see one. It isn’t the building, necessarily, but how it is used that makes the difference. The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is NOT a gulag — but small houses used as torture facilities in such places as Fallujah, Mosul, and Karbila most certainly are. One fact that stands out, however; these torture facilities are not operated by the Armed Forces of the United States. They are being run by that “peaceful religion” — you know, the one represented by the soldiers of Allah.

XPost:
The Wide Awakes
Social Sense

Mark Steyn’s recent article entitled Qu’ran Desecration Crock a Win for Jihad Spin Docs would seem to have passed without any notice by those who are outraged by the alleged desecration of Islamic artifacts. Mr. Steyn points out that when Zimbabwe’s president for life Robert Mugabe destroyed an Islamic mosque, there were no angry voices demanding that he be turned over to an Islamic court for punishment. I wonder where prominent Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan stands on this issue. But we did hear Atta el-Manan Bakhit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference calling on Washington to show “no leniency” toward those who mishandled the Qu’ran.

We also do not hear voices of outrage demanding an end to the on-going bloodshed between Arab Muslims and African Muslims in the Sudan. This is an interesting aspect of the Darfur conflict that no one seems to want to talk about, and so I wonder where Jesse Jackson — as a prominent black Christian — and Louis Farrakhan stand, as a matter of principle you understand, on Arabs murdering blacks.

We also do not seem to hear much from Amnesty International about Mugabe’s activities (he also destroyed Christian churches) which involve deurbanizing Zimbabwe’s cities, forcing people into the fields. AI has also chosen not to make any accusations respecting the Darfur situation. Neither has the United Nations denounced these activities. Let’s see — who else have we not heard from? Oh, yes . . . we are still waiting for an uproar from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, or any Islamic council or organization that vigorously protects the rights of Muslims. Should we conclude, in the absence of any outrage from any source whatsoever, that the incidents described in Zimbabwe and the Sudan are not human rights abuses?

On the real issues facing a troubled world, the silence is deafening. Gee. I wonder why.

XPost: Social Sense

The war on terror is really much more than just an American war; it is not just the United States who has been attacked by Muslim extremists. We know that Israel has been under attack for years, and thousands of innocent people have lost their lives at the hands of barbarians so dedicated to their cause that they are willing to kill themselves along with their “targets of opportunity.” We know that Russian schools and theaters have been targets, planes from numerous countries hijacked and even cruise ships have been taken hostage. In spite of overwhelming evidence that the war on terror deserves a world-wide response and unconventional methods to confront it, the American political left seeks to obstruct every administration strategy to locate, destroy, or detain terrorists. If we evaluate the actions and comments of these detractors to the war on terror, one can only conclude that such people are liars and hypocrites. Placing himself squarely in the camp of such liberal un-American groups as Michael Ratner’s Center for Constitutional Rights, demagogue Patrick Leahy (D, VT) recently made a statement regarding the al-Qaeda detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Here are a few snippets of what he had to say:

“The Administration’s policies on detainees are clearly not working, and the Administration does not have a coherent theory for how to proceed.”

“If the Administration had applied the Geneva Conventions from the start, as former Secretary of State Powell strongly urged it to do, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Combatants who merited POW status could have been held for the duration of active hostilities. Those who did not meet the POW standards could be prosecuted under our existing criminal laws, or for violating the laws of war.”

“The net effect of all of these problems is that Guantanamo has not made our country safer. It is increasingly clear that the Administration’s policies have seriously damaged our reputation in the world and that they are making us less safe. The stain of Guantanamo has become the primary recruiting tool for our enemies. President Bush often speaks of spreading democratic values across the Middle East, but Guantanamo is not a reflection of the values that he encourages other nations to adopt. The United States has often criticized other nations for operating secret prisons, where detainees are hidden away and denied any meaningful opportunity to contest their detention. Now we have our own such prisons. Even if the Administration fails to see the hypocrisy in this situation, the rest of the world does not.”

“Guantanamo Bay – along with Abu Ghraib – is an international embarrassment to our nation and to our ideals, and it remains a festering threat to our security. America was once viewed as a leader in human rights and the rule of law, but Guantanamo has undermined our leadership, damaged our credibility and drained the world’s goodwill for America at alarming rates. Even our closest allies cannot condone the policies embraced by this government, not to mention the significant damage that has been caused by allegations and proven incidents of detainee abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. These are not the policies of a great and just nation like ours, and this is not the American system of justice.”

The Senator’s claims present an astonishing view of what the political left stands for. He argues for accommodation for the worst killers in world history and according them the status as prisoners of war. For the uninformed reader, such a status would recognize these murdering thugs as military combatants — and they are NOT affiliated with any nation’s armed force. Leahy’s statement is also interesting because while he claims that Gitmo has failed to make our nation safer, he conveniently overlooks the fact that incarcerated terrorists pose absolutely NO threat to the safety of any American.

If there is a “stain of Guantanamo,” it is that the American political left has used it to elevate its own role to that of spokesman for terrorist activities. Claiming their concern for “human rights,” Senator Leahy and people just like him actually encourage terrorist — insurgent activities. Terrorists are not entirely stupid; they realize that when the political left speaks out against administration policies in the war on terror, such statements effectively encourage insurgents to keep on fighting. In this context, one wonders how many American soldiers will die as a result of Senator Leahy’s words of encouragement?

Guantanamo Bay has not “damaged our credibility.” If anything, the existence of Gitmo sends just the opposite signal to murdering cut-throats. If we fail to kill you on the field of battle, we are going to send you away to a tropical island, removing you from your country, your family, and every one of your normal points of reference except for your religion. We are going to keep you in such a place for a very long time.

Let’s also keep in mind that detainees at Gitmo have been introduced to a quality of life that they have not previously experienced. They eat regularly. They bathe regularly. They are given clean clothes to wear. They are even provided with lavatories and toilet paper, something that few of them have at home. They receive regular medical checkups, provided with prayer rugs, the Qu’ran, prayer beads, and they are shown the direction toward Mecca. Yes, it is true that they are imprisoned — such is the price of their murdering, barbaric behaviors.

These slugs are not kept in pits filled with human filth, and they are not hooked up to electrodes. They may be deprived of sleep, and they may be subjected to hours upon hours of Michael Jackson music, but that is not torture. Torture is pulling out their finger nails, driving bamboo slivers inside toenails, pouring water into their nostrils, shocking them with electricity, making them stand for hours in the hot sun, making them work under intolerable conditions, feeding them slop, and subjecting them to bizarre medical experiments. Those are the things the Japanese and Germans did in World War II, by the way, and how I would define “inhumane.”

Senator Leahy is a liar. The program as it exists at Guantanamo Bay is very credible because its detainees are not killing innocent people. He is a charlatan, too. Having been elected and sworn to preserve and protect us, he expresses greater concern for murdering barbarians than he does for the rights of innocent victims — which has become a standard for the American political left. This, of course, should not surprise anyone . . . just ask the leader of the political left, who is known in some circles as the Chappaquiddick Kid.

XPost: Social Sense

Stephen Schwartz, writing for the Daily Standard, on June 7th said the Senator Arlen Specter has taken action that may ultimately improve the state of Saudi-American relations by introducing the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2005. The bill, co-sponsored by Senators Evan Bayh, Susan Collins, Tim Johnson, Patty Murray, Russ Feingold, and Ron Wyden may ultimately change Saudi behaviors as recommended by the 9-11 Commission, Freedom House, and the U. S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

According to Schwartz:

The legislation is concise. The bill’s text stands as an indictment of Saudi Arabia, since it is mainly an inventory of evidence against the kingdom and the role of its rulers in enabling terrorism. S.1171 summons the rulers of the Saudi kingdom to comply with United Nations resolution 1373, calling on states to refrain from supporting terrorism, to combat terrorism, and to deny safe haven to financiers and planners of terrorism. As the home of Wahhabism, the state [sponsored] cult and Islamist ideology underpinning al Qaeda and its allies, Saudi territory is a rich field of targets for serious counter-terrorism.

S. 1171 points out that the Council of Foreign Relations concluded almost three years ago that Saudi Arabia is the main source of al Qaeda backing and that Saudi officials have refused to take serious action to end it. A year ago the CFR emphasized, in language incorporated in the bill, that not a single Saudi funder of terrorism has been arrested, tried, or otherwise “publicly punished.”

In spite of the fact that the Senate’s action is overdue, progress even in measured steps is to be applauded. There is no doubt that the Saudi government has been playing both sides of the terrorist aisle for much too long, and the world community, much less the United States, has failed to hold the Saudis accountable for their diabolical, pro-Islamic behavior. What behavior?

Paul Marshal, writing for today’s Weekly Standard reports that the Saudis continue their serious abuses of any individuals who are not practicing Muslims. While the Crown Prince is out of the country making cozy with American officials, Saudi Religious Police have begun a crackdown against violations of Saudi religious law. In particular:

Saudis have arrested eight Christians from India and seized documents naming others. One of those arrested, Chittirical John Thomas, was pulled away from work and beaten in front of his five-year-old son. He is reportedly in the Shemaissy Detention Center.

This followed the March 22 arrest in the Batha area of Riyadh of Indian pastor Samkutty Varghese by the religious police, the muttawa, for not ending a cell phone conversation when the call for Muslim prayer went out. Rev. Varghese, who went to Saudi Arabia as a tourist in January, was apparently not aware of rules forbidding calls at such times. He is still being held, and there are reports that he has been sentenced to ten months in prison, as well as to a flogging.

The muttawa were unusually busy while Crown Prince Abdullah was away in Texas visiting President Bush. On April 23, they arrested 40 Pakistani Christians who were engaged in a joint Catholic-Protestant meeting in a home. On April 29, they arrested five Christians from an Ethiopian and Eritrean group who had gathered for prayer.

Sources in Saudi Arabia believe that authorities there are using the information they have gathered from these raids in order to organize crackdowns elsewhere in the country. Saudi security officials are busily arresting people whose phone numbers were found in Rev. Varghese’s diary.

Despite the Saudis’ expressions of concern over press reports that U.S. officials at Guantanamo Bay desecrated Korans, their own security authorities have destroyed Bibles found among the victims’ possessions, just as they destroyed religious artifacts found in a raid on a makeshift Hindu shrine found in an apartment in Riyadh on March 24.

It is not only appropriate that the United States government begin to hold the Saudis accountable for state-sponsored and financed terrorist activities, it is also appropriate that we demand that all US officials halt their stomach-turning relationships with the Saudi royal family, including the President who publicly denounced state-sponsored terrorism as being in direct opposition to official US policy.

What we have to ask is this: following passage of the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act, will the Senate take more direct measures to rid Saudi sponsored terrorist organizations from the United States? Perhaps this is a question that each reader should address directly to their own congressional representatives — it only costs 37-cents.

XPost: Social Sense

In his book entitled Comes the Millennium, Jack Blake states, “the grand American experiment in individual freedom is in imminent danger from within, and the enemy is our own gullibility.” But Mr. Blake’s book is about his view that American intolerance and the political aggression of fundamentalist Christians is the principal threat to the ideals of our founding fathers and threatens to transform America into a totalitarian regime. I disagree with Blake. It is true that Americans are in danger from within, and that the enemy is our own gullibility, but the threat to America does not come from fundamentalist Christians, it comes from the Wahhabism that has been introduced, paid for, distributed, and reinforced by our “good friends,” the Saudis. In fact, we might also conclude that Wahhabism is directly responsible for every single act of Islamic terrorism since the end of World War II.

In a study conducted by the Center for Religious Freedom, entitled Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques, it becomes clear that America has become the target of Islamic violence. In a foreword by former Director of Central Intelligence, R. James Woolsey states:

“A major part of the reason for this and other important changes in the Kingdom was the Saudi royal family’s reaction to the tumultuous year of 1979 [Khomeini’s Rise to Power—ed]. We are still feeling the after-shocks today. The Saudis chose after the twin shocks of that year to strike a Faustian bargain with the Wahhabi sect and not only to accommodate their views about propriety, pious behavior, and Islamic law, but effectively to turn over education in the Kingdom to them and later to fund the expansion into Pakistan and elsewhere of their extreme, hostile, anti-modern, and anti-infidel form of Islam. The other side of the bargain was that if the Wahhabis would concentrate their attacks on, essentially, the U.S. and Israel, the Saudi elite would get a more-or-less free ride from the Wahhabis and the corruption within the Kingdom would be overlooked.”

Woolsey continues:

“Today in the Kingdom . . . young people are systematically infused with hostility for “infidels.” Moreover, most young Saudis are not equipped when they graduate from school to perform the jobs necessary to operate a modern economy. Instead many are employed, if that is the right word, as, e.g., religious police – walking the streets to harass women whose veils may not fully cover their faces, for example. Young Saudis’ anger based on their lack of useful work and their indoctrination is palpable. It is not an accident that 15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked us on September 11 were Saudis. The New York Times (January 27, 2002) cited a poll conducted by Saudi Intelligence, and shared with the U.S. government, that over 95% of Saudis between the ages of 25 and 41 have sympathy for Osama bin Laden.”

Now, much has been written about the concerns of many (surely, not most) Americans about the thousands of Muslims who live among us. It may be fair to say that we are not being provided with the truth about what is happening within our own communities. For example, we have seen instances where Islamic leaders stand before a podium and renounce extremist views and publicly align themselves with the so-called “war on terror,” but should we believe it? Is it possible to think that most Muslims living in America stand solidly with the rest of us in adoration of the “land of the Free?” Perhaps not; a recently scheduled Muslim demonstration against terror fizzled.

But Mr. Woolsey continues:

“The Saudi-funded, Wahhabi-operated export of hatred for us reaches around the globe. It is well known that the religious schools of Pakistan that educated a large share of the Taliban and al Qaeda are Wahhabi. But Pakistan is not the sole target. I had in my office recently a moderate Muslim leader from an Asian country. He was in the U.S., seeking to obtain funds from foundations, so that he could have printed elementary school textbooks to compete with the Wahhabi-funded textbooks that are flooding his country and that are being made available to schools at little or no cost.

“The Wahhabi textbooks in his country, like textbooks in Saudi Arabia, teach that it is the obligation of all Muslims to consider all infidels the enemy. As an illustration of the consequences of such teaching, I have heard that in some cases during the fighting in Bosnia in the early nineties, American churches and synagogues that were raising funds for food and other aid for the Bosnian Muslims would approach local mosques and suggest a cooperative effort. On a number of occasions they were turned down and didn’t understand why. The reason was that for a Wahhabi Imam (and Sheikh Kabbani, perhaps the U.S.’s leading moderate Muslim leader, says that a substantial percentage of American mosques have Wahhabi-funded Imams), it is normally not believed to be permissible for Muslims to work with infidels, even if the purpose is to help Muslims.”

Reaching into America is the goal of the Wahabbists. They are capable, as we have seen, to do great harm to the American people, our guests, our institutions, and the economy, but there is no possibility that Jihadists can destroy America from an outward invasion. These people do realize that American is within their grasp through subterfuge, and they are doing it almost in plain sight of us all, if only we would open our eyes to the truth. Mr. Woolsey correctly points out that:

“Americans are not normally comfortable distinguishing between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable within a religion, unless they are, say, debating views within their own church. Because of the First Amendment and American culture, most Americans tend not to make judgments about others’ religions. But the Wahhabis and the Islamists whom they work with and support have a long political reach and their views have substantial political effect. Some of the consequences of this “grotesque protection racket” have been quite lethal: American deaths and the failure to apprehend the terrorists who killed them.”

Finally, this warning by the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency:

“Wahhabi and Islamist extremism today is the soil in which al Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations are growing. We need to recognize the problem posed by the international spread of this hate ideology, including within the American homeland.”

Okay, so what? For one thing, any American who believes that Islam is a peaceful, forgiving religion has lost touch with reality. Despite what the Koran says about Jews and Christians (people of the book), Muslim actions are speaking much louder than Koranic words, and in several important areas. Perhaps it is true that we are being over-inundated with information concerning terrorists; maybe most of us have tuned it out because it is disturbing and we’d much rather focus on our private, materialistic goals. Some might argue that this is just another example of the right-wing conspiracy to frighten people away from the democratic platform.

So let’s just take a quick look at what these “textbooks” are telling Muslims who are living in America; what to do, how to behave, and how to “embrace” America. Quoting now from the study conducted by the Center for Religious Freedom:

“On December 3, 2004, Ahmed, an Arab exchange student, walks down a palm lined boulevard in a working class neighborhood of Los Angeles. Since it is Friday, he bypasses the Hispanic restaurants, the 7/11, and the sporting goods store, and enters the King Fahd mosque – an elegant building of white marble etched with gold, adorned by a blue minaret, that is named after its benefactor, the King of Saudi Arabia. Later he will join 500 other California Muslims in prayer but, because it is early, he visits the mosque library where he picks up several books on religious guidance, written in Arabic, that are offered free to Muslims like him, newly arrived and uncertain on how to fit into this modern, diverse land.

The tracts he opens are in the voice of a senior religious authority. They tell him that America, his adoptive home, is the “Abode of the Infidel,” the Christian and the Jew. He reads: “Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.”

The advice is emphatic: “There is consensus on this matter, that whoever helps Unbelievers against Muslims, regardless of what type of support he lends to them, he is an unbeliever himself.”

The books give him detailed instructions on how to build a “wall of resentment” between himself and the infidel: Never greet the Christian or Jew first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday Never befriend an infidel unless it is to convert him. Never imitate the infidel Never work for an infidel. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel.

Ahmed looks carefully at the book’s cover. It says “Greetings from the Cultural Department” of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, D.C. The book is published by the government of Saudi Arabia. The other books are textbooks from the Saudi Education Ministry, and collections of fatwas, religious edicts, issued by the government’s religious office, published by other organizations based in Riyadh.

Such hate-filled materials are not limited to distribution at mosques. In Alexandria, Virginia, a few scant miles from our nation’s capital, sits the Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA), a private school providing education for K through Grade 12. This school was established in 1984 and is owned and operated by the nation of Saudi Arabia, a bastion of Wahhabism. Quoting terrorism expert Daniel Pipes: “[A]n outpost of Saudi values on American soil, the academy enjoys Saudi government funding, is chaired by the Saudi ambassador in Washington, and boasts a curriculum imported straight from Riyadh.” According to a February 25, 2002, front-page story, the Islamic Saudi Academy teaches students, among other things, that “the Day of Judgment cannot come until Jesus Christ returns to Earth, breaks the cross and converts everyone to Islam, and until Muslims start attacking Jews.” Global maps hanging in classrooms are missing Israel.

ISA recently made national news in February 2005, when 1999 valedictorian Ahmed Abu Ali was arrested on federal charges, including planning to assassinate President Bush and trying to establish an Al-Qaeda cell in the United States. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has repeatedly called for an investigation into the operations of ISA. There are three other similar schools in the Washington, D.C. area: the Muslim Community School in Potomac, Maryland; the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America in Fairfax, Virginia; and the Graduate School of Islamic Social Sciences of Ashburn, Virginia. According to Dr. Anis Shorrosh, a member of the Oxford Society of Scholars and a Palestinian Christian Arab American who is fluent in both Arabic and English, there are 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the United States. Furthermore, Susan Douglass, national curriculum advisor for social-science texts, formerly taught at ISA and is married to a Muslim who teaches at the Muslim Community School of Potomac, Maryland; she has influence on the material presented to children attending our nation’s public school system.

The following quotation from Dawanet, a Muslim website, explains how thoroughly the public-relations campaign to Islamify our culture has invaded our educational system:

“Dawa means to invite non-Muslims to accept the truth of Islam. Performing Dawa involves both our words and actions….Students are routinely exposed in their classroom to new information and opinions, hence they tend to be more receptive to new beliefs and ideas. Schools are therefore fertile grounds where the seeds of Islam can be sowed inside the hearts of non-Muslim students. Muslim students should take ample advantage of this opportunity and present to their schoolmates the beautiful beliefs of Islam….We should use every opportunity to sensitize non-Muslim peers and school staff to Islam and to establish an environment in which everywhere a non-Muslim turns, he notices Islam portrayed in a positive way, is influenced by it and eventually accepts Islam…”

According to Dr. Shorrosh, author of Islam Revealed, Americans are sleeping through an invasion. He believes that the United States is under systematic attack from within and cites the following as danger signals: hate-crime bills are terminating freedom of speech, dialogues in the media and in institutions of learning are proclaiming the virtues of Islam and propagandizing that Islam is similar to Judeo-Christianity, Muslim sympathizers are serving in political office, Muslims are buying up stock in various public media, Muslim funding is establishing Centers for Islamic Studies at our universities, various organizations are appealing to Americans for sympathy and tolerance toward immigrants from oppressed Muslim countries, and numerous charities are serving as money-launderers for terrorist organizations.

One of the leaders in the public-relations campaign is CAIR, which was established in 1984 under the banner of “Establishing Trust, Building Partnerships.” Just recently, this organization completed its library project, whereby pro-Islam materials have been donated to every library system in the United States; Saudi Arabia contributed substantially to the funding of this project, and, as a result, the materials are particularly adept at whitewashing information about Wahhabism. Not only have the materials been placed, but also Muslims are encouraged to check out the material on a regular basis so as to keep the books and videos in circulation and thus out of the book sales which larger systems use to make room on their shelves. In addition, CAIR is presently running a Quran-distribution program. This newest public-relations strategy is making available an English translation which promotes hatred toward the infidels. The translation was so objectionable that even the Los Angeles Public School System removed it from their shelves.

Furthermore, CAIR is not the innocuous civil-rights organization it purports to be. The organization’s connections to terrorism run deeply, in spite of CAIR’s denials. For example, in October 1998, CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard which criticized Osama bin Laden because the depiction was “offensive to Muslims.” CAIR has also defended other militant Islamists, including Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh who planned to plant bombs at various New York City landmarks; in addition CAIR proclaimed the conviction of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as “a travesty of justice.” CAIR protests nearly every arrest of a suspected terrorist, usually on the grounds of profiling. This past weekend, for the second time in a month, CAIR held events at the Sheraton Premiere Hotel, located in Vienna, Virginia. The second event was a fundraising banquet, and, attending the meeting, were the parents of aspiring Presidential assassin Ahmed Abu Ali and Senator John Warner of Virginia. Just a few days ago, Florida Governor Jeb Bush sent CAIR a letter commending the organization for its “contributions to the protection of civil rights and freedom of religion.” All this pandering to CAIR in spite of the warning from Steven Pomerantz, the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism: “CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”

What should we conclude? First, we should think that former Central Intelligence Director Woolsey knows what he’s talking about:

“Wahhabi and Islamist extremism today is the soil in which al Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations are growing. We need to recognize the problem posed by the international spread of this hate ideology, including within the American homeland.”

I suspect that the U. S. Constitution protects free speech for Muslims, just as it does for everyone else. But are textbooks prepared by a foreign government, which incite discord within American borders, also protected? Muslims have the right to express themselves, but does our Constitution protect the King of Saudi Arabia when he or his government provokes a wall of resentment? Encouraging Muslims to hate their American hosts, along with Jews, would seem to present a clear and present danger to the safety and security of the American people, so I think there is cause to wonder how our government intends to safeguard us when the enemy is already here.

Terrorists are urged to “use” American law against Americans who may want to prosecute them by encouraging them to make claims of duress and abusive treatment, and instructing them to insist on their constitutional rights. Extremists are taught how to take advantage of free legal representation. All of this suggests to me a conspiracy against American democracy and its people by those who petitioned us for permission to live here.

Any American who sees “Reds” under his bed may be a fool. On the other hand, any American who fails to see the danger of Wahabbism when it is standing directly in front of him is irrationally, dangerously, and potentially terminally gullible. The threat is real, and unless or until Americans become aware of this danger, and begin to insist that their elected and law enforcement officials acknowledge this menace as well, they are unwisely subjecting themselves, and their families to horrific consequences.

Jointly authored by Social Sense and Always On Watch
Copyright, 2005
XPosts:
Always on Watch
BNN
Grand Centrist Station
Northern Virginistan
Social Sense
The Wide Awakes

Several years ago I was teaching high school in the Rio Grande Valley; one of my freshman students was a very bright young lady who combined exceptional intelligence with an extraordinary work ethic. She demonstrated a deep interest in the study of World Geography, and she exhibited a keen understanding of often complex relationships. I had promised the students that my top two students for the year, as determined by grade point average, would get a flight around the McAllen, Texas area, courtesy of my good friend Paul, who was also a teacher, a retired Marine pilot, and civil aviator. This particular young lady was one of the two top students, and I made the promised arrangements with my friend.

Four years passed and I was teaching government and economics to seniors. I was pleased to find that this young lady would join my Advanced Placement government class. But after receiving a copy of the course syllabus and an outline of the reading, research, and writing requirements for the course, she decided that to take the regular government class instead and, within a week, she was transferred to a regular teacher. I was naturally disappointed because I fully expected that she would again be one of my best students and, I thought, if anyone would be a perfect fit for advanced studies, she was that person.

Midway through the first semester of her senior year, the student turned up “missing.” According to her parents’ interview on television, she had come home from school on Friday, packed a few things, and told her parents that she was going over to South Padre Island for the weekend. She didn’t come home after the weekend, and so by Monday a search was being conducted for her throughout the Rio Grande Valley. A few days later, they discovered her mutilated body stuffed inside a water irrigation pipe.

I was very distressed about this young lady’s murder. I was also somewhat angry because I could not understand why her parents would permit their 17 year old daughter to go off by herself for an entire weekend. Then, a few days later, her boyfriend was arrested and charged with the girl’s murder. Worse, the boyfriend was a sheriff’s deputy, married, and the father of two children. By this time, I was no longer angry; I was furious. I thought this girl would still be alive if her parents had the brains to tell their daughter NO, you are not going away for the weekend. NO you are not going to stay out late during the school week. NO you may not date a married man with two children.

Now we have the case of Natalee Holloway, an 18 year old high school graduate who has disappeared on the rather small island of Aruba, a protectorate of the Netherlands. Again, I find myself saddened by this event, and very angry. This young lady’s parents allowed their child to leave the United States of America, travel to a foreign country with “chaperones,” who were themselves negligent in their duty. The 18 year old girl was drinking in the nightclub, partying at 2 a.m., was seen entering a car with two strange men, and NO ONE had the COMMON SENSE to intervene and potentially save this young girl from an unknown fate.

Yes, I am very angry about Natalee Holloway’s disappearance. It did not have to happen. I do not want to see her negligent parents on television crying or bemoaning the loss of their daughter; they have failed at one of the most important duties any person can ever have — parenthood. Not being a parent in name only, but actually doing parenting. If Mom or Dad wanted the young lady to go to Aruba, why didn’t Mom or Dad go along? If that was not possible, try saying the word NO. Entrusting their daughter into someone else’s care does not satisfy the responsibility of parenting. We are living among some very stupid or very naive people, and in this case, negligence, stupidity, or naiveté may have dire consequences.

Copyright, 2005

XPost: Social Sense

Mark Felt, formerly the number two executive at the Federal Bureau of Investigation is being hailed by some as a true American hero. Why? Because, as it has been revealed, he is the infamous “deep throat” who is responsible for bringing down the administration of Richard Nixon and, ultimately, forcing him to resign his office. The resignation of a sitting president was certainly a first in American history, but I’m not sure why any clear thinking person believes that Mr. Felt is a hero.

Upon taking office, Mr. Felt swore an oath. It is one that is common to those who are appointed to serve the interests of the United States. It reads:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Did Mr. Felt live up to this oath? I suppose an argument could be made, at least that in his mind, that Mr. Felt saw a wrong, and that he felt obliged to do something about it. That would appear to be his obligation, to bear true faith and allegiance to the laws of the United States; but did Mr. Felt faithfully discharge the duties of the office to which he was appointed?

Well, let’s see. Did Mr. Felt step forward with information of a crime? No, he made copies of the information and passed it to a reporter. Did Mr. Felt stand before a federal attorney and make this information available to prosecutors? No, he assumed the identity of a title for a pornography film and remained behind the scenes. Well, then did he eventually take the stand and give testimony under oath in a courtroom? No, he didn’t do that either.

What Mr. Felt did do is he remained on the payroll of the United States government (a hefty sum of money) until he was eligible for retirement (more hefty sums of money) because Mr. Felt thought more about his own personal financial situation than he did about standing up and being counted as a real American hero. He might have been that, if not for the fact that Mr. Felt lacked the spine and obviously the conviction to do the right thing. So he did not fulfill his solemn pledge as a high ranking official of the United States, and he didn’t do it because he wanted to protect his entitlement to monetary compensation as a civil servant.

Note: This is not about the administration of Richard Nixon. To be sure, Mr. Nixon acted in a manner that discredited himself and the office of the President. Mr. Nixon, however, took the heat and when he realized that his administration was no longer viable, he resigned in disgrace. Mr. Felt didn’t do that. Mr. Felt remained anonymous for three decades, and obviously for good reasons. He too disgraced himself, the office he held, the law he took an oath to uphold. Hero? No, Mr. Felt is not a hero. He is at best a disgusting sleaze who benefited tremendously from his salary and pension over many, many years. Anyone who thinks that such a man is an American hero needs to have their heads examined.

X-Post: Social Sense

My good friend, The Solution Guy, has a number of exceptional ideas about fixing things, not the least of which is “When the bulb burns out, replace it.” Don’t laugh. We have plenty of intelligent social scientists, but an insufficient number of people with common sense. We have too many politicians, but deficient in statesmen. With increases in crimes against persons and property, overcrowded prisons and county jails, is it any wonder that the average Joe and Jill are disgusted with the direction our society is heading?

According to the Associated Press in a recent article by Siobhan McDonough, the number of admissions to federal prisons exceeds the number of releases by 8,000 a year. This suggests that prison terms by themselves aren’t working as a deterrent to crime, and that perhaps we are confused about the purpose of incarceration. Do we seek to punish, or rehabilitate? And McDonough’s statistic does not take into account state prison populations. Why are there such increases? McDonough believes that they relate to mandatory sentences for drug violations, and the “three-strikes and your out” sentencing guidelines enacted during the 1980s and 1990s. What this suggests to me is that the bulb has burned out and it needs replacing. So I propose to offer two of TSG’s observations about crime and punishment in other societies.

The Solution Guy recounts two stories, the first of an event he witnessed in Japan. Nearly one-hundred Marines had been drinking heavily on a weekend night and, given the nature of the consumption of beer over hours consumed, squared, the Marines became somewhat belligerent. The Japanese police, summoned to quell the disturbance, responded with three (3) officers. For their part, the loaded Marines confronted the police by making racial remarks, and using foul language. While the Japanese probably didn’t understand the verbal slurs, they are able to recognize belligerence when they see it so the Japanese responded by whacking several Marines with batons — actually, heavy batons, along their shinbones. The astute observer will note that drunks do not hop on one foot easily, so the trouble makers were quite easily taken into custody and the so-called emergency was resolved — as The Solution Guy would say, “toot sweet.”

The second event occurred during a visit to Singapore. TSG was required to ensure that his Marines well understood that the people of Singapore were law-abiding citizens and did not tolerate the use of drugs. How serious were they about drug use? According to TSG, “The possession of a small amount of drugs meant mandatory (and immediate) jail time which was completed with a public flogging. The possession of a larger portion of drugs suggested trafficking, and the penalty was — death by hanging.”

Now there are arguments that such societies are fascist in their nature, and that people who live in these countries are willing to give up their freedom for more authoritarian governments. It may also be true that people who live in places like Singapore do not see drug use, sale, or distribution as part of their utopian dream. It could be that they are fascists, but it could also be that they love their children more than we love ours.

What I think Americans should consider is whether or not they want ever-increasing crime rates, or whether they prefer to live in a society where crimes against persons and property are not tolerated. In Japan and Singapore, crime rates are low because the judicial system takes a very dim view of criminal activity. Their laws produce the intended result — very low crime rates.

Would school related violence decrease if there was a chance that someone in authority might whack violent students in the shins with a heavy baton? How would a drug user likely respond to public flogging for simple possession of illegal substances? If death sentences were handed down to drug dealers and traffickers, would there be an increase, or a decrease in such activities? Would death sentences for rape likely result in fewer of these kinds of crimes?

I have no doubt that the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council for Constitutional Rights would scream bloody murder if such programs were ever implemented in the United States. I might add that the people who use, possess, sell, or distribute drugs wouldn’t be too happy, either. Everyone on the left, and half of all moderates, would vigorously object to such “barbarian” and “inhumane” programs. They would argue that they are not in keeping with the high standards of fairness to which most Americans subscribe.

It might be also fair to say that the families of murder victims, people who have been raped, grievously assaulted, mugged, robbed, or the victim of burglary might have a different view. Parents of children who died as a result of drug use might think that if American society was less tolerant of crime, their children could still be alive. You see, people who sell drugs to other people are among the worst of the lot. Think about the significance of the damage they do, especially to the inner-city young. Isn’t it true that from among a group of people who have little hope anyway, drug use crushes all hope? Why should we, as a nation of people who love justice, have any compassion for drug dealers, murderers, or rapists? Isn’t it true that those who argue loudest for “prison compassion,” actually aid and abet criminals, encouraging more unlawful behavior, rather than less?

Contemporary society lacks respect for the law and those sworn to uphold it. Defendants kill judges, and suspects kill police officers with impunity. The same kinds of behaviors can be observed in our middle and high schools, where “children” verbally or physically assault other students, teachers, and principals. And this behavior among children is explained by the fact that there are no consequences for such behaviors. Rather than a process in search of justice, our legal system has become a game that people play; it has become one where defendants “get over on the system,” where they take advantage of technicalities, and in too many cases, ultimately walk away without any real consequences for their crimes. The “rights” of the accused and the convicted have taken precedence over the rights of victims and their families. Does anyone think that the family of a murder victim ever truly recovers from such an event? Honestly, how can anyone evaluate our judicial system and feel good about it?

So I have to agree with my friend The Solution Guy. The light bulb of American justice has burned out and it is time for us to change it. We the citizens have every right to the expectation of living peacefully. We are entitled to protection from those who would do us harm. If violent people could realistically imagine a public flogging, there would be fewer crimes. We need to stop putting people in air-conditioned jails with color televisions and same sex dating and establish serious, even embarrassing consequences for crimes that not only punishes criminals, but which also diminish the likelihood of repeat offenders.

I do not advocate public flogging; it is not a realistic solution to crime in America, but I am saying that a society that is intolerant of criminals won’t have many.

Copyright, 2005

X-POST: Social Sense

In the “Can it possibly get any dumber than this” category, we are going to examine the relationship between an instructor pilot and a student pilot. Why? Because we have learned it is possible for a licensed pilot to sue his former instructor and/or the flight school whenever the idiot flips the aircraft on a set of high-tension wires.

No, you do not have to get your glasses checked.

