As I watched the various cable news channels cover the latest terrorist plot to blow up commercial aircraft, I immediately began thinking about a question that has been on the minds of many Americans since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: why do we waste our time and efforts at airport security searching little old ladies and American businessmen instead of purposefully targeting those demographic variables most likely to be associated with the individuals who commit acts of terrorism: military-aged Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent?

As the identities of those arrested in the “liquid explosives” plot began to emerge, it became instantly clear to anyone watching that we were facing an all too familiar enemy. The men involved in the alleged scheme were reported by the Associated Press to be of Pakistani nationality, between the ages of 17 and 35, and to have names of Muslim origin. At the same time, Pakistan arrested 17 more suspects, including one known to have had contact with Al-Qaeda. Yet, because we are forced to live under the banner of political correctness, and because we don’t want to single anyone out lest we offend them, we refuse to face the reality of the threat against us. We refuse to recognize that not everyone trying to board a plane is a potential terrorist. So, we continue in our ignorant bliss, treating everyone equally instead of focusing our efforts where they will be the most effective in stopping terrorist attacks.

Profiling is generally defined in terms of race, but when searching for potential terrorist suspects it is possible to be more specific and to add additional identifiers. All of the hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks were military-aged, Middle Eastern, Muslim males. Since September 11, arrests in Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, as well as apprehensions by our allies outside the United States, including the latest round in Britain and Pakistan, have all involved the same demographic characteristics. And over three-fourths of those on the FBI’s most wanted terrorists list fall into this same category.

It is an irrational and irresponsible waste of limited security resources to discount these demographic facts during the passenger screening process. That is not to say that race, gender, religion, and age should be focused on to the point where other factors are excluded, but conclusions about the demographic make-up of the vast majority of terrorists trying to strike the United States are inescapable.

I fully understand the dangers involved in this type of profiling. When law enforcement officials single out African Americans and Hispanics for traffic stops, these groups are unfairly targeted based on inaccurate assumptions about their likelihood to be involved in criminal activity based solely on their race. But the profiling of terrorists is not the same as the “Driving While Black (or Hispanic)” practices rightly condemned by civil rights groups.

The profiling of military-aged Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent is supported by overwhelming evidence of the demographic characteristics likely to be involved in terrorist plots and attacks. Of course there are risks to civil liberties associated with what I am proposing. And I do understand that not all Muslims are terrorists. But there is no disputing the fact that nearly all terrorist acts directed against the United States are planned, resourced, and executed by individuals who fit the demographic profile described here (except, of course, for attacks such as the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols).

After five years of fighting the war on terror, it’s time to take the gloves off at home. It’s time to pull our heads out of the sand and confront head-on the enemy that is trying to destroy us. The targeting of specific demographic variables consistently found in the terrorists who attack us makes sense, even if some Muslims are inconvenienced or offended. To continue the current passenger screening charade in the interest of political correctness is absurdity in its purest form. As long as we avoid profiling potential terrorists so that we can treat everyone equally, we are giving terrorists the opportunities they seek to kill us and to destroy our way of life.

By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com
Greg Reeson is a frequent contributor to The Land of the Free and Associated Content. His columns have appeared in several online and print publications, including The New Media Journal, The Veteran's Voice, The Washington Times, The American Chronicle, The American Daily, GOPUSA and Opinion Editorials.com.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys.

As the Israeli offensive into southern Lebanon unfolded in painstakingly slow fashion, reports of discontent from the troops on the ground made their way into news stories on several of the major cable news networks. The grumblings of the soldiers were reminiscent of the sentiments of U.S. Marines after the Hezbollah bombing of their Beirut barracks in 1983, when one Marine was quoted as saying, “Either turn us loose or send us home.”

Whether it was due to stiff Hezbollah resistance, an aversion to IDF casualties, or uncertainty in a war plan that placed too much emphasis on air power, the Israelis fought a minimalist war that failed to achieve any of the conditions set by Prime Minister Olmert for a cessation of hostilities.

At the beginning of the conflict, Olmert characterized the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers as “an act of war” that would result in a “very painful” response from the IDF. Immediately the Israelis began preparations for what appeared to be a massive, sustained assault into Lebanon with the objective of eliminating Hezbollah’s ability to conduct attacks. The Israeli Air Force began the systematic targeting of Hezbollah fighting positions, key infrastructure, and re-supply routes, including the Beirut airport and roads connecting Lebanon to Syria. The coast was blockaded by the Israeli Navy and IDF soldiers began to mass on the border, in obvious preparation for the ground assault that would be necessary if Hezbollah was to be destroyed as a military force.

As the air campaign prepared the battlefield, the Israeli government began calling up reserve forces, a move that always causes serious disruptions to Israeli economic activity. Private intelligence organizations debated the exact timing of the assault, but all agreed the full-scale invasion of Lebanon was inevitable if Israel truly wanted to settle the Hezbollah question once and for all.

All indications were that this time the Israelis were serious. Reserves were mobilized, troops were massed at the border, a relentless air campaign was underway, public support for the government was at an all-time high, and Olmert promised to destroy the terrorist organization that called for the destruction of Israel in its charter.

But Olmert’s government did not deliver. The IDF conducted limited raids and border skirmishes while political waffling in Jerusalem relied on the IAF to win the battle with minimal loss of Israeli life. Statements from Israeli officials revealed a divided government that could not decide on the appropriate course of action. Faced with limited time to accomplish its objectives, the Israeli government wasted the precious diplomatic cover provided by the United States.

To destroy Hezbollah, Israel needed to address threats north of the Litani River and in the Bekaa Valley, the base of the group’s power and home to its terrorist training facilities. Confining offensive operations to the south of Lebanon was insufficient to address the threat posed by Nasrallah and his minions.

Not until time ran out, in the form of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 calling for an immediate cease-fire, did Israel launch the long-awaited ground invasion. By waiting until diplomacy forced an end to the fighting, the Israelis failed to accomplish the objectives laid out when the conflict began in mid-July.

The only way the Israelis could have achieved their objective of destroying Hezbollah as a fighting force was to adhere to the concept of total war. Total war means using all of a country’s resources in order to secure victory. Total war means subordinating politics and mobilizing the entire country for the effort. Total war means total victory or total defeat; there are no other options.

Israel has practiced this concept before, with overwhelming victories against Arab forces in 1948, 1967, and 1973. These successful campaigns led to the perception among Israel’s Arab neighbors of an IDF that was unbeatable on the battlefield. This perception influenced Arab-Israeli relations for decades and forced moderate countries in the region to at least tolerate the Jewish State, even if they disapproved of its existence.

After this most recent conflict, though, the reality on the ground has changed. Syria and Iran are boasting of a Hezbollah victory and all of Israel’s neighbors have taken note of the terrorist group’s ability to fight the IDF to a draw.

Air power is okay to shape a battlefield to influence a ground force’s chances of success. But when it comes to fighting an entrenched enemy that is prepared to die where he stands, there is no substitute for putting boots on the ground. And any time a nation is willing to put its soldiers in harm’s way, it must be willing to do so wholeheartedly, without reservation and without limitation.

By fighting a minimalist war, the Israeli government failed for the first time in a battle with an Arab force, resulting in a shift in perception in the region. The myth of invincibility is gone and Israel’s neighbors are emboldened. The question now is whether or not Israel has the will to finish the job if the cease fire fails.

By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com
His columns have appeared in several online and print publications, including The New Media Journal, The Veteran's Voice, The Washington Times, The American Chronicle, The American Daily, GOPUSA and Opinion Editorials.com.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a legal and lifestyles resource.

According to Edwin Garcia of the San Jose Mercury News,

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson are teaming up to urge the federal government to take stronger action against criminals who use tunnels under the U.S.-Mexico border to smuggle drugs and traffic humans, the California governor's office announced Wednesday. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and Richardson, a Democrat, are co-sponsors of a joint declaration being circulated at the 24th annual United States-Mexico Border Governors Conference, which begins Thursday in Austin, Texas. The declaration establishes a dual-nation law enforcement task force, asks the federal governments of both countries to criminalize the construction and financing of border tunnels, and calls on the United States federal government to confront the market forces driving illegal immigration. A total of 40 tunnels have been discovered since Sept. 11, 2000, about half of them in California, Schwarzenegger's office said.

I realize that the above is not going to accomplish much, however, at least it's a start. Now, what about our state legislature? The Federal Government can't do everything. What is our state legislature doing about these tunnels that come out in California? When is the California State Legislature going to do something about stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and illegal drugs coming across our border? This is not just a national problem, this is also a California problem. Why don'e we start doing something to help ourselves?

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Resources For Attorneys

Proposition 88 is a Constitutional Amendment and Statute initiative that according to the California Secretary Of State's Office

Provides additional public school funding for kindergarten through grade 12 by imposing a $50 tax on each real property parcel; exempts certain elderly and disabled homeowners. Funds must be used for class size reduction, textbooks, school safety, Academic Success facility grants, and a data system to evaluate educational program effectiveness. Provides for reimbursement to government entities to offset anticipated decrease in other tax revenue. Prohibits fund use for school administrative overhead. Requires school district audits and penalties for fund misuse. Excludes funds from Proposition 98 calculations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Annual revenue of up to $500 million from a new, statewide parcel tax with the revenue dedicated to specific K-12 education programs (such as class size reduction, instructional materials, school safety, and facility grants).

More taxes, more state bureaucracy and more waste of our money. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won't let the Democrats raise our taxes so Democrats and the teacher's unions are now using the initiative process in order to raise our taxes. Throwing more money at education won't do any good unless the system is fixed.

I'm willing to spend more money on our education system, but not when it's just being flushed down the toilet. Before we spend more money we need to cut out the waste, get rid of the bad administrators and the bad teachers and fix all the other problems associated with the mismanagement of California's public school system.

As long as we keep voting in new taxes, no one will ever really take the trouble to fix the system. Why should they, when they can just ask us for more money.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Resources For Attorneys, a legal resources and lifestyle directory.

Part 1

I took a look at the DNC website today to see what they were up to for the 2006 midterms. I really wanted to see what plan they had and if they really had a detailed plan. I also took a look at the RNC to see what they had for a plan for the American people. Seeing that we do not have a strong third party in the states I will not bother to look at the other parties as they have no chance in hell to win in 2006.

We will start with the DNC; they have a 6 point plan for 2006. I am sure they will try to do something similar for 2008 especially if they feel it will help them gain power. So lets see what their brilliant ideas are for 2006 and what there plan is shall we.

1) Honest Leadership & Open Government
We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform.

2) Real Security
We will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies. We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart, recognizing that homeland security begins with hometown security.

3) Energy Independence
We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology.

4) Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence
we will create jobs that stay in America and restore opportunity for all Americans, starting with raising the minimum wage, expanding Pell grants and making college tuition tax deductible. We also believe in budget discipline that reduces our deficit.

5) A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone
We will join 36 other industrialized nations in making sure everyone has access to affordable health care, starting by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical research.

6) Retirement Security
we will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security.

OK now lets look at this plan, first what I see is that there is not really much substance to it, even with the expanded description there is nothing to tell me exactly how they are going to accomplish this platform. So let’s take them one at a time here…

Part 2

Honest Leadership & Open Government – President Bush has done everything he can to keep congress in the loop. How many times have we read a story that said that members of this committee or that committee were included in the planning stage, or given the information that the President had? Granted the Liberals will say “Well he kept important information from us” Like we had with the war in Iraq intelligence reporting. Funny thing is if you do a search for the documents you will find exactly what the report states. I am not one that will buy into the fact that the Democrats in the Intelligence Committee didn’t have access to the same report I can find on the net. In my honest opinion this first one is just bogus political talking points from the party of no.

Real Security – How are the democrats going to accomplish this one? They have opposed the Patriot Act; they are against the Military and the Intelligence agencies. We had a Democrat President that did more to destroy the military and the nation’s intelligence agencies than he did to help them. The Democrats want to “cut and run” from all conflicts and put our heads in the sand. All in the hopes that the Islamic Terrorists will leave us alone, what about the decades leading up to 9/11? How do they justify this reasoning with the way President Clinton handled things? We had many terrorist attacks during Clintons 8 years at the helm. He did absolute nothing, in fact his handling of Somalia led Bin Laden to believe that we Americans were soft and could not take any casualties. It was the defining moment that gave him the courage to start and plan 9/11 years before President Bush took office. Unless you think that they planned that attack in 8 month?

Energy Independence - This one is laughable coming from the people that consistently keep up on the foreign oil. Democrats and their lobbyists, in the form of Environmentalism, have kept us from developing and building refineries, they have kept us from drilling off the coasts, setting up wind farms in ideal locations, kept us from drilling for oil in Alaska. Hell we can not even begin to fathom what oil we have in this country. So now the Democrats, seeing that gas prices are rising, are hoping that the American public will forget exactly who has kept us on the foreign oil for all these decades. As I said this one is laughable and nothing more than another talking point with no real solution coming from the Democrats.

Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence – This is another talking point from the Democrats. Through their lobbyists in the National Educational Association, they have had control of our Public School systems, well forever. We have one of the worst returns for that as well today. They have fought tooth and nail to hold the Teachers accountable and have testing based on performance, they have asked for more and more money every year. In fact compared to other industrialized nations we pay more per student and get far less in return. The Democrats do not have an answer for the Educational problems we are facing.

Part 3

Economic Prosperity is another talking point they like to trot out. We have Unemployment rates lower than they were in the so called 90’s boom. We have more people owning homes than ever before. The jobs keep growing, even after the disastrous dot com burst that happened shortly after 2001. We have done this as a country through a recession, the worst attack on our financial structure ever, and through so many corrupt corporation scandals that started well before the year 2000. They might have ended while President Bush has been office, but this mess started long before he got into office.

A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone – I guess this is the new version of Hillary Care? How disillusioned can they be, if you need healthcare you can head to the emergency room and receive the care you need? Without insurance to boot, if you can not pay the hospital will bill you and if you still do not pay they will write it off. Now I am not personally happy about this, but hey it is the way it is setup. If you need care you can receive it, and if you do not have prescription plan the doctor can give you samples for what ails you. How much better can it get for those with no health insurance? There are even doctors that have started new clinics that take only cash for payment. There by getting rid of the need to have employees to sort through and deal with the Health Insurance agencies In case you are wondering, I have family that are unable to pay for much of what they have and can not afford health insurance. So they have used the system, to mine and your tax dollars no less. So again just another talking point by the Democrat party it is so good to see that they really have our interests at heart isn’t it?

Retirement Security – Do I even have to start with how much this is a talking point? If they were really worried about retirement security for all Americans they would let us have the same system they have in Government, Our lovely Senators and House members are able to take a portion of their pay and put it in higher percentage yielding stocks, as well as in the traditional Social Security if they so wish. Why can we not have that same deal? What makes them so special to receive such treatment but we peons are not able to make the same choice?

You know I was going to get into the RNC platform but after this, is there really a point? The Democrats have never had a plan for America beyond the “We Hate BUSH”. If America looks at things properly and in the proper context of history they will make the right choice comes November and the Democrats will loose even more seats in the House and Senate as well as Governors. It would do the USA some good to have even more of these self-serving donkeys out office.

As always this is my opinion and my opinion alone, I wish you all a good life and hope you can make the right choices to bring our Nation greater glory.

By: Jon Irwin
Get your latest insightful commentray on all things political at Talad's Thoughts.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a legal and lifestyle resources service.