By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

Mr. Romney:

We respectfully request your attention to matters urgent to your nomination as Republican candidate for President of the United States.

While we do not hold ourselves out as experts in the political arena, we are home-grown Americans who believe, without doubt, you are the best man to lead this nation.

We offer the following suggestions, based on mistakes and oversights of past and present candidates, on matters that are crucial to winning the minds and hearts of Americans:

1. Try never to engage in negative campaigning. It diminishes your character and weakens your conviction on any given issue. It will also not garner faith in your ability to lead in war time. Shine on your own merit, as you always have.

2. Never apologize for changing your mind. It is a sign of openness to new ideas and personal growth. There is a world of difference between a resolute position and an intractable one.

3. When opponents criticize your position (and they will), don’t back down. Be clear with your response, then question them on their position. Repeat the question if necessary until you get a clear and sensible answer.

4. Educate young citizens about the true (and original) role of government and the meaning of personal responsibility. Present this in plain, unambiguous English, so there is no doubt about the choices we make for ourselves and our country.

5. Avoid, at all costs, talking about "comprehensive" immigration reform. The term distracts from the truth, which is that there is no such thing as comprehensive immigration reform. Enforce the immigration laws already on the books and remember what Theodore Roosevelt said in 1907 on the very same subject:

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

3. Make a budget and stick with it. Lip service over spending the people’s money has become the greasy highway on which too many well-intentioned -- and not-so-well intentioned -- politicians have found themselves sliding solo into disfavor and political oblivion. Use the veto.

4. Declare war (just like any other war) on the gang violence that has erupted within this country. The leader of this nation should be relentlessly proactive in battling this indigenous (and more recently imported) hostility. Only addressing the root causes, and throwing millions of dollars at social reform, is just a Band-Aid for a situation that is already out of control. We do not have another two generations to see if the bleeding heart method works. Been there, done that.

5. Political correctness has become the bane of our existence. It will not win the war on terror, nor will it protect Americans on our own soil. We must do whatever is necessary to maintain and strengthen national security, knowing full well that common sense and logic, not cautiously spoken words, will save this great nation.

6. Aliens visiting this country are entitled to polite reception, not the full rights of U.S. citizens with respect to the freedom of protest (and burning the American flag). A line must be drawn on this issue once and for all, and a definitive law codified to safeguard the hard-earned privileges of this country’s “legal citizens.”

7. We should never export our weapons technology to non-allies (or undemocratic countries). As of this writing, it is reported that Russia has shipped defense missiles to Iran and is considering arms sales to Venezuela. Also, China is building up her naval fleet with her new-found wealth. These are clear messages of potential future aggression cloaked in strategic planning and global competitiveness.

8. Be vigilant that our multi-national corporations, in their own best interests, do not steer us toward socialism.

9. Propose the largest tax incentives in U.S. history to enable both small and giant corporations to explore and implement alternative sources of energy. A wealth of untapped resources awaits discovery.

10. Fire disloyal employees—and stop the leaks. Blind loyalty is a recipe for failure.

by Lance Thompson

On Monday, Iraqi army troops, supported by American and British forces, delivered a major defeat to an insurgent cult and averted a deadly attack on Iraqis. News of this this victory has been overshadowed by coverage of the weekend’s anti-war rally in Washington, which purported to show how unjust, unwise and un-winnable the war is.

The victory occurred twelve miles from Najaf when Iraqi troops attacked a concentration of militants from the group Jund al-Samaa (Soldiers of Heaven). The terrorists had planned to disguise themselves as Shia pilgrims and attack Shia clerics and worshipers gathering in Najaf during Ashoura, the holiest festival in the Shia calendar. The attack was to include up to 700 terrorists, and would have resulted in a devastating and brutal massacre.

Instead, Iraqi troops discovered and attacked the Soldiers of Heaven as they gathered, igniting a fierce battle which raged for almost 24 hours. Iraqi troops requested assistance, and received American and British air support and help from American armored units. Iraqi military sources estimate 200 enemy dead, including the cult’s leader, Dia Abdul Zahra Kadim. A further 100 terrorists were captured, along with hundreds of automatic weapons, mortars and Russian-made rockets. Iraqi forces suffered 5 fatalities. Two Americans were killed when their helicopter went down during the battle.

This story has been given scant attention in the main stream media because of the preference endlessly to play excerpts from the massive anti-war rally in Washington over the weekend. Jane Fonda came out of protest mothballs to aid and comfort a new enemy, Sean Penn threatened to withdraw his support for politicians who refused to withdraw their support for the war, and Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins acted as co-ranters and chant leaders. California Congresswoman Maxine Waters announced that she wasn’t afraid of George Bush, nor was she intimidated by Dick Cheney, and the lack of any threats or intimidations from the White House would seem to verify her statement. Michigan Congressman John Conyers reassured the assembled masses by informing them that George Bush could not fire them–evidently no presidential appointees were present. And Jesse Jackson was present because there were more than two cameras pointed in the same direction.

You may have heard some or all of these highlights on Monday, but you’d have to be paying very close attention to hear about the military victory in Iraq. Imagine, however, if the results of the battle had been reversed. Imagine that hundreds of terrorists had attacked an American troop concentration. Imagine if 200 Americans were killed, and 100 captured, and the enemy had lost a handful of fighters. Would a major American defeat be given the same minimal coverage as a major American victory?

If the opposite outcome had occurred, video of casualties would have played all day, interspersed with film of terrorist supporters dancing in the streets and firing their weapons in celebration. We would have had chilling video from al Jazeera showing the leering countenances of the terrorist leaders, threatening even bloodier attacks. We’d have live coverage of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-il declaring national holidays. And finally, we’d have "breaking news" bulletins of every Congressman, Senator, candidate, and non-working actor who could get to a microphone calling for retreat, surrender, and the resignations of every member of the administration right down to the White House gardener. The recriminations and indictments would go on for days, while every member of a House and Senate committee raced his or her colleagues to be first to call for an official investigation of the tragic defeat.

But instead of a defeat, instead of hundreds of dead American troops and hundreds more Iraqi civilians, it was the Soldiers of Heaven who paid the price. They were found out, engaged, and nearly annihilated before they could carry out their merciless murder spree. Iraqi forces took the initiative, fought bravely, and prevailed, as President Bush and military leaders have said they would. This was more than a military victory for allied forces. It was a demonstration of the dedication, courage and proficiency of Iraqi troops who have been trained by the world’s best--the American military. Yet this victory is little more than a footnote to the day’s news.

This brings to mind one question–why? Why is an American military victory so much less important to the media than an American military defeat? There can be only one answer, the one many journalists continue to deny even as they graphically chronicle our losses and denigrate our triumphs. The main stream media is institutionally invested in American defeat. That is why the bad news is emphasized and the good obscured. If Americans realized that the Iraqi army is growing strong, that terrorists are being killed in large numbers, that the conflict is a noble endeavor to save innocent lives, and most of all, that it can be won, then the unthinkable could happen. American readers, listeners and viewers would turn off the tap on the news sources that have lied to them all this time, and seek the truth elsewhere.

-=-=-=-=

Lance Thompson’s writing and photography have appeared in Air & Space Smithsonian, Cowboys & Indians, the Los Angeles Times and the Dallas Morning News, among others. He has written for movies, television and issue-oriented web sites and lectures at the Scriptwriters Network. He lives in Southern California with his wife and daughter, who hope that his speaking engagements continue to keep him out of the house. Contact lancethompson@mindspring.com.

by Lance Thompson

The Fifth Amendment holds that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This protection applies to suspects with long criminal records, perpetrators caught in the act, political figures mired in scandal, and any citizen who has any occasion to deal with the justice system. The protection applies to every citizen, except the citizen who carries a badge.

Police reports are considered evidence. An officer is sworn to tell the truth in his reports, as a witness is before testifying in court. An officer who falsifies any report is subject to reprimand, dismissal, and criminal prosecution.

When an officer makes an arrest, his report must include all the facts, actions and observations the officer is aware of that bear on the case. In the event of an officer-involved shooting, an occurrence which can expose the officer to criminal prosecution and civil liability, he is not absolved of the responsibility to submit a factual, complete report. An officer may in fact be giving evidence against himself as part of his official duty. He cannot refuse to submit a report on the grounds that it may incriminate him. A police officer is thus denied the protections that every other citizen, including criminals, enjoy under the Fifth Amendment.

Further, due to the rights that even criminals enjoy to sue for libel, the media has tacitly agreed never to describe a murderer as a murderer, a drug dealer as a drug dealer, a terrorist as a terrorist, until a verdict has been reached in a court of law. This agreement extends even to armed robbers caught on security camera video, or criminals who have admitted their crimes. However, this agreement does not extend to police officers.

Media reports of arrests or law enforcement activity always refer to the perpetrators as "alleged" or "suspected" as in "the suspected bank robber was arrested a block from the bank, in possession of the stolen money and identified by several eyewitnesses," or "the alleged carjacker was filmed by a traffic helicopter as he fled from police, narrowly missed striking several pedestrians, and crashed into an orphanage."

However, when describing the actions of police in such instances, there is no such tiptoeing around responsibility. The media reports will tell how many officers were involved, how many fired their weapons, how many bullets were fired in total, and how many "suspects" were wounded or killed by police. There are no "allegeds" or "suspecteds" when it comes to police. If videotape exists, especially if it shows force used by police, it is shown endlessly. If interest wanes in the case, the video is not omitted, but merely trimmed to the most violent and provocative few seconds.

How are the details of these cases revealed to reporters and journalists who provide all these details to their public? Do journalists do their own investigations? Do they hire independent detectives? Do they send out their own teams of CSI wannabes to gather evidence? No, the provocative details of the stories are largely gathered from police reports, submitted by the officers involved. Not only do the police provide evidence against themselves that can be used in criminal and civil trials, they also provide the raw material for their own prosecution by media.

There are some who don’t trust the police, who believe that they must be constantly monitored, their powers regularly reduced, their initiative limited. But with each limitation on police powers, an equivalent benefit accrues to criminals and enemies of this nation. Every search a police officer can’t make, every question he can’t ask, every investigation he can’t undertake creates another realm in which criminals can operate with impunity.

A 29 December 2006 Wall Street Journal article by Robert Block noted that large city police forces are taking the lead in combating terrorism by enforcing local laws to break up terrorist cells and terrorist support groups. The Los Angeles Police Department and other municipal law enforcement groups are arresting suspected terrorists for violating ordinances that don’t require the making of a federal case. Police officers not only enforce local laws and protect us from harm–they are also a vital and active part of our national security system.

Police officers bear an awesome responsibility–to protect all citizens from harm, lawlessness and anarchy. Whenever they are called upon to use force to accomplish this mission, they are pilloried in the press, sacrificed to public opinion, second-guessed by civic authorities, and placed in jeopardy of their livelihoods and liberty. Of all the people who should be shielded by Constitutional rights, police officers are the most deserving, and the least protected and served.

-=-=-=-=

Lance Thompson’s writing and photography have appeared in Air & Space Smithsonian, Cowboys & Indians, the Los Angeles Times and the Dallas Morning News, among others. He has written for movies, television and issue-oriented web sites and lectures at the Scriptwriters Network. He lives in Southern California with his wife and daughter, who hope that his speaking engagements continue to keep him out of the house.
Contact lancethompson@mindspring.com.

by Lance Thompson

The 18 January 2007 issue of The Wall Street Journal reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from San Francisco, is putting the issue of global warming on the front burner. Citing energy independence as an important challenge for the Democrat-controlled Congress, Pelosi is quoted as stating, "Climate change is part of energy independence." In fact, climate change is an issue ideally suited to the Democrats—it has an Earth-friendly feel, it cannot be calibrated precisely, success or failure is impossible to evaluate, and it is guaranteed to require a long-term financial commitment.

Radio talk show host Dennis Prager, on several occasions, points out that conservatives consider terrorism the greatest global threat while liberals/progressives believe that the greatest danger is global warming. Ex-vice president Al Gore has latched onto the global warming issue in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, and may plan to ride the publicity to a second White House bid. Speaker Pelosi has pledged her support for new emission regulations on industry to combat global warming. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that California would join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative with emission controls on power plants.

Combating global warming has great appeal to liberals. Global warming sounds scary, and certainly the alarmist images of Gore’s documentary make it look like an imminent Biblical scourge. Standing up and speaking out against global warming confers the same saintly status as standing up and speaking out against polluted water, traffic congestion, and cruelty to children and puppies. But it would be hard to conjure a more diaphanous threat than global warming.

Scientists generally agree that the planet’s climate is warming–slowly, predictably, and consistent with a regular cycle of climate modulation that goes back thousands of years. It is not clear that the temperature change is wholly, or even largely the responsibility of man’s impact. Further, with the Earth alternately cooling and warming throughout the era of man’s habitation, it is impossible to say that the current average temperature is optimal or even preferable to any other. Who’s to say that most of us wouldn’t be happier if temperatures were a few degrees warmer or cooler?

The consequences of climate change are equally difficult to evaluate. Some regions will be warmer, some cooler, some drier, some wetter. Some changes will be for the worse, some for the better. For example, if Greenland’s average temperature drops a few degrees, it will yield arable land instead of useless permafrost. More humidity could extend the fertile strip of North Africa south into the Sahara desert. This year’s mild winter has contributed to plummeting crude oil prices. Arctic sea ice is diminishing, which would be raising the sea level, if it wasn’t offset by a corresponding increase in Antarctic sea ice. Combating global warming is merely tilting at windmills–before we even know which way the wind is blowing.

Because forces far greater and well beyond the control of man affect the world’s climate, the success or failure of our efforts to reduce climate change will be difficult to calibrate.

For example, reducing man-made greenhouse gases now may have some effect on climate change in a decade or two, but not even the most ardent global warming hawk believes that the effects will be seen immediately–only eventually, possibly, and hopefully. Additionally, there are many natural sources of greenhouse gases–volcanoes, lightning-ignited forest fires, methane as a by-product of the bovine digestive process. Whatever measures are required by the Speaker’s initiatives, it will be impossible to gauge their effectiveness.

None of this dampens the ardor of global warming hawks, who demand that treaties be signed, regulations be tightened, industries be tethered, gasoline be outlawed and back yard barbecues be banned. The United Nations estimates the cost of all global warming initiatives under consideration to be $553 trillion (that’s trillion with a "t") over the course of this century. And when was the last time the United Nations came in under budget? The monetary cost is just the beginning. Economies will be hobbled, vital industries will be handicapped, jobs will be lost, goods and services will be delayed or denied. All in the service of an unquantifiable solution to a nebulous threat.

None of this is of the least concern to the global warming hawks. They will be on the right side of an easy issue, their efforts defy evaluation, and they will have an excuse to raise revenue indefinitely, for this is an open-ended crusade. There will be no caucus or delegation pressuring Speaker Pelosi to "articulate an exit strategy," or "set a timetable" for an end to the war on global warming. It’s a worldwide disease with no clear symptoms, no known cure, and no end in sight. How convenient for Speaker Pelosi to engage an enemy evident only to those who believe in it.

-=-=-=-=

Lance Thompson’s writing and photography have appeared in Air & Space Smithsonian, Cowboys & Indians, the Los Angeles Times and the Dallas Morning News, among others. He has written for movies, television and issue-oriented web sites and lectures at the Scriptwriters Network. He lives in Southern California with his wife and daughter, who hope that his speaking engagements continue to keep him out of the house. Contact lancethompson@mindspring.com.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

Less than two weeks into the new congressional year—and well below the infamous “First 100 Hours” declaration of accomplishments—the fur is already flying.

Barbara Boxer, the Chief Deputy Kitten with a Majority Whip, has used her retractable claws to publicly flay Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice before the television cameras, and hence the world. Boxer’s insipid and unwarranted assertion that, because Dr. Rice is without an immediate family (i.e., no children), she is incapable of understanding and appreciating who pays the ultimate price for war. Her contention, which she defends as “speaking truth to power,” was neither truthful nor powerful. Her words were cruel, tasteless and extremely imprudent—and right in line with the sort of wasteful tactics that come naturally to liberal Democrats.

She continued by saying that “What I was trying to do in this exchange was to find common ground with Condi Rice.” Ms. Boxer fails to grasp that the recipient of her scalding interrogation and caustic comments is a world-class scholar and the epitome of refinement and professionalism. One wonders what Senator Boxer would think if Secretary Rice told her that she didn’t need to be a banker to know that writing bad checks was wrong.

Liberal political strategists have been quick to admit that Ms. Boxer’s comment may have been inappropriate, but innocuous. Interestingly enough, that is their stock response to all the reckless comments repeatedly made by their liberal cronies. In a recent piece, Debra Saunders correctly pointed out that “Boxer was doing what many lefties do -- coming up with conditions that others must meet in order to be entitled to dissenting opinions.”

Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of the House, kicked off the 110th Congress in a stealthy catfight with Congresswoman Jane Harmon. In what should have been a slam-dunk appointment as Chair of the Intelligence Committee, Harmon instead became the recipient of a fang-for-fang response for her overly-aggressive campaign on her way to that post. Pelosi didn’t get mad, she got even, by then appointing her one-time rival, Steny Hoyer to Chair the Intelligence Committee. An old proverb comes to mind—a good cat deserves a good rat.

It is curious that these women who have worked so hard clawing their way to elevated positions in Congress now find themselves on a public perch where every comment or snipe may be interpreted by the media as a catty remark. One wonders if they realize Secretary of State Rice has never found herself in the same position -- fending off criticism for cattiness. Speaker Pelosi and Senator Boxer will probably never share that rarified air of politesse with Condi Rice.

In a Martin Luther King Day speech in San Francisco, Speaker Pelosi stated: “The President does not have a plan. The Democrats will hold him [President Bush] accountable.” Pelosi continues to litter the landscape with self-serving declarations designed to reinforce negative opinion and cloud the new majority’s lack of a strategy on the war, our economy, illegal immigration, or any of the other vitally important issues facing Americans.
 
Ms. Pelosi and Ms. Boxer will undoubtedly purr to the press and hiss at Republicans for the next two years, but no matter how you slice it, the cat’s out of the bag. Now that they have control, watch Democrats continue to offer no plan of their own, but deliver plenty of spin. Mark Twain said “one of the striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives.” Meow...

by Lance Thompson

Mattie Ross to the outlaw Lucky Ned Pepper: "Do you need a good lawyer?"

Lucky Ned Pepper: "I need a good judge."

True Grit, 1969

written by Marguerite Roberts

On 16 January 2006, the Ninth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco shielded a convicted terrorist behind its robes when it reversed the sentences and conviction of Ahmed Ressam, who came to this country to detonate a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).

Ressam was born in Algiers in 1967, and showed an early interest in American fashion and culture. During a trip to Paris for medical treatment when he was 17, Ressam read some Algerian-language political books that convinced him that the Algerian government was corrupt. Upon returning to Algeria, he joined an Islamic rebel group. He left his homeland in 1992 during the civil war and emigrated to France, then, on a forged passport, went on to Montreal. He was stopped by immigration officials there, but he claimed to be seeking political asylum, and was admitted into the country. In Montreal, he supported himself on Canadian welfare, and by robbing tourists on at least 30 different occasions. He joined the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), a terrorist cell affiliated with al Qaeda, whose foiled plots included a plan to hijack an airliner and pilot it into the Eiffel Tower. Ressam helped other terrorists obtain false identification documents, and provided himself with a false Canadian passport, on which he traveled to Afghanistan for advanced terrorist training under one of Osama bin Laden’s senior officers, Abu Zubaida.

Ressam returned to Montreal, schooled in firearms, chemical weapons, and explosives. He made a reconnaissance trip to LAX, and determined that he could hide explosives in suitcases and detonate them in crowded passenger waiting areas. Along with several accomplices, he planned the strike and prepared the explosives.

On December 14^th, with 124 pounds of explosives hidden in the spare tire well of his rented car, Ressam took the car ferry from Vancouver to Port Angeles, Washington. Port Angeles Customs Inspector Diana M. Dean noticed Ressam’s nervous and evasive behavior, and summoned two other inspectors–Mark Johnson and Dan Clem. Johnson stood with Ressam as Clem searched the rental car, noticing a white powder in the trunk. At that moment, Ressam fled, attempting to carjack an escape vehicle. Customs inspectors apprehended Ressam before he could get away. Two of his accomplices were subsequently arrested, one of whom testified against Ressam in court.

Ressam was tried and convicted on nine counts, including conspiracy to commit an international act of terrorism, smuggling explosives, and transporting explosives for the purpose of committing a terrorist act. A potential sentence of 130 years was reduced to 22 years when Ressam agreed to provide information on his fellow terrorists and their activities.

On 16 January 2006, the Ninth Circuit reversed one of the nine convictions, that of transporting explosives for the purpose of committing a terrorist act. The Ninth Circuit judges contend that Ressam’s conviction of the charge had to be overturned because the statute did not require that the explosives had to be linked to the act of terror. Thus, the prosecution proved that Ressam possessed explosives while involved in a terrorist act, but the Ninth Circuit holds that the prosecution must further prove that the explosives Ressam were carrying were the ones that he intended to use in the bombing plot that he confessed to. On the basis of that absurd technicality, the Ninth Circuit reversed one of nine convictions, and sent the entire case back to the lower court for re-sentencing, with the requirement that the court justify the rationale behind the sentence.

When terrorists stage a successful mass-murder attack, there is no punishment on earth harsh enough to fit the crime. Every single victim–man, woman or child–is a life cut short, an outrage against civilized society, an irreparable hole blasted in a family and a community. To take the murderer’s life is but puny recompense and retribution for such a crime. When the victims run into the hundreds, or even thousands, then the punishment loses all power to provide justice.

It is only when a terrorist is prevented from committing some merciless atrocity that his punishment can be timely, appropriate and just. Ahmed Ressam has been a criminal and terrorist most of his adult life. He supported himself by preying on innocent victims while planning far deadlier crimes. He trained under al Qaeda leaders to be a terrorist, and supplied aid and expertise to other terrorists. His masterpiece was to have been the wanton slaughter of hundreds of innocent travelers he’d never met and had no particular grievance against. His goal was the highest possible body count, the greatest effusion of blood, the maximum sorrow he could inflict on stunned family and friends. This is the man the Ninth Circuit is bending the Constitution to protect and shield.

The Ninth Circuit is the most overturned federal appellate court in the nation, having approximately 75% of its decisions reversed. It is probable that this decision also will be reversed. But some of these decisions become law, and that is something to remember when voting–these judges are appointed by the President.

It is also important to remember that the decisions of appellate courts are not footnotes to history or judicial minutiae that the ordinary person need not pay attention to. These decisions bear on our everyday lives, our personal safety, our country’s future. Every time a convicted terrorist goes free, or avails himself of protections provided by the Constitution he is sworn to destroy, it emboldens his fellows and reassures his imitators.

In the war against terrorists, we are all potential targets, possible victims, likely mourners, just as are the judges of the Ninth Circuit who handed down this decision. But those judges are also one thing more–they are nothing less than accomplices in the very acts of terror that threaten our nation. They should be ashamed.

-=-=-=-=

Lance Thompson’s writing and photography have appeared in Air & Space Smithsonian, Cowboys & Indians, the Los Angeles Times and the Dallas Morning News, among others. He has written for movies, television and issue-oriented web sites and lectures at the Scriptwriters Network. He lives in Southern California with his wife and daughter, who hope that his speaking engagements continue to keep him out of the house. Contact lancethompson@mindspring.com.

By Lance Thompson

On 10 January 2006, President Bush addressed the nation and outlined a new strategy for Iraq–more troops, accelerated transfer of responsibility to Iraq, and increased pressure on state sponsors of the enemy in Iraq. President Bush is not a gifted orator. The language of the speech was not soaring rhetoric. Unlike most politicians, the President’s actions speak more loudly than his words. Lately, we have seen some concrete examples.

Last week, Americans attacked al Qaeda operatives in Somalia with at least one air strike by an AC-130 gunship. The targeted terrorists included Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, one of three senior al Qaeda members wanted for the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the bombing of an Israeli hotel in 2002. They had been granted haven by the Islamic Courts, an al Qaeda affiliate which was dominant in Somalia until 2006.

Somalia’s government recently imposed martial law to reclaim southern Somalia from Islamic rebels. The previous weakness of the government had turned southern Somalia into a petri dish for fledgling terrorist groups and al Qaeda franchises. American forces remain in the area, tracking down those al Qaeda members who escaped the AC-130 air strike. Two aircraft carrier battle groups have been deployed to the region to intercept any al Qaeda members trying to escape the heat in Somalia.

Meanwhile, in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, American forces captured several Iranians suspected of aiding, arming and supporting insurgents in Iraq. There were at least two such incidents, both reportedly carried out without the permission or knowledge of local Kurdish officials. The Iranians have claimed diplomatic immunity and insist they are members of the Iranian consulate.

When we speak of the "the war," most Americans think of the struggle to bring peace and stability to Iraq. But these recent American actions point to another aspect of the war on terror. Often overlooked, it is being conducted with great effectiveness and gratifying results. It is waged by diplomats, accountants, lawyers, tech experts, intelligence analysts, special operations warriors, and allies around the world. The weapons range from high-flying reconnaissance craft, surveillance technology, and computer software to precision munitions and weapons and tactics still secret. This is a war that keeps constant pressure on the enemy, cutting off his supplies, isolating him from his sponsors, tracking him from hiding place to hiding place, and striking with deadly force when least expected. Victories in this war will not make headlines. The score will be tallied in arrests made, bank accounts frozen, computer networks hacked, truck bombs intercepted, and terrorist plots foiled.

Shortly after 9/11, President Bush stated that this country will target terrorists and those who harbor them. Almost certainly, the al Qaeda terrorists hiding out in Somalia must have thought the pressure was off. Listening to the debate on the war in Iraq, hearing calls from politicians to bring the troops home, watching condemnations of American foreign policy mount at the United Nations, these terrorists could be forgiven for believing that their murderous deeds had been forgotten. They may have believed that right up to the instant the sky rained exploding munitions and the earth shook beneath their feet.

Likewise, Iranian agents in northern Iraq must have felt that they could continue to arm, aid, and support the insurgents who kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians with little fear of retribution. After all, weren’t the Americans on their way out? Wasn’t it only a matter of time until Iraq was once again at the mercy of its most merciless factions? These thoughts must have given them great comfort until the door was kicked open by an American combat boot, and they were hauled out of the shadows and into the harsh light of justice.

The war in Iraq is long, costly and controversial. But it is only one part of a global war against Islamic terrorists. The United States is prosecuting that war all over the world, even if the news bureaus and headlines are fixated on Bagdad and Anbar province.

If a terrorist commits an act of brutality against Americans anywhere in the world, he becomes an enemy of the most powerful nation on earth. We may be slow to anger, deliberate in our methods, and scrupulous in building our case. But we will never forget, and we will never give up the chase.

Critics of the administration have ridiculed our failure to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. But his al Qaeda organization has been severely damaged and continues to sustain major losses. Close colleagues have been killed or captured and interrogated in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda secrets are being uncovered and revealed every day. Osama can’t be sleeping well at night knowing that every day, there are fewer places to hide, fewer friends he can trust, fewer heartbeats left.

The United States reserves and exercises the right to attack and kill terrorist enemies, regardless of where they reside, what international treaties they hide behind, and what allies they can afford. Most Americans are aware of the increased terrorist threats we face in the modern world, and have adjusted our lives to accommodate them.

Terrorists, too, face a greater threat than ever before. They are being hunted by the most powerful, dedicated, technologically advanced military force in the world. Its commander-in-chief is implacