Dear Jack and Jake,

A few years ago I wrote a column giving advice to my son using prescient quotes from famous people coupled with a few musings of my own. Since then, another boy has been welcomed into the family, and it’s become obvious that he will play second fiddle to no one. This letter, like the first, is directed towards both boys with baby brother getting top billing this time. Some may find this letter a bit tough, but the world is a tough place. You boys will never be forced to live in my echo chamber, so take from it what you will.  

Immerse yourself in education and remember that genuine teachers are not those who indoctrinate but those who inspire. Higher learning does not guarantee higher intelligence. The follies of the foolish are the opportunities of the wise. Your ignorance will be your rival’s strength. Seek answers long after your last class. 

The founding of America was a noble endeavor but it came at a costly price. “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Of the 56 signers of our Declaration of Independence in 1776: 17 lost their fortunes, 12 had their homes destroyed, 5 became prisoners of war, and 9 died during the revolution. Benjamin Franklin advised at the time, “We must hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

Four boxes guarantee our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.   

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”—Albert Einstein

But on September 11, 2001, passengers aboard United Flight 93 were not the people Einstein was referring to. These everyday Americans forced down their hijacked plane and turned terror back onto their attackers. These brave souls literally affirmed what Dorothy Bernard once said, “Courage is fear that has said its prayers.” 

America has a storied history of confronting tyrants and despots, often when our allies either couldn’t or wouldn’t. Our dominance in world affairs has not come without critics. But as the famous Roman Quintus Fabius Maximus advised: “It is better that a wise enemy should fear you than that foolish friends should praise.” “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”—Winston Churchill

“Here in America we are descended in blood and spirit from revolutionists and rebels—men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”—Dwight D. Eisenhower

At times, the world will resemble the Mad Hatters Tea Party. Navigate your life with a moral compass and your integrity should never be questioned. “Character is doing what’s right when nobody’s looking.”—J.C. Watts 

As someone who engaged with people having trouble staying within the rules, I regularly came across four types of malefactors—the thirsty, the shady, the crazy and the lazy. People who misbehave should not be coddled by society unless it desires more of this behavior. “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”—Plato

America affords everyone equal opportunity to succeed and incentive is the driving force behind this success. Adam Smith wrote in 1776, “It is not from benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Remember, no one washes a rental car.

We Americans may have come here on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now. Our republic flourishes only when ordinary citizens become involved and take control of public affairs. Show me a man who has never been criticized, and I’ll show you a man who has never succeeded. Spend little time concerned about the opinion of those who spend their lives on the sidelines. Choose your own path but live amid the conversation. 

Your darkest days will be followed by the dawn. Hope springs eternal. Confucius said, “The greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising up every time we fall.” And if you ever have trouble getting up after a fall, I’ll come get you!

Dear Jake and Jack,

You both are several years away from reading this letter, but life moves quick, so I wanted to spend a moment to share with you some famous words of wisdom mixed in with your old man’s advice.     

Let’s start off with probably the most important lesson in life—wisdom begins with awe of God. It is a common mistake these days for people of faith to shun public acknowledgment of their core beliefs. But this great country was founded on Judeo-Christian principals. “In God We Trust” is engrained on the coins in your piggy bank and “God Bless America” is still the national favorite. 

You come from good blood lines and family will undoubtedly be a meaningful part of your life. I never spent a wasted moment with my grandparents and neither will you. You’re lucky to have caring and decent people ready to share every special event that will come to pass. Your aunts, uncles, and cousins will share in your finest moments as well. Along with your mom, these are the people to turn to when your dad is long on mouth and short on ears.

You’ll go to many parades but none will be more important than Veteran’s Day. All gave some; some gave all for us to live free. From Bunker Hill to the beaches of Normandy, America’s bravest fought for and defended our freedoms. I expect you to honor and respect them.

Firefighters rush into burning buildings as people run out. Cops will show up for just about every other problem you may encounter. Support their raises and benefits—it may even help with your college expenses.

Unless you can paint the corners of the strike zone with a 95-mph fastball or run the 40-yard dash in 4.5 seconds, education is the only sure ticket to success. Your best teachers will inspire and challenge you. Every subject in school is important but I recommend a heavy dose of history. Confucius said, “Being fond of the truth, I am an admirer of antiquity.” Will Rogers best explained the learning curve in this way: “There are three kinds of men: the ones that learn by reading, the few who learn by observation, the rest of them have to pee on an electric fence and find out for themselves.” Don’t be one of the latter. 

During recess in the play yard, stand up for the kid whom the bully picks on. He’ll remember you when he becomes a big CEO. If anyone picks on you, remember the words of Eleanor Roosevelt: “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” Here’s a little secret—bullies really aren’t that tough, and they cry themselves to sleep.

Sports are not only fun but provide important lessons in teamwork, sportsmanship, and commitment. Passion for the game is passion for life and you’ll feel that passion long after your last touchdown. Although losing may dampen your spirit, it will test your mettle. Since we’re talking about sports, I would be remiss not to mention a thought from the great John Wooden: “Reputation is what you are perceived to be. Character is what you are.”

I look forward to spending time with you at the ballpark. I can’t promise that I’ll catch a fly ball but you can bet we’ll be on time for the National Anthem. I hope that moment is on par with Barry Bonds staring at a payoff pitch.     

When you find people less fortunate than you, offer a hand up not a hand out. Compassion cannot be measured by dollars and cents. America affords everyone equal opportunity to succeed or to fail. Nobody owes us anything; we owe it to ourselves to be the best that we can be. You may lack silver spoons but you’ll always have plenty of love.    

Sometimes we get too big for our own britches and we need to be reminded of yet another line from Will Rogers: “If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.”     

Life is known to throw some curveballs and the ride will feel bumpy at times. Your mom and I will be there to lend a helping hand. Martin Luther King, Jr. explained, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” Don’t be afraid to stand up for your beliefs in spite of the criticism that might come your way. Mark Twain said, “Courage is not the lack of fear. It is acting in spite of it.” 

Finally, singer Lee Ann Womack sums it up quite nicely and I couldn’t agree more: “Give the heavens above more than just a passing glance, and when you get the choice to sit it out or dance—I hope you dance.”

 

 

       Police officers from New Jersey to California face an unrelenting assault from anti-police activists. The battle being waged against the police is a well organized strategy involving multiple fronts. But the strongest weapon in the anti-police arsenal, able to cause the most damage and drive a wedge in police-community relations, is the charge of systematic racial profiling. 

     Undoubtedly, America has had to come to terms with her own mea culpa regarding inequality and racial bigotry. But even decades after the civil rights movement, American police officers have been left holding the bag. The fact that police departments around the country have gone to great lengths to hire and promote based on diversity is of no consequence. A charge of racism against the police is all one needs to get the attention of the ACLU, the Justice Department, or the editors of major newspapers. 

     A few years back, the term racial profiling was devised to describe the practice where race is used as the primary factor in targeting criminal behavior. Racial profiling became the watchword of the day and a national phenomenon. Conspiracy theorists could not have dreamed up a more widespread pandemic as police critics from coast to coast complained of this deplorable plot. The political implications were staggering, and very few political leaders are willing to question it today. Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, George W. Bush, and John Ashcroft have at least one thing in common—all enthusiastically joined the crusade against racial profiling. This has been very troubling to the law enforcement profession as there is no empirical research to prove that racial profiling even exists to the extent that it has been reported.

     Police officers have an indispensable ally in their effort to spread the truth and repudiate the myth of racial profiling—Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute. As the author of Are Cops Racist? How the War Against the Police Harms Black Americans, Mac Donald explains how the junk science, first used to declare New Jersey State Troopers guilty of racial profiling, has been debunked. According to Mac Donald, the 1999 study that ignited the controversy had major flaws and failed to establish a violator benchmark—i.e. the rate of lawbreaking among a particular group. A subsequent study exonerated the troopers when it found that black drivers were stopped less than their speeding behavior would warrant. 

     But the demoralizing effect on the troopers continued to linger on. Mac Donald cites the following statistics: “At the height of the drug war in 1988, the [New Jersey] troopers filed 7,400 drug charges from the turnpike, most of those from consent searches; in 2000, they filed 370 drug charges…Murder jumped 65 percent in Newark, a major destination of drug traffickers, between 2000 and 2001.”[1]   

     Facts can get in the way of a good news story. The firestorm, fueled by media hype and politics, has yet to be doused by the truth. The California Penal Code now defines racial profiling as “the practice of detaining a suspect based on a broad set of criteria which casts suspicion on an entire class of people without any individualized suspicion of the particular person being stopped.”[2] Officers are mandated by state law in California and other states to participate in expanded training. They are prohibited from using race and/or ethnicity as a “predictor” of crime, only a “descriptor.” Fair enough. But an officer without a racist bone in his body sits in a classroom feeling like a guy who never drank attending an AA meeting. It may be the classic example of a solution looking for a problem. In my opinion, based on actual experience, the overwhelming majority of men and women entering law enforcement intend to harass criminals, not minorities.     

     Sergeant Carl Fabbri has worked in one of the Bay Area's toughest neighborhoods. Sgt. Fabbri knows the “players,” and the “players” know him. I asked him to weigh in on the matter, and here’s what he had to say: “Police officers have a unique instinct, sometimes called a ‘sixth sense,’ that alerts us to danger.  We rely on it to keep us alive.  This ‘sixth sense’ is developed from years of experience dealing with thieves, drug dealers, parolees, and gang members. We frequently ask questions like ‘Do you have any weapons on you?’  We know the answer will be ‘no’ almost every time but that's not why we ask. We ask because it gives us an opportunity to see how they react to the question—to see their body language, to study their eyes.  More often than not, our instincts are right on.

     “Our profession is under intense scrutiny from coast to coast. Some cops are ignoring the warning signs, the ‘sixth sense,’ because they fear citizen complaints and lawsuits. Worse yet, some cops have taken the ‘do nothing/do nothing wrong’ attitude. Given the political climate we’re working in, can you blame them?  Criminals terrorizing the neighborhoods love to see the ‘do nothing wrong’ cops patrolling the neighborhoods. It doesn't take a criminologist to realize how the extreme scrutiny we're currently experiencing will result in increased crime rates and put officer safety in jeopardy. 

     “Since we hold the power to use deadly force and deprive people of their freedom, the work of police officers has to be scrutinized. There is no valid argument against police accountability. Unfortunately, the pendulum continues to swing too far to the left, and there's no sign of it swinging back anytime soon.” 

     The collateral damage associated with the anti-racial profiling campaigns can be found in communities that can least afford it. Inner city, law-abiding citizens suffer when false information and racially charged rhetoric become the order of the day. Conspiracy theorists who came up empty trying to prove the racial profiling hypothesis may want to turn their focus toward those who profit from “de-policing” in America. Police officers and honest citizens could use the reprieve.

     And as Sgt. Fabbri concludes, “The solution is unclear at this point. Restoring the public's confidence in our profession is our best option.  This will only be accomplished by educating the public, political leaders, and the media on what's really going on in the trenches of the war on crime.”

Having recently fought and beat kidney cancer, I can tell you that I have a new lease on life. I’m confident that American medicine saved my life. A few prayers didn’t hurt either.

It appears, however, that patients in the U.K. don’t have it as good as we do acrosss the pond. I thought national health care was the answer to the health care "crisis"? Maybe not.

Check out this article in the Kidney Cancer Association newsletter.

"We pay a percentage of our earnings into a National Health Service that we are told is 'free at the point of need'.  Yet, at the point you need it, a group of unelected bureaucrats tell you that facing death doesn't make you an exceptional enough case to warrant funding the drugs you need." 

I won’t soon forget the chaos that ensued on June 28, 2003 shortly after beginning my shift and hitting the streets. And I don’t suppose any other first responder that day will forget it either. A 53-year-old man with a history of mental illness went on a shooting rampage in the lobby of the Dalt Hotel at 34 Turk Street before retreating to his room. The killer was described in the San Francisco Chronicle as “a ticking time bomb” who on that day was responsible for killing three and critically wounding another. I can recall stepping over bodies lying in the lobby as we searched for the gunman. He was later found deceased in his fourth-floor room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but not until his carnage had left its imprint on a neighborhood unaccustomed to being shocked by violence.

The Virginia Tech massacre will leave an indelible mark on American history. The deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history claimed the lives of 32 innocent souls with scores more injured. The 23-year-old mass murderer was a disturbed loner who stalked women and authoring violent plays. He was declared mentally ill in 2005 and ordered to seek treatment. Unfortunately, after a short stay in the hospital the psychopath returned to society and was back on campus where he would eventually plan and prepare for his day of infamy.

Deadly incidents involving deranged individuals are always succeeded by calls for action to prevent the next rampage killing. Not only is it reasonable to assess such events but it is prudent to thoroughly evaluate after-action reports.

While media outlets often lead the charge for change to law or policy, they are not exempt from critique. In the case of the Virginia Tech rampage, NBC News found itself embroiled in controversy. During the time between the two shooting events, the killer took time to mail his media “manifesto” to NBC News in New York. After copying the evidence prior to delivering it to law enforcement, NBC decided to broadcast the killer’s video message in prime time. But not everyone was pleased by the decision. Some of the victims’ family members cancelled appearances on The Today Show in protest while law enforcement officials were incensed. Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist, called the decision a “social catastrophe.” Welner implored, “I promise you the disaffected will watch him the way they watched ‘Natural Born Killers.’ I know. I examine these people. I’ve examined mass shooters who have told me they’ve watched it 20 times. You cannot saturate the American public with this kind of message.” Allowing the Virginia Tech killer to fulfill his fantasy from the grave with his demented message will prove a disastrous decision. Others who live a similar pathetic existence will seek the same immortality.

Law enforcement response to rampage killings is bound to undergo scrutiny, and perhaps none more critical than internal probes. While tactics need to be rehearsed in order to plan for gaining control quickly, the best one can hope for during the real deal is some kind of organized chaos. An active shooter requires that police officers attempt to put themselves between the killer and his intended victims. As a clever sergeant recently reminded me, “We don’t get paid for what we do—we get paid for what we might have to do.” The sad fact is that by the time a truly depraved individual crosses the Rubicon, limiting the damage becomes the most desirable outcome.

Some will go down the road most traveled and make the predictable calls for stricter gun-control measures. They may also want to consider sword-control. The day after the Virginia Tech massacre, a 33-year-old Northern California man was arrested for stabbing his mother multiple times with a rapier. When cops arrived they found the paranoid schizophrenic still holding the deadly weapon. It should be obvious that a determined individual will always find some way to launch a brutal attack on society. Lethal force must be met by lethal force pure and simple. Laws won’t help unarmed victims when a rampage killer is bearing down on them even when they happen to be in a gun-free “safe zone.”

The mental health profession will also be taken to task for what they did, or in many cases didn’t do, with a rampage killer preceding a deadly event. With strict confidentiality laws and even tougher requirements for involuntary commitment, it’s hard to envy the job of those tasked with treating people living off the edge. It’s a balancing act between patient’s rights and public safety, but it has been tipping in favor of the former for many years. Something may have to give. It’s worth noting that millions of Americans suffering from mental illness are able to lead productive lives.

After-action review must focus on myriad responses leading up to, during, and after a rampage killing event. But it should also take into account something that I believe I have witnessed up close—pure evil. Evil has existed since Lucifer was cast from Heaven. Bad men will do bad things. We can’t regulate it and we certainly can’t cure it. We should recognize it and, if need be, confront it. But we should never be naive enough to ignore it. Virginia Tech Professor Liviu Librescu didn’t ignore it. As a 76-year-old Holocaust survivor, Librescu knew the face of evil, and when he saw it once again he blocked the killer’s entrance into his classroom costing him his life but allowing his students to escape through a window. Librescu’s courage is worthy of this nation’s highest honor, and his name has earned a reverent place in our history.

Michael Nevin, Jr. receives e-mail at nevin166@comcast.net.

“We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,” John Kerry explained during the 2004 presidential campaign. “As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.” As a current law-enforcement person, I have a lot of trouble accepting his analogy. But the former prosecutor and failed presidential candidate offered an important glimpse into the mindset of a dedicated liberal who was a few percentage points from the Oval Office.

By equating Tony Soprano’s hypothetical money laundering scheme with Mohammed Atta’s actual hijacked flight into the World Trade Center, John Kerry’s tortured logic proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he is unfit to be commander in chief. “To get back to the place we were” is to live in a pre-9/11 world. Longing for the good ol’ days may be one thing but the inability or unwillingness to properly identify a global conflict that threatens our very existence is truly chilling.

Since the 2004 election, Democrats in Washington have had several years to redeem themselves with a strategy relevant to current events. Good luck finding any comprehensive plan other than the call for “cut and run” in Iraq and building more windmills at home. I went to the Democrats.gov website to read their plan and in the time it would take The New York Times to publish national security secrets, I was able to peruse the site. The “Real Security” plan was actually only hackneyed talking points referring to Hurricane Katrina and Halliburton no-bid contracts. I feel safer already. If you buy their hype, it’s abundantly clear that George W. Bush is the main threat facing this country while our foreign enemies get a pass.

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), Minority Leader, gleefully proclaimed, “We killed the Patriot Act!” Reid’s idea of fighting the war on Islamic terror is a filibuster. Credited with breaking down the barrier preventing intelligence agencies from sharing information with each other and enhancing our ability to “connect the dots,” the Patriot Act has been an important tool in defending Americans at home. The attacks carried out against us by terrorists are not criminal events per se—they are acts of war. Unlike the bank robber standing accused of breaking a law, terrorists are dedicated to breaking our will.

Democrats in Washington have had other opportunities to voice where they stand in confronting our enemies. The Terrorist Surveillance Program is a battlefield instrument maximizing intelligence dominance over a lethal enemy but 91 percent of House Democrats couldn’t find enough reason to support it. The idea of not listening to phone calls involving operatives on American soil who are reporting back on reconnaissance missions is unfathomable. The Military Commissions Act authorizing military tribunals for captured terrorists was a no-go as well for 82 percent of the House and 73 percent of Senate Democrats who voted nay. Based on their record, can Americans afford to entrust their national security to a group of people so utterly oblivious to genuine threats facing their country?

A National Intelligence Estimate leak, based on filtered facts from the mainstream media, had liberals gushing at the idea that the war in Iraq had become a “cause celebre” for terrorist recruitment. But once other sections of the report were declassified it was clear that while jihadists may become emboldened by a perceived victory in Iraq, they’d be weakened by a loss. This stands to reason and follows an earlier assertion by the 9/11 Commission: “The attack on the USS Cole galvanized al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts.” Frustrated by inaction, a counterterrorism official in the State Department rhetorically asked of Defense officials back in 2000: “Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?” A hijacked Boeing 757 slammed into the Pentagon eleven months following the Cole attack. No reports have surfaced suggesting that any jihadist joined the Peace Corps following that event.

Bernard Lewis, the preeminent Middle East scholar at Princeton University, offered his assessment based on decades of study. “I think that the cause of developing free institutions—along their lines, not ours—is possible. One can see signs of its beginning in some countries. At the same time, the forces working against it are very powerful and well entrenched. And one of the greatest dangers is that on their side, they are firm and convinced and resolute. Whereas on our side, we are weak and undecided and irresolute. And in such a combat, it is not difficult to see which side will prevail.”

Lewis concludes quite succinctly, “I think that the effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made. Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us.” That sounds just a bit more serious than an illegal gambling operation or partisan wrangling on the Hill.

Michael Nevin, Jr. is a contributor to several Internet websites and a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He receives e-mail at nevin166@comcast.net.

 

The evidence is continuing to mount but it seems clear that modern liberalism is at odds with national security. Whether they sit on the Supreme Court, occupy a seat in Congress, or publish some of our nation’s largest newspapers, several high profile liberals have significantly impeded our ability to wage the War on Terror, and we may be less safe as a result.

In a breathtaking decision, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a liberal majority on the Supreme Court held that the president does not have authority to order that terrorists be tried before military commissions. In a case where the court should not have had jurisdiction if the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 were to be taken seriously, liberal judicial activism has once again reared its ugly head. Justice Clarence Thomas offered a stinging dissent regarding the court’s willingness “to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous.” Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and National Review contributor, anticipated such a ruling offering this prescient thought: “Make no mistake: if this happens, the Supreme Court will have dictated that we now have a treaty with al Qaeda—which no president, no senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance.”

Applying the Geneva Conventions to barbarians who recognize no international laws of war would be laughable if it wasn’t so reckless. Perhaps Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote for the majority, would allow the Pentagon to take his home via eminent domain (see: disastrous Kelo decision) in order to house Guantanamo guests if the prison were to close. After all, shutting down Gitmo is a high priority in the left’s War on Terror strategy. And if Stevens is looking for a driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan can list Osama bin Laden as a reference.

Cheers undoubtedly rang out at the New York Times when the Hamdan case was adjudicated. After all, any effort to rebuff or expose the efforts of the Bush administration in the War on Terror will be encouraged by the old gray lady. The top of the fold Times story (“Bank Data is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror,” 6/23/06) revealing the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was the latest in a series of damaging exposes dealing a hard blow to our clandestine capabilities. Coupled with the leak involving the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Times has made it abundantly clear that American national security will take a back seat to Pulitzer Prize nominations. It’s unclear, however, if those awards can withstand a dirty bomb attack. It might be best to keep them locked in an underground vault.

The New York Times has no left-wing agenda and is only interested in exposing matters of “public interest” its editors and defenders assert. But a closer look can be quite revealing. Take, for instance, Pinch Sulzberger’s recent commencement address at a New York State University: “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land,” bemoans Sulzberger. He continues, “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life; the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drives policy and environmentalists have to relentlessly fight for every gain. You weren’t. But you are. And for that I’m sorry.” Sulzberger doesn’t write for the Times—he publishes it.

Criticizing the efforts of the Bush Administration and at the same time besmirching our military service people is nothing new to those occupying power on the left. Although he later attempted to “clarify” his statement, the damage was already done when Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) spoke about his interpretation of U.S. policy regarding treatment of prisoners. Referring to a report describing prisoners being subjected to rap music and isolation, Durbin said, “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.” Our kidnapped soldiers are brutalized and beheaded while Gitmo terrorists are subjected to lyrics from the likes of Snoop Dogg. Something tells me that Snoop and his cohorts may be getting a bad rap.

When Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) told a civic group that our Army was “broken, worn out” and “living hand to mouth,” did he not consider that his statement would be read by our enemies? Even if he was right—which he isn’t—it is, at best, an irresponsible comment.

Here’s an inconvenient truth that many liberals fail to grasp: the biggest threat facing civilization isn’t carbon dioxide emissions; it’s climate warming via a nuclear detonation. And our enemies will stop at nothing to achieve this objective on American soil.

Michael Nevin, Jr. is a contributor to several Internet websites and a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He receives e-mail at nevin166@comcast.net.

For the better part of two decades America had a flaccid response to Islamic terror campaigns bent on destroying our civilization. Beginning with the American embassy hostage crisis in Iran and followed by the military pullout in Lebanon after hundreds of Marines were slaughtered, the United States left an early impression that we were not up to the challenge and unsure exactly how to effectively deal with extreme elements of Islam.

At least throughout the 1980s one could argue the Soviet threat was a good reason for American policy makers to focus primarily on Kremlin activities. In fact, at the time it made sense to support the Mujahideen as they battled the Soviets in Afghanistan. Realpolitik is based on complicated alliances as history can attest. But history is also full of missed opportunities and gathering storms that leave us begging the question: What if…?

What if America had not taken a “holiday from history”—to coin a phrase from the venerable Charles Krauthammer—during the 1990s when radical Islam arose as the foremost national security threat? Although we showed the world from time to time that we were not afraid to engage a menace in Baghdad or the Balkans, the 1990s proved to be a decade where a deadly ideology went unfettered and metastasized as America stood on the sidelines. The first World Trade Center bombing (1993), the Khobar Towers bombing (1996), dual American embassy bombings in Africa (1997), and the USS Cole attack (2000) should have been more than enough evidence proving that radical Islam was a clear and present danger. While federal agents were perfectly able to drag little Elian Gonzalez from his relatives’ home in Miami only to return him to a destitute existence in Cuba, America was less than deft in protecting her interests from Islamic extremists.

A new century brought old challenges that would test American strength. But before military commanders could plot a response to 9/11, unsuspecting and ill-prepared civilians would be tasked with planning a counteroffensive in the skies above Pennsylvania. Armed with nothing more than knowledge of prior events involving other hijacked planes, the passengers of Flight 93 took the fight to the enemy and disrupted the plot to hit another target in Washington D.C. If someone could bottle the collective rage felt by Americans that day, they would possess quite a powerful weapon. Rage is a necessary accelerant that keeps the home fires burning when we send troops into battle. But unless Americans believe—and are reminded—that we are engaged in a battle threatening our very existence, rage will dissipate and patience will wear thin.

The mainstream media and the left are engaged in a full frontal assault but their target doesn’t hide in caves in Afghanistan or operate human slaughter houses in Ramadi—he works in the West Wing. This coterie stands opposed to any effort proposed or supported by the Bush administration. The Bush administration can stand to do a better job of communicating its message, but it would be unwise to expect anything could sway the opinion of these dedicated antagonists. In fact, the mainstream media rely on push polls to advance their agenda to weaken the president as most leftists just lap it up. They may, in fact, wind up being successful but the cost will include a weaker America—something many of them would prefer.

The recent hubbub over the National Security Agency (NSA) underscores a serious problem in the way we wage war. The problem isn’t the Terrorist Surveillance Program, data mining, or communications-network analysis—all reasonable measures meant to keep us safe. The problem is disinformation spread by the media and leaks inside our own government. When playing partisan politics trumps defending America I wonder if we are strong enough to overcome the internal conflict dividing Americans. In defending the NSA the U.S. Department of Justice explained: “The NSA program is an ‘early warning system’ with only one purpose: to detect and prevent the next attack on the United States from foreign agents hiding in our midst. It is a program with a military nature that requires speed and agility.”[Emphasis mine]That last sentence is critical. Radical Islam has made no secret of its intent to vanquish western civilization. While the enemy beheads or enslaves captured “infidels,” we waste our time putting an al Qaeda 9/11 conspirator on trial in civilian court. That’s absurd.

Defeatists and Bush-haters will continue to wreak havoc on America’s ability to defend herself, but the president and his allies must not be deterred from focusing on a real, lethal enemy. This is an enemy committed to a long war and they are prepared to die for their cause. Americans who understand the overall conflict better come to grips with the fact that a protracted effort is required for success. Intelligence gathering, special ops, and brute force will be indispensable tactics our government should employ in this asymmetrical war. Rage and reason should be guiding the rest of us along the way.