“Bobby Ray” received his private-pilot’s license (single-engine) after he completed ground school, the basic number of flight hours, and successfully passed the FAA examinaton for his rating. As a rated pilot, Bobby Ray then decided he wanted to pursue a multi-engine rating, so he re-enrolled in flight school. During the solo flight of a multi-engine aircraft, which means that Bobby Ray was the sole occupant of an aircraft with more than one engine, he ran into weather conditions that resulted in severe down drafts. Flying below the minimum altitude, a down draft caused Bobby Ray’s plane to snag a power line, resulting in a very bad accident. It is sufficient to say that if Bobby Ray is still flying today, he’s doing it with the angels.

Bobby Ray’s wife sued the flight school, claiming that it was the flight school’s responsibility to tell Bobby Ray about the kinds of weather conditions that might cause him to lose altitude. The flight school made several good arguments. First, Bobby Ray was a qualified pilot, which meant that Bobby Ray had attended ground school and should have known that (a) flying below the minimum ceiling is inherently dangerous, and (b) certain weather conditions may cause an aircraft to lose altitude without warning. Second, since Bobby Ray was flying solo, the flight school could not exercise any cockpit supervision.

It is not difficult to imagine that the plantiff’s attorney went in to the courtroom with such an argument with a straight face, but there is no understanding the court’s decision. If you guessed that the court decided against the flight school, you would be correct. Believe it or not, the court actually found that even thought there was no supervisory pilot in the aircraft with Bobby Ray, (which is the definition of solo flight, by the way) the flight school was still responsible for ensuring that Bobby Ray understood about weather conditions, minimum flight ceilings, and the existence of high tension wires.

Now pretend for a moment that a teenager attended Phil’s Driving School and subsequently obtained his driver’s license from any state. Following the logic of the court, if the teen were to drive his car into the side of a speeding locomotive, the driving school would be liable for that accident because they may have failed to mention that driving an automobile into the side of a speeding train could be injurious to one’s health.

But, what if the teenager failed to pass the state’s high school graduation test, could he sue the school district or any of his teachers? Um . . . no.

Why the double standard? Could it be that if everyone who failed to pass a graduating test sued their former school district, all school systems in the United States would go bankrupt? Americans are always looking for someone else to pay for their own stupid mistakes, and too many are getting rich doing it. The courts reinforce this mentality through idiotic decisions, and this is why we need better judges in our state and federal courts.

In 1871, Albert Pike wrote of social morality when he said,

“Truth, in act, profession, and opinion, is rarer now than in the days of chivalry. Falsehood has become a current coin, and circulates with a certain degree of respectability; because it has an actual value. It is indeed the great vice of the age—it, and its twin sister, dishonesty. Men, for political preferment, profess whatever principles are expedient and profitable. At the bar, in the pulpit, and in the halls of legislation, men argue against their own convictions. And with what they term logic, prove to the satisfaction of others that which they do not themselves believe. Insincerity and duplicity are valuable to their possessors, like estates in stocks, that yield a certain revenue; and it is no longer the truth of an opinion or a principle, but the net profit that may be realized from it, which is the measure of its value.”

I believe that this is precisely where we are today in American society; rather than progress, we have a wider application of the maladies Pike described. Before our children have reached their teenage years, they often demonstrate proficiency in falsehood and dishonesty such that all that remains for them in the rest of their lives is to perfect it.

What assumptions should we make about the immorality of American society? If we assume that parents teach their children honesty, perhaps we should ask where they are learning to perfect dishonesty. Could it be our system of public education, and/or exposure to other people’s children?

Do schools reinforce parental instruction, and are parents part of the problem? Public education lacks across-the-board honesty because here are two parts to this system: (a) that hyped and (b) that modeled. Even young students are smart enough to recognize hypocrisy when they see it, and they quickly learn to become at least initially successful within that framework. For example, they note that teachers tell them how wonderful they are as human beings, an esteem-building strategy involving lies. Teachers overlook spelling errors, they ignore poor grammar, they reinforce negative behaviors, and they inflate grades. Who benefits most, ultimately?

Dishonesty serves the teacher more than students because teachers want to be successful according to the framework established for them by corrupt administrators. It is manifested in the way teachers avoid high failure rates, disciplinary problems, and complaints from parents. Principals set the tone for this dishonesty by evaluating teachers as poor performers when students fail, or when teachers send disciplinary problems to the office. They frequently override teachers who do fail students by offering athletic or band exemptions to otherwise ineligible students.

Students learn a great deal from public schools — most of it unscrupulous. And parents who enable failure and unseemly behavior negatively reinforce children. Parents both cajole and threaten educators until students receive promotions, or until misconduct is swept under the carpet. If this is not duplicity, I don’t know what is.

I find it odd that when people talk of “unspeakable” ills perpetrated against children, no one mentions the damage of dishonest schools, and mendacious parents. Both are charged with teaching young people that honesty is to be recognized and rewarded. They should be reinforcing one another by teaching students that honesty is doing the right thing when no one is looking. Mr. Albert Pike was correct. Insincerity and duplicity are valuable to their possessors, and there is a great deal of profit in such a system—just look at how much money is paid in school taxes.

Copyright, 2005

X-Post: Social Sense

Friday’s headlines were an interesting study for those who are able to read and are clever enough to process and analyze information. Both of the following headlines were provided by the Associated Press, by the way — and both were filed from Pakistan.

ANTI-AMERICAN RALLIES STAGED IN MIDDLE EAST
Thousands of Muslims throughout South Asia marched and burned symbols of the United States in protest to the alleged desecration of the Koran by military personnel at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

20 KILLED IN BOMB BLAST AT MUSLIM SHRINE
A suicide bomb detonated while hundreds of Shi’ite Muslims recited verses from the Koran during a religious festival at a shrine near Pakistan.

In the first story, the report provides information about “thousands” of Muslims who are upset about the alleged mishandling of the Koran (which, by the way, is a book printed, published, and distributed by human beings), even when allegations are simply that. Oh yes, the ugly, ever satanic America has done tremendous psychological damage to these simple, good, God-fearing people, by insulting their religion, debauching their culture, and taking advantage of their surprisingly good nature. No doubt, we also conspired with the Jews to kidnap their children and use their body parts in pastries.

In the second story, the reporter tells — well, the headline says it all, but apparently one of these simple, good, God-fearing people wrapped himself in explosives and detonated it in an effort to expedite his fellow Muslims’ arrival at the gates of paradise. On the face of it, the suicide bomber did a remarkably decent thing, spiritually — unless his passengers weren’t ready to make the trip yet. In the land of the Ugly American, such conduct is called murder in the first degree. There are appropriate adjectives for this kind of behavior, as well — cowardly, spineless, ruthless, and decadent comes to mind, but then we’ve come to expect no more, or no less from Jihadists with their twisted mindset.

Always On Watch noticed a “feeding frenzy” on the so-called desecration story, but notes that competing newspapers differ on the substance of the story: The Washington Post, parent company of Newsweek is taking the accusatory track, while the Washington Times is providing a more in-depth, balanced approach. Says AOW, Islamic protestors, the people who adore the religion of peace, have proclaimed, “We will cut off the feet that desecrated the Quran! No one has the right to debase our holy book. We are prepared to die to protect the honor of our religion.”

Meanwhile, the ACLU continues its condemnation of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, echoing charges made by Michael RATner of the Center for Constitutional Rights that military guards have defiled the Muslim prisoners by smearing them with menstrual fluid. It is bad enough that Americans have to contend with Jihadis who are at best the world’s “village idiots,” but now we also have to contend with the home-grown variety at the ACLU and CCR. I wonder how advocates of the ACLU and CCR would fare living under Islamic law, which is an interesting concept.

Post Script:

According to Brigadier General Hood, Commander of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, his inquiry revealed five cases of “mishandling” of the Koran by military personnel: three incidents were “probably” intentional, two were not. According to the media, “mishandling” is defined as any act specifically prohibited by Army or DoD regulations, including “touching the Koran without wearing white gloves.”

Give me a break! Why in hell we are bending over backwards for these prisoners is beyond my comprehension. It is insulting to me as a Christian that any Muslim thinks that my hands are too soiled to touch a book. Our priorities are horribly skewed here . . . in my opinion, the liberal policies of DoD is part of the problem with Koran-gate.

X-Post: Social Sense

The Iraqi government is moving to curtail insurrectionists responsible for the murder of hundreds of its citizens, instituting an operation to block all 23 access points into the city of Baghdad that will ultimately involve 40,000 soldiers and police officers. According to the Associated Press the government hopes to create a protective ring around a capital city that has become accustomed to large explosions and the loss of innocent lives. Iraqi officials asserted that an “impenetrable blockade” would be established, but would not comment on how long the checkpoints would remain in place. Not surprisingly, the MSM — ever looking to discredit any positive effort — was quick to point out that there are few elite police units in Baghdad, emphasizing that most newly appointed police officers are only seeking higher paying jobs by joining up with the police.

Naturally, police barricades will become the focus of insurgency operations and whoever is assigned to this duty will be standing in harm’s way. Perhaps Iraqi police officers should be making three times more than the average working man. I find it incredible that such snide MSM commentaries are made by people who are themselves being paid hefty salaries for covering the war in Iraq. How about giving the Iraqis a positive shot in the arm for a change? How about some balance?

MEANWHILE, left-wing crackpot Michael RATner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, is making outrageous claims against those involved with the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On Thursday, appearing on Fox News, RATner claimed that while the infamous “flushing” episode may not have actually happened, there are documented incidents where military guards “mishandled” the Koran, a violation of “civil rights.” In his interview on the O’Reilly Factor with John Kasich, RATner also claimed that prison guards have smeared menstrual blood on Muslim detainees so that they could not participate in daily prayers.

RATner’s charges are nothing less than ludicrous. Does anyone believe that the American military stockpiles menstrual fluid so that it can be used against Muslim detainees? I have a difficult time understanding what motivates Mr. RATner to make such preposterous charges, and I’m really confused about his sense of proportionality. On the one hand, we have scum-sucking pigs beheading their captives, and that seems to be okay with RATner, but when or if a prison guard “mishandles” the Koran, a charge made by detainees who are not known for their truthfulness, he wants a full investigation and accountability for human rights violations. His agenda may be similar to that of the International Committee of the Red Cross and Amnesty International, which is, as far as I can tell, staunchly anti-American. No one could be clearer on this than Marcia Coyle, who is quoted on the Human Rights Organization website, “In it’s nearly four decades of existence, the Center for Constitutional Rights has never represented clients whose politics it did not share in one way or another.”

Well, at least the wolf is not dressed in sheep’s clothing.

X-Post: Social Sense

Not long ago, Chicago Tribute staff writer Jodi Cohen reported that many parents are now telling military recruiters they may not contact their children about opportunities available through various enlistment programs. According to Cohen, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) enables military recruiters to obtain home address and telephone numbers from school officials so that they may contact prospective recruits. But since the United States’ involvement in Iraq, school officials have been aggressive in warning parents not to permit the release of this information.

Cohen reported that in the Oak Park district alone, the number of high school juniors who’ve opted out of releasing their information to recruiters jumped from 102 in 2003 to more than 776 in 2004, and in Evanston Township, only 17 students permitted the release of information to recruiters, down from 491 in 2003.

It is a human tendency to want to protect one’s children from harm, of course. No one can fault parents for wanting their children to have a long, happy, prosperous life. On the other hand, what does this suggest about America’s ability to protect and preserve our hard won freedom? Perhaps parents would agree to release this information if there was some other engagement going on in the world; one that they happened to approve of. Personally, I see a serious problem with parents who are teaching their children to let someone else stand up for America. It is hardly an honorable lesson in civics. “Give it to Mikey, he’ll eat it.”

If attacks on 9-11 had targeted the Sears Tower, would that have made a difference to Chicago parents? What if someone released saran gas in a major American city, like that released in the Tokyo subway system — would American parents be willing to let their children stand up to be counted then? To be honest, I seriously doubt it.

Every generation has its own set of challenges. No war should ever be “popular” because combat is indeed among the worst of all human experiences, but we don’t get to choose the tragedies that befall u