Defense in the Age of Jihad

By Cliff May

Thursday, April 25, 2013

 

Defense policies are not created in a vacuum. They are designed to meet threats. Over time, threats change in ways that are difficult to predict. In the past, America’s enemies generally wore uniforms and confronted American soldiers on a foreign field of battle. Today, America’s enemies may wear backwards-facing baseball caps and attack marathon runners along with the men, women, and children cheering for them on a sunny April afternoon in New England.

 

What happened in Boston last week was terrible and terrifying — precisely the outcome terrorists seek to achieve. But it could have been worse. It was worse on September 11, 2001, and it will be worse again if we let down our guard, if we stop taking the fight to those sworn to destroy us, and if we refuse to understand who they are, what they believe, and what they want.

 

They have told us — over and over — that they are waging what they call a jihad. The policy of the current administration, and to a great extent the previous administration as well, has been to avoid such terminology. One notable exception: Just before she stepped down as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton spoke with rare candor. “We now face a spreading jihadist threat,” she said, adding, “we have to recognize this is a global movement.”

 

Yet so many people — in government, the media, academia — refuse to believe this, or at least refuse to acknowledge it. I was on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this week debating Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. She declared, “There is no global war. . . . There is no global jihadist movement.”

 

About the massacre in Boston there is much we still do not know. But the evidence available so far can only lead to the conclusion that two young men from Chechnya committed an act of terrorism on American soil in support of what they believe is a global jihad.

 

How do we know the bombs were not a protest — a secular one, with no Islamist roots — against Russia’s occupation of Chechnya and in favor of Chechen independence? Because then the target would have been Moscow, not Boston.

 

Also, last August, the older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, reportedly linked on his YouTube page a video titled “The Emergence of Prophecy: The Black Flags from Khorasan.” As my colleagues Tom Joscelyn and Bill Roggio have pointed out, the video is based on the jihadist belief that in the Khorasan, an area of central Asia, jihadists “will inflict the first defeat against their enemies in the Muslim version of Armageddon. The final battle is to take place in the Levant — Israel, Syria, and Lebanon.”

 

The video features stirring music, fearless warriors, and quotes from Islamic scripture. It highlights an ancient prophecy: One day, Allah will raise an army of “non-Arabs who will be greater riders and have better weapons than the Arabs.” Chechens, of course, are non-Arabs — they are from the Caucasus, meaning that they are, literally, Caucasians.

 

The weapons used in Boston were improvised explosive devices, not very different from those used by self-proclaimed jihadists to kill American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is possible — but not very probable — that the Tsarnaev brothers learned to make these weapons from the Internet with no one instructing them.

 

Terrible as the 9/11/01 and 4/15/13 attacks were, imagine a world in which jihadists have nuclear weapons. Soon they may: Jihadists rule Iran and they are likely to achieve “critical capacity” in about a year unless serious actions are taken — presumably by the U.S. or Israel — to prevent it. Would the Iranians ever give nuclear devices to such terrorist groups as Hezbollah and Hamas? Of course. Why not?

 

It is no simple matter to construct defense strategies and structures capable of discouraging and, eventually, defeating those who believe their mission — mass murder — is divinely ordained and endorsed. But that is what must be done. We are incurring enormous risks by not getting serious about it. As Hillary Clinton also said: “What we have to do is to recognize we are in for a long-term struggle here. . . . We’ve got to have a better strategy.”

 

Such a strategy would have more components than I have space to outline here. But a few points deserve emphasis.

 

Spending: By all means, the U.S. military should pursue efficiencies and prioritize. But now is no time to slash the defense budget.

 

Iran: No threat is more serious than that represented by Iran’s theocrats. They believe they are waging a global revolution, and they regard nuclear weapons as essential to the outcome. The world’s leading sponsors of terrorism, they also brutally oppress their own citizens — which should indicate what they will do to you and me, given a chance. If economic pressure and diplomacy continue to fail, more draconian measures must follow.

 

North Korea: Kim Jong Un is a roaring mouse, but he is demonstrating American impotence — no doubt that’s high on his to-do list. His bellicose rhetoric has prompted President Obama to boost missile defenses on the West Coast, but it will require a much more comprehensive missile-defense system to create the “nuclear umbrella” that Reagan dreamed of and Clinton — yes, again, Hillary Clinton — promised. A complete halt to Western aid and trade with North Korea might force China’s leaders to accept responsibility for the enfant terrible.

 

Unconventional warfare: Jihadists at home and abroad should be made to continually look over their shoulders — in that posture, it is more difficult to organize complicated, mass-casualty attacks. Drones have proven an effective tactic — not a strategy — against terrorists and their masters in such remote and dangerous places as Waziristan and Yemen. The president should continue to use them — under defined rules and with congressional oversight.

 

Intelligence: To stay a step ahead of our enemies requires a steady flow of actionable intelligence. That, in turn, requires apprehending — not killing — terrorists whenever possible and interrogating them effectively. That has not been happening lately. Had Dzhokhar Tsarnaev been designated an “enemy combatant,” as advocated by senators Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham, among others, it would have been possible to interrogate him extensively and perhaps obtain life-saving information about other terrorists and other plots. After that, he could have been transferred to the criminal-justice system for trial. The Obama administration decided instead to tell Tsarnaev that he has “the right to remain silent.”

 

Toward the end of the Khorasan video, the narrator extols the glorious jihad that is to lead to the final triumph of Muslims over infidels. He declares, “No one can stop that jihad!” Actually, I believe America can — with the right defense strategies and structures. Seeing the threat through unclouded eyes would be the first step.

The Hatred in the Heart of White America

By Mona Charen

Friday, April 26, 2013

 

It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion.

 

Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want."

 

This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley.

 

We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people.

 

But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism -- we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

 

Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike -- the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter.

 

Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were?

 

There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast.

 

Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques.

 

The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger.

Environmentalists Endangered!

By Marita Noon

Friday, April 26, 2013

 

You’ve heard the cliché: “Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.” Within the past month, I’ve experienced both sides of that adage—in reverse.

 

On April 2, I was driving from Albuquerque to Farmington, NM, where I spoke for the San Juan Country Tea Party group. During the three-hour drive, I listened to talk radio. That was the time of the Cyprus bank crisis and the middle of budget discussions in DC. By the time I got to Farmington, I felt defeated and hopeless. “Sometimes you lose.” I wondered how I’d motivate and inspire the folks in Farmington. The speech worked. There was a lot of Q & A. It ended well.

 

On Thursday, April 18, I made virtually the same trip—ending in Durango, Colorado, where I spoke for the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute’s regional meeting. This time I had a totally different attitude. Just 2 days before, we’d had a big win. “Sometimes you win.” I could hardly wait to share the good news! Gratefully for me, not one of the guys at the regional meeting had heard the news—which was good. If they’d all heard it already, they didn’t need me (or I’d have had to come up with a new speech). It was great to be able to share the “win.”

 

Maybe you haven’t heard the good news. If you haven’t read my Margaret Thatcher piece—where I chronicle some of the history of the global warming/climate change agenda, please stop and read it now.

 

In short, I posit that Europe has embraced the ruse and pushed it on other western economies (read the USA), as it would change the energy playing field by removing America’s low-cost energy advantage. This, I believe, is why the European Union (EU) originally began espousing the narrative. They have been the leaders in so-called green energy. The EU is held up as the one to follow. It has actually implemented cap and trade—which Obama, with control of both houses, couldn’t get through.

 

Now, add on the victorious news.

 

The win? The Economist magazine, historically a supporter of manmade climate change, phrased it this way: “On April 16th the European Parliament voted to reject an attempt to bolster Europe’s flagship environmental programme, the Emissions Trading System (ETS).” The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), like this: “The European Parliament refused to save the EU's failing program, which is the true-believer equivalent of the pope renouncing celibacy.” If the pope did renounce celibacy, it would throw the entire Catholic church into a tailspin as it would remove a basic tenant of the faith. Likewise, the April 16 vote, has removed the foundation from the religion of climate change.

 

In its coverage, the Financial Times (FT) affirmed my supposition: “The shale gas revolution in the US, which has lowered energy prices for the country’s manufacturers, has heightened Europe’s concerns about industrial competitiveness.”

 

Regarding the European Commission’s (EC) proposal to withdraw a large tranche of permits from the market to reissue later, Roger Helmer, a Member of the European Parliament, whom I met a year ago at the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change, posted the following on his blog: “It would also (though the EC doesn’t mention this) make energy more expensive; undermine European competitiveness even further; drive even more businesses and jobs and investments offshore (known in the jargon as ‘carbon leakage’); and force more households and pensioners into fuel poverty.”

 

Add to this news the “climategate” email leaks that proved tampering with evidence and a repression of dissenting opinion; England’s announcement that wind turbines are a “blight,” and the Minister of State at the Department for Energy and Climate Change (now the Prime Minister’s Senior Parliamentary Advisor) John Hayes’ comment: “We can no longer have wind turbines imposed on communities. … It seems extraordinary to have allowed them to be peppered around the country without due regard for the interests of the local community and their best wishes;” BP’s near-total retreat from renewable energy; and Europe’s tree-thefts as a result of high-cost heating bills and increasing use of wood (often imported from the US and Canada) and coal for energy production—and you have the environmentalists on the ropes.

 

And, remember, the EU has been a leader in manmade climate change mitigation, and in demanding the same from us. The Economist states: “Over the past few years more than a dozen countries and regions have followed the EU in establishing or proposing cap-and-trade schemes.” And from the WSJ: “Aided by Al Gore, Europe tried to turn cap and trade into a global policy.” (Don’t forget, Europe bestowed a Nobel Peace Prize on Gore for his scare tactics.) The FT reports: “The repercussions of Tuesday’s vote are spreading far beyond the EU to other nations with carbon market plans, including Australia, Korea and China.” And now they’ve realized, from the Economist: “In a new world of carbon trading, the ETS will not be the scheme that others copy.”

 

Why the change in approach? According to the Economist, Europe’s largest companies, especially energy-intensive ones such as chemical firms, opposed the reforms. “They complain that the ETS is imposing higher costs on them and they do not want carbon prices artificially raised.” From the FT: “Complaints from business groups that the carbon market and other climate policies are contributing to higher energy prices at a time when they are already grappling with a weak economy appeared to be decisive in Tuesday’s vote.” The WSJ offers parallel comments. Regarding the collapse of carbon prices, it states: “The low price of carbon allowances is good for consumers who don’t have to absorb the extra regulatory cost in what they pay for energy.”

 

Bottom line? It is about low-cost energy. A cap-and-trade scheme—or a carbon tax—artificially raises the price of energy, at a time when inflation is nipping at the heels of individuals and industry.

 

Helmer observed: “For the first time in my recollection, the European parliament has faced up to reality, and voted for jobs and economic survival rather than climate alarmism. This is an early indication that we are starting to make progress in our campaign for rational energy policies, and for affordable energy.”

 

Good news, eh? It is up to me—aided by you; it is up to you—aided by me, to spread this message.

 

You help me by forwarding my weekly column on to your friends and family and by talking up this story with your colleagues.

 

I help you by doing the research and providing you with the talking points in the form of my weekly column. I give you with the facts on America’s energy issues—triggered by current news stories. I hope to motivate and inspire you to keep up the fight when you are tired of waving signs and, instead, feel like waving a flag of surrender. The EU parliament story should encourage you. It is a big win! It is a battle, not the war, but a victory for rational policy and cost-effective energy, nonetheless.

 

Additionally, my column from the week of March 24, is especially encouraging, as it addresses 6 specific non-energy news stories from March 11-20 and three recent energy stories where government overreach was smacked down.

 

Remember, the environmentalists are on the ropes; they feel cornered and are trying to strike back. Last week, the Sierra Club and 20 other environmental groups called for a moratorium on coal leasing in Montana and Wyoming’s Powder River Basin—from which 40% of America’s coal comes. Reports say: “They also want more attention given to the climate change impacts of greenhouse gasses emitted when coal is burned.” Environmental activist and fading actress, Daryl Hannah’s latest the film, Greedy Lying Bastards, is now playing. Forbes contributor Larry Bell says this about the disinfomercial: “It is premised on the notion that Big Oil is pouring lots of carbon-drenched money into pockets of climate crisis skeptics.” Bell quoted my mentor, Ron Arnold: “Greedy Lying Bastards producers spent nearly $2 million to complain about climate skeptic money, in yet another Big Green attack on anyone who disagrees with the climate fanatic industry which is, itself, a multi-billion-dollar enterprise that seeks to impose anti-energy policies in the name of preventing climate change.”

 

Together, I believe we can impact public opinion and prevent the USA from going down the same expensive path upon which the EU embarked. Celebrate this victory—they have been far and few between. Spread the word!

For Wine-Drinking Euro Economists, the End is Nearer than They Think

By Bill Tatro

Saturday, April 27, 2013

 

Hurray, hurray!  A foremost international financial analyst at Federated Investors has declared that the worst may be over for Europe.

 

She made this proclamation after having met with “European economists, decision makers, and decision shapers.”  I imagine that after a long flight from Pittsburgh, she was greeted by a limousine and quickly whisked away to her five-star hotel.

 

After a day of in-depth discussion, interrupted only by a catered lunch, she more than likely spent the entire evening immersed in comprehensive conversations regarding Europe’s current economic situation — all followed by fine wine and a solid meal.

 

Perhaps the conversation dealt with the ECB and Mario Draghi’s steadfast determination to do “anything and everything” in order to keep the European Union afloat.  Indeed, I’m sure that Keynesian congratulations were shared all around, as sovereign spreads have narrowed and stock markets have continued to rise.

 

In addition, I’m quite certain the Italian political dilemma — if not solved entirely by this aforementioned brain trust following their day of deliberations — was at the very least merely put on hold for a while.  I can also envision that their spontaneous straw poll confirmed that the German people favor the euro, and we all know how important that is since Germany pays all the bills.

 

All in all, multiple reasons to order another round of champagne.

 

“Veni, vidi, vici,” I came, I saw, I conquered — high fives all around.

 

Yes, I’m definitely convinced this little bit of theater was repeated several times in numerous European Union countries, until it came time for the financial analyst to get back into her fancy limo, catch her first-class flight, and return home to write the “all’s well that ends well” report for MarketWatch.

 

It’s quite obvious the analyst never witnessed firsthand the 25% unemployment rate in Spain, or the lifetime Greek businesses closed and shuttered, never to open again.

 

And it’s safe to say that she never left the Keynesian circuit in order to meet face-to-face with the average person in Cyprus, Portugal, or even Italy, who are all wondering where their next meal will come from, let alone what tomorrow will bring.

 

Truth be told, the growth rate of most European countries is hanging by a thread, and when really scrutinized from a day-to-day perspective, European gross domestic product is mired in economic depression.

 

Unfortunately, most financial analysts spend all of their time talking to the “decision makers and shapers” that have only one group of people they’re concerned about — themselves.

 

The next time around, my suggestion to the Federated analyst is to take a taxicab, stay in a B&B, roll up your sleeves, and get your hands dirty by eating and drinking with the European equivalent of Joe Six-pack.

 

At that point, maybe all financial analysts will finally start to realize the worst for Europe is not behind, but lying directly ahead.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: A Product of an All-American Left-wing Education?

By Larry Elder

Thursday, April 25, 2013

 

That the older Boston bombing suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, became a terrorist strikes one as disturbing. That younger brother Dzhokhar also became a terrorist strikes one as frightening.

 

Adjusting to new country can be trying and stressful. The brothers' parents came to America, only to return to Russia. Tamerlan came at age 16. A widely reported quote attributed to Tamerlan from 2010 says: "I don't have one American friend. I don't understand them." According to his aunt, Tamerlan became a devout Muslim. He reportedly once stood up and shouted down his imam for praising Martin Luther King. One shocked witness recalled Tamerlan yelling, "You cannot mention this guy because he's not a Muslim!"

 

So teenager Tamerlan found adjusting to America difficult. But how to explain Dzhokhar, who came to America a year earlier than his brother, at the age of 8?

 

Friends describe Dzhokhar as "Americanized" -- an outgoing, friendly pot-smoker who became a popular captain of his wrestling team, a bright boy who never spoke about religion or Russia and never expressed hostility toward America.

 

Dzhokhar attended high school at Cambridge Rindge and Latin, a highly regarded school full of prominent alumni, including actors Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, poet e.e. cummings, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Eric Cornell and basketball Hall of Famer Patrick Ewing. Dzhokhar then attended University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth in 2011, where he was a sophomore at the time of the bombings.

 

What about the "education," especially in the social sciences, that Dzhokhar likely received in high school and college? Did the usual left-wing professors, who dominate in number and influence on nearly all of America's college campuses, teach his courses? Did his instructors stress America's imperfections and teach that racism, sexism and homophobia remain major problems in America, that America is an imperial power that dominates the world, that "Bush lied, people died" on the Iraq War, that Abu Ghraib represents our American "military culture of abuse," which explains why so many foreigners "legitimately hate America," etc.?

 

How many in-class discussions and dorm bull sessions -- conducted among similarly educated and like-minded students sitting beneath wall posters of Che Guevara -- turned into a chorus of attacks against American "imperialism"?

 

The National Association of Scholars, a self-described "independent membership association of academics," released a report last year on the effect of academic bias in the University of California system. Because of the lopsided domination in the number of liberal humanities professors vs. the small number of conservatives in the same field, the 10 UC campuses, they write, have become "a sanctuary for a narrow ideological segment of the spectrum of social and political ideas."

 

Recent UC, San Diego syllabi include history courses like "'Race, Riots and Violence in the U.S.' Exploring how different groups of Americans have constructed competing notions of race, gender, labor and national belonging by participating in street violence." And "African American History in the 20th Century," which covers the transformation of African America by "imperialism, migration, urbanization, desegregation, and deindustrialization." And "American Women/American Womanhood" includes topics in relation to "a dominant ideology of womanhood ... witchcraft, evangelicalism, cult of domesticity, sexuality, rise of industrial capitalism."

 

OK, that's far-left-wing California. But the Texas affiliate found the same thing. In its recently released report on bias in history classes at The University of Texas and Texas A&M University, NAS Texas found "all too often the course readings gave strong emphasis to race, class or gender (RCG) social history, an emphasis so strong that it diminished the attention given to other subjects in American history (such as military, diplomatic, religious, intellectual history)."

 

Our colleges and universities today find themselves stocked with '60s radicals, some of whom even committed acts of violence. They include:

 

Former fugitive Weather Underground co-founder terrorist Bill Ayers -- a now-retired professor who enjoyed tenure as a professor of education at University of Illinois at Chicago.

 

Bernardine Dohrn -- Ayers' wife and a former WU leader, who declared war on the U.S., spent three years on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list and became an associate professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law.

 

Convicted murderer and former Weather Underground terrorist Kathy Boudin -- a Columbia University professor and scholar-in-residence at NYU.

 

Former WU member Howard Machtinger -- linked to a deadly unsolved bombing of a San Francisco police station, he enjoys retirement from his career as professor at North Carolina Central University and teaching fellows director at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill's School of Education.

 

WU member Susan Rosenberg -- spent years on the run after her indictment for WU's Brinks robbery and triple murder, until apprehended for moving, according to The New York Times, "740 pounds of dynamite and weapons, including a submachine gun." Rosenberg spent 16 years in prison until President Bill Clinton commuted her sentence, after which she took a job teaching at John Jay College.

 

After the Tsarnaevs became suspects, the president of Chechnya said: "Any attempt to link Chechnya and the Tsarnaevs, if indeed they are guilty, is futile. They grew up in the U.S.A., their viewpoints and beliefs were formed there. You must look for the roots of their evil in America."

 

He is right. The search for the "why" starts right here.

The D-Word

By Victor Davis Hanson

Thursday, April 25, 2013

 

Deportation has become a near-taboo word. Yet the recent Boston bombings inevitably rekindle old questions about the way the U.S. admits, or at times deports, foreign nationals.

 

Despite the Obama administration's politically driven and cyclical claims of deporting either a lot more or a lot fewer non-citizens, no one knows how many are really being sent home -- for a variety of reasons.

 

There are not any accurate statistics on how many people are living in the United States illegally. And how does one define deportation? If someone from Latin American is detained by authorities an hour after illegally crossing the border, does he count as "apprehended" or "deported"?

 

"Deportation" is now politically incorrect, sort of like the T-word -- "terrorism" -- that the administration also seeks to avoid. The current government emphasis is on increasing legal immigration and granting amnesties, but by no means is Washington as interested in clarifying deportation.

 

Why was the Tsarnaev family granted asylum into the United States -- and why were some of them not later deported? Officially, the Tsarnaevs came here as refugees. As ethnic Chechens and former residents of Kyrgyzstan, they sought "asylum" here from anti-Muslim persecution -- given that Russia had waged a brutal war in Chechnya against Islamic militants.

 

Yes, the environment of Islamic Russia was and can be deadly. But if the Tsarnaevs were supposedly in danger in their native country, why did the father, Anzor, after a few years choose to return to Dagestan, Russia, where he now apparently lives in relative safety? Why did one of the alleged Boston bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, return to his native land for six months last year -- given that escape from such an unsafe place was the very reason that the United States granted his family asylum in the first place?

 

That is not an irrelevant question. Recently, some supposedly persecuted Somalis were generously granted asylum to immigrate to Minnesota communities, only to later fly back to Somalia to wage jihad. Were they true refugees fleeing persecution against Muslims, or extremists looking for a breather in the United States?

 

What, exactly, justifies deportation of immigrants of any status? Failure to find work and to become self-supporting? Apparently not. The Tsarnaev family reportedly had been on public assistance. This is not an isolated or unusual concern. President Obama's own aunt, Zeituni Onyango, not only broke immigration law by overstaying her tourist visa but also compounded that violation by illegally receiving state assistance as a resident of public housing. Only after Obama was elected president was his aunt finally granted political asylum on the grounds that she would be unsafe in her native Kenya.

 

Should those residing here illegally at least avoid arrest and follow the rules of their adopted country? Apparently not -- given that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a skilled boxer, was charged in 2009 with domestic violence against his girlfriend. His mother, Zubeidat, also back in Russia now, was reportedly arrested last year on charges of shoplifting some $1,600 in goods from a Boston store.

 

Again, these are not irrelevant questions. President Obama's own uncle, Onyango Obama, is at present illegally residing in the United States. In 2011, he was cited for drunk driving after nearly slamming into a police car.

 

Would embracing radical ideological movements that have waged war on the United States be a cause for deportation? Apparently not. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was interviewed by the FBI in 2010, based on information from a foreign intelligence agency that he might pose a threat as a radical Islamist. The FBI knew from Tsarnaev's Web postings about his not-so-private sympathies with radical Islam.

 

Americans are a generous people who take in more immigrants than any other nation in the world. So the sticking point in the current debate over "immigration reform" is not necessarily the granting of residency per se -- given that most Americans are willing to consider a pathway to citizenship for even those who initially broke immigration law but have since not been arrested, have avoided public assistance, and have tried to learn the language and customs of their newly adopted country.

 

The problem is what to do with those who have not done all that.

 

Unless the government can assure the public that it is now enforcing immigration laws already on the books, that foreign nationals must at least avoid arrest and public assistance, and that it is disinclined to grant asylum to "refugees" from war-torn Islamic regions and then allow them periodically to go back and forth from their supposedly hostile homelands, there will be little support for the current immigration bill.

 

In short, the Tsarnaev brothers have offered us a proverbial teachable moment about what have become near-suicidal immigration policies.

W.

By Rich Galen

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

 

The Mullings Director of Standards & Practices and I are heading to Dallas for the opening of the Presidential library of George W. Bush on Thursday.

 

I know that there will be many who, echoing the outpouring of venom in Great Britain upon the death of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, will elbow their way in front of TV cameras to be as ugly as necessary to get on the air.

 

I can't fix that, and I won't try.

 

I have known George W. Bush since I was hired to be the spokesman of his dad's PAC, the Fund for America's Future by Lee Atwater. That was when H.W. was the sitting Vice President and George W. (whom we incorrectly called "Junior" although not to his face) made regular trips to Washington, DC to help out.

 

A front pager in Tuesday's Washington Post by America's senior political writer, Dan Balz, looks at Bush's place in American politics as he prepares for his library opening.

 

A new Washington Post-ABC poll asked respondents "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush handled his job as president?"

 

The answer was 47 percent approve; 50 percent disapprove.

 

As a calibration, in the Gallup three day track last Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday (before the Boston Marathon attacks) had President Barack Obama's standing at 49 percent approve, 43 percent disapprove.

 

Americans are a tough audience.

 

We can't rewind the clock and know what would have happened if we had not invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein.

 

Watching the result of President Obama's having supported the removal of Muammar Gadhafi in Libya and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt you can see why he is a little reticent about unseating Syria's Bashir al-Assad.

 

Historians who, like everything else in our lives, feel they have to rush to judgment, are still, well, iffy about the Presidency of George W. Bush. Going back to the polls, Bush left office in January 2009 with an approval rating of only 25 percent, so if rehabilitation of his legacy is necessary, it appears to have already begun.

 

Harry S. Truman's lowest approval rating, by the way, was 22 percent. And he has since been granted a legacy reprieve by historians.

 

Since leaving the White House George W. has taken a decidedly different tack than Bill Clinton (lowest approval rating 37 percent in May 1993). Where Clinton uses his celebrity for good works in raising money for his foundation or, with H.W. Bush, raising money for Haiti; George W. has taken up painting.

 

There will be hundreds of thousands of words written and spoken in support of, and in opposition to, the Presidency of George W. Bush. Others, like Karen Hughes, Karl Rove, and Ed Gillespie to name but three, served at Bush's side and will have a better perspective than the rest of us.

 

We will read and hear more, I suspect, about Hurricane Katrina, than Bush's bold - and lifesaving - commitment to reducing HIV/AIDS in Africa with his support of the PEPFAR program. We will read and hear more of the economic collapse at the end of his second term than we will of his willingness to reach out to the very Hispanic voters that the GOP is accused of alienating today.

 

Notwithstanding how difficult bringing stability back to Iraq has been, citizens - especially women - in the Gulf States enjoy political freedoms unthinkable before the Bush State Department helped Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and even Saudi Arabia find their way into the 19th century - if not yet the 21st.

 

I don't know George W. Bush all that well. Certainly not well enough to tell you what he's thinking or what his plans might be.

 

It does appear that he is comfortable in his post-Presidency.

 

It will be fun to be around others who worked in the Bush Administration. We'll retell old stories, catch up on children and grandchildren; former colleagues who didn't make the trip, and those who have left us.

 

I was proud to have been given the opportunity to serve during his Presidency and I think, decades down the road, he will be seen as a force for good in the world.

This is the U.S.A. -- Don’t Mess With Us

By Bruce Bialosky

Monday, April 22, 2013

 

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has received many accolades for his column following the bombing at the Boston Marathon. Under the category of “a stopped clock is right twice a day,” Friedman nailed the situation on the head.

 

His column spoke of how Boston should immediately rebuild the area where the bombing was done. He drew the analogy to our younger brothers, the Israelis, and how they immediately cleanup and repair after a suicide bomber kills and maims. They leave no scars for the madmen to praise and the citizens to be reminded of their losses.

 

In that manner, what has gone on in New York after 9/11 is a national disgrace. I speak with a voice of authority and authenticity. May I remind you that I was leading a group visiting Washington D.C. and standing in the center of the Capitol when the plane hit the Pentagon? If it were not for Todd Beamer and many other proud Americans on Flight 93, we might not be here today because that plane was coming at us.

 

My wife and I toured the 9/11 site in New York last year. I felt a tremendous sense of unease. Why were these buildings not finished? What kind of statement was that to the animals that had done this that 11 years later we were still rebuilding? That is just unacceptable. We have to show these maniacs that if they hit us not only are we going to hit them back we are going to rebuild. We are going to rebuild faster and better and more beautiful than before. You cannot and you will not affect us or defeat us.

 

Thus, in that vein, the people in Boston should be repairing the terrorist scene. Americans should come to Boston this summer to take the Freedom Walk, go to a Red Sox game and sing Sweet Caroline. Then they should say let’s go visit where those disgusting people set off those bombs. When they get to the scene they should be able to look around and say “Where did the bombs go off?” They should not be able to tell. The sidewalks and streets should be glistening and the shops should be bustling with business. That will show these madmen you are not going to shake us.

 

It is easy to misunderstand the United States as an outsider. We have been quibbling for years. As an outsider you may think we are weak because of our internal disputes and sometimes misplaced priorities, but don’t ever get that in your mind. If you think that you can come here and blow up other Americans and we will stand for it you are seriously confused. Here is one for you. Go off and kill a few left-wing fanatics who happen to be Americans. Wait until you feel the wrath of every Redneck in this country. They will be coming after you and you will feel the pain. They wave those flags so that those leftists can say what they do and those Rednecks understand as much as the detest them leftists, they will fight and die to protect them.

 

It is quite unimaginable to us Americans why these sick people do what they do. They are just very unhappy people. We are currently traveling and when this column prints we will be in mainland China. We notice how few people smile as we walk the streets of other countries in our foreign travel. It is reminding of the experience we had coming out of world famous Grand Bazaar in Istanbul in 2007, one of the true bastions of capitalism. There are people everywhere coming up to you trying to sell you whatever their wares. In these situations I speak to them in Spanish and tell them I don’t understand English. As I walked by one man, he called to me and said “You are an American.” Since I had no gear on that would show I was American I turned to him and asked how he knew. He said “You smiled. Europeans don’t smile. Americans smile.”

 

That is the message the enemies of America need to get. We are the happy ones, but don’t mess with us. We will hunt you down. Our security services will find you. Our special forces will come after you. Our Marines will get you. And if that is not good enough we have 100 million Americans who are armed and ready to take you on. If you think those Marines are nasty, wait until you face down a 70-year-old granny with a double-barreled shotgun.

 

Rebuild, replenish, move forward. Make sure these terrorists know they will never get to us. Just like Mickey Rooney, we will always come up smiling.

'Right Wing' Doesn't Equal 'Terrorist'

By Jonah Goldberg

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

 

"If history were to repeat itself," warned President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his 1944 State of the Union address, "and we were to return to the so-called normalcy of the 1920s, then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of fascism here at home."

 

The "normalcy" of the 1920s that Roosevelt referred to was a time of peace and prosperity. The decade began with Republican President Warren Harding commuting the sentences of political prisoners jailed by the Wilson administration, including the socialist leader Eugene Debs. "Normalcy" meant the end to the Palmer raids aimed at rooting out dissidents, the end of economic rationing, the cessation of domestic surveillance and the state propaganda of the World War I years.

 

Also, "A return to normalcy" was Harding's campaign slogan in the 1920 presidential election, which he won in a landslide over Democrat James Cox and his running mate -- Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

That Roosevelt nurtured resentments against the Republicans for the drubbing he received in 1920 is no surprise. That those resentments ran deep enough for him to smear Republicans in 1944 with the "spirit of fascism" at the height of the war against the real thing is nothing short of disgusting.

 

But it was effective.

 

Harry Truman recognized that when he ran for president against the liberal Republican Thomas Dewey in 1948. Truman charged that Dewey was the front man for the same sort of "powerful reactionary forces" that orchestrated the rise of Hitler in Germany.

 

When a communist assassinated President Kennedy, somehow the American right got the blame. Lyndon Johnson translated that myth into a campaign of slander against Barry Goldwater, casting him as a crypto-Nazi emissary of "hate."

 

After the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton saw fit to insinuate that Rush Limbaugh and his imitators were partly to blame.

 

Such partisanship is hardly reserved for partisans. The late Daniel Schorr, then of CBS News, reported that Goldwater's planned European vacation was really a rendezvous with the German right in "Hitler's onetime stomping ground."

 

Schorr spent his golden years at National Public Radio. No doubt he would have been pleased with the "reporting" of its counterterrorism correspondent, Dina Temple-Raston. Before the identities of the Boston bombers were confirmed, she said her sources were "leaning" toward believing that it was a homegrown "right-wing" attack, and cited that "April is a big month for anti-government and right-wing individuals."

 

How so? Well, because April's when the Oklahoma City bombing took place, as well as the Waco siege, the Columbine shootings and, how could one forget, Adolf Hitler's birthday.

 

Over the last few years, the invariably unjustified rush to pin violence on the "right wing" -- particularly the Tea Partiers -- has reached the point of parody. Remember when New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg speculated that the foiled Times Square bomber might just be angry about Obamacare?

 

As the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein recently noted, among the myriad reasons conservatives take offense at this idiotic knee-jerk slander is that the term "right wing" is also routinely used to describe both terrorists and mainstream Republicans such as Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. I can exclusively report that neither of them celebrates Hitler's birthday.

 

Every Muslim terrorist enjoys not just the presumption of innocence until proven guilty but the presumption that he's a fan of Ayn Rand, too.

 

Ah, but some would respond that "right wing" is different than "Muslim" because there's so much similarity between mainstream conservative ideology and the terror-filled creeds of the far right.

 

Except there isn't. Timothy McVeigh, an atheist, wasn't part of the conservative or libertarian movements. He wasn't even part of the militia movement. And what on earth was right wing about the Columbine shootings?

 

In plenty of cases of multiple killings, from the Unabomber to Christopher Dorner, the perpetrators espoused views closer to the mainstream left's than McVeigh had to the mainstream right. Occupy Wall Street was an idealistic expression of democratic protest, but the Tea Partiers were brownshirts in khakis.

 

And, recall that Secretary of State John Kerry belonged to a group -- Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- that once discussed assassinating American politicians. Barack Obama was friendly with a convicted domestic terrorist. But to even bring these things up, never mind invest them with significance, is considered outrageous guilt by association.

 

And you know what? Maybe it is.

 

But if that is outrageous, what do you call the paranoid style of liberal politics that has confused normalcy for fascism for more than half a century?

Academic Cesspools

By Walter E. Williams

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

 

Over the past 10 years, I have written columns variously titled "Academic Cesspools," "Academic Dishonesty," "The Shame of Higher Education," "Academic Rot" and "Indoctrination of Our Youth." Therefore, I was not surprised by David Feith's April 5th Wall Street Journal article, "The Golf Shot Heard Round the Academic World." In it, Feith tells of a golf course conversation between Barry Mills, the president of Bowdoin College, in Brunswick, Maine, and philanthropist Thomas Klingenstein. Klingenstein voiced disapproval of campus celebration of diversity and ethnic differences while there's "not enough celebration of our common American identity."

 

Because Klingenstein wouldn't help finance the college's diversity craze, Mills insinuated, in remarks to the student body, that Klingenstein is a racist. Mills also told students: "We must be willing to entertain diverse perspectives throughout our community. ... Diversity of ideas at all levels of the college is crucial for our credibility and for our educational mission."

 

Klingenstein decided to check out Mills' commitment to diverse perspectives by commissioning the National Association of Scholars to examine Bowdoin's intellectual diversity, rigorous academics and civic identity. Its report -- "What Does Bowdoin Teach?" -- isn't pretty. There are "no curricular requirements that center on the American founding or the history of the nation." Even history majors aren't required to take a single course in American history. In the history department, no course is devoted to American political, military, diplomatic or intellectual history; the only ones available are organized around some aspect of race, class, gender or sexuality.

 

Some of the 37 seminars designated for freshmen are "Affirmative Action and U.S. Society," "Fictions of Freedom," "Racism," "Queer Gardens," "Sexual Life of Colonialism" and "Modern Western Prostitutes." As for political diversity, the report estimates that "four or five out of approximately 182 full-time faculty members might be described as politically conservative." During the 2012 presidential campaign, 100 percent of faculty donations went to President Barack Obama. Despite political bias and mediocrity, in 2012, Bowdoin was ranked sixth among the nation's liberal arts colleges in U.S. News & World Report and was ranked 14th on Forbes magazine's list of America's top colleges. That ought to tell us how much faith should be put in college rankings.

 

I applaud Klingenstein for not making a contribution to a college agenda that is so common today. Wealthy donors are generous but tend to be lazy and uninformed in their giving. They give large sums of money that winds up supporting college agendas that are contemptuous of donors' values, such as enlightened racism, anti-capitalism and Marxism. A rough rule of thumb to discover modern-day racism is to search a college's website to see whether it has vice presidents or deans of diversity and diversity programs. If so, keep your money.

 

Recent evidence has emerged that some colleges have become bold enough to hire former terrorists to teach and possibly indoctrinate our young people. That's the case with Columbia University in the hiring of convicted Weather Underground terrorist Kathy Boudin, who spent 22 years in prison for the murder of two policemen and a Brink's guard. She now holds a professorship at Columbia's School of Social Work. Her Weather Underground comrade William Ayers is a professor of education on the faculty of the University of Illinois at Chicago. Unrepentant, in the wake of 9/11, Ayers told us: ''I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.'' Bernardine Dohrn, his wife, is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. Her stated mission is to overthrow capitalism. Ayers and Dohrn, as well as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are people who hate our nation and are longtime associates of President Obama's. That might help in explaining our president's vision.

 

What we see on college campuses represents a dereliction of duty by boards of trustees, which bear the ultimate responsibility. Wealthy donors who care about the fraud of higher education should recognize that there's nothing like the sound of pocketbooks snapping shut to open the closed minds of college administrators.

Americans Run Towards the Fire

By Kurt Schlichter

Monday, April 22, 2013

 

The smoke and flame had not even dissipated before it was crystal clear that the terrorists had lost again. There was the flash, the boom, then a few brief moments to get their bearings before, almost as one, Americans began running toward the fire.

 

It wasn’t just the cops and the soldiers. It was spectators, bystanders, even runners themselves who seconds before had been struggling to cross the finish line after 26 brutal miles. In one terrible moment that shredded bodies and lives, they went from being ordinary Americans to something extraordinary.

 

Scratch that – “extraordinary” is the natural condition of Americans. That is neither mere sentiment nor some wishful thinking about American exceptionalism. It is a fact, demonstrated again and again, in peace and in war. Americans don’t wait. They don’t hesitate. They act.

 

We’ve seen the footage of 9/11 where injured people are clearing the area while long lines of rescuers head into the carnage. But those folks departing are often helping the injured or the fearful, even as the grim firefighters trudge toward their fate, utterly unwilling to allow those trapped in the towers to be lost without a fight.

 

The Americans on Flight 93 didn’t wait for rescue. They knew what lay ahead and chose death on their feet fighting to save others on the ground over cowering in their seats.

 

The Americans who ran toward the wounded on Patriot’s Day in Boston showed courage not just because they willingly faced the bloody slaughter of an anti-personnel IED but because, as everyone knows, terrorists delight in planting follow-on devices to kill those coming to the aid of the original victims. Watching video of the Massachusetts Army National Guardsmen ripping through the metal barrier to use their combat lifesaver skills on the wounded, you could see the right shoulder insignia one wore. It was a “Screaming Eagle” 101st Airborne “combat patch,” earned in action in Iraq or Afghanistan – maybe both. That American warrior knew exactly what the risks were, and he didn’t hesitate.

 

You don’t see this kind of commitment in every other country. Certainly, other nations have their heroes and bravery is not uniquely American, but what is exceptional is our attitude, our individual, personal commitment – even at great risk – to act to protect our nation and our fellow citizens. We don’t wait for someone to come save us. To paraphrase the President, we are the ones we are waiting for.

 

In Boston, the first militia units formed almost 400 years ago – regular members of the community banding together in the defense of their people. Such groups fired the first shots of the Revolutionary War. Modern Massachusetts Guard units still carry the lineage of those ancient companies today; no doubt some of the camo-clad citizen-soldiers treating the injured were members.

 

But that sense of responsibility wasn’t limited to combat. Communities worked together to fight fires – and today in many places volunteer fire departments provide that lifesaving service. Many other citizens volunteer as reserve police officers. Millions get Red Cross lifesaver training every year.

 

It is our sense of ownership and personal commitment to our country and fellow citizens that make us act. We are unwilling to stand aside, to wait for someone else, to leave it solely to the professionals and thereby exempt ourselves from our own individual duty to our community.

 

That in no way belittles our heroic emergency personnel or somehow dismisses their vital contribution. With their equipment and advanced training, they are crucial for building on the initial foundation provided by the Americans at the scene. Basic first aid skills – stopping the bleeding, immobilizing the injury, treating for shock – are well within the ability of any healthy adult and are crucial to a badly wounded victim’s survival in the minutes before trained paramedics can take over. Yes, sometimes the best thing civilians can do is get the heck out of the way. But not always.

 

There are people who do not understand this American instinct, and some who even want to undercut the notion that ordinary Americans have anything to contribute to their own safety. These people believe that only the “experts” should do so, experts who inevitably come from the government, and therefore who inevitably work for these same people. They prefer Americans helpless, docile, and dependant. It makes them easier to control.

 

The push for gun control highlights this schism between Americans who wish to rely upon themselves first, and those who seek to require other Americans’ reliance. Americans don’t wish to retain their sacred right to keep and bear effective arms because they imagine themselves Rambos or because – if you listen to the clowns at MSNBC – they somehow wish to empower the killers of children. Just the opposite.

 

Americans refuse to part with their weapons because they wish to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. They demand their right to be armed not to avoid risk but to accept it, to stand up and protect the defenseless, to draw the fire of lunatics and criminals upon themselves and, if need be, to die protecting their fellow citizens.

 

Americans are not asking for the favor of being allowed to do so. They are refusing to relinquish their fundamental right to do so. And to do so with the kind of effective, modern weaponry that allows them the ability to go toe-to-toe with the kind of sociopaths who shoot up school houses or blow up crowds.

 

Liberals laughed when gun freedom advocates suggested armed personnel in schools – and then stopped laughing when they realized that the American people saw the wisdom in it. All over the country, states are expanding concealed carry laws to allow individual citizens the ability to be armed and to protect themselves and others. Of course, Democrat-run localities are resisting this civil rights trend just as Democrat-run localities resisted other civil rights trends a half-century ago. The bloody battlefields of Washington, D.C., and Chicago bear witness to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of their latest fight against basic freedoms.

 

It falls upon each of us to be ready when disaster strikes, whether it is a shopper collapsing with a heart attack in a mall or a psycho gunman opening fire in public or an earthquake that levels a city. Being an American citizen does not just mean you get to live here – no, you have a duty.

 

We must each assess what we are capable of, physically and emotionally, and be prepared to respond in time of need. Learn basic first aid skills and carry a medical kit in your car. You never know when you may be 20 minutes from a fire station on a country road and have to stop a crash victim’s arterial bleeding. Stockpile a few day’s food in case disaster hits so you can contribute to relief operations instead of being a burden.

 

You need to take the next step as well, and to be able to participate in the defense of your community. I recall a Twitter conversation with Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memorandum in which he dismissed my advocacy of universal gun ownership by asking when I had ever seen society collapse such that I’d need an “assault weapon.” He asked the wrong guy – the answer was April 1992, when I spent three weeks with the Army on the streets of Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots.

 

So, when it comes to your safety, you can listen to the fussy metrosexual blogger or the guy who packed a M16A1 during the chaos in L.A. The latter says that you need to own firearms. You need to be trained on their use, and you need to have ammunition. Without that capability you are unable to effectively defend yourself – much less others – when things go very, very bad.

 

You can be a sheep or a sheepdog when the wolves come out. I say no American worth the name should ever choose to be a sheep.

 

The courage and the personal commitment to the community that we saw on display in Boston is something to be encouraged, not discouraged. This is our country. We are the first responders.

 

And we will always run toward the fire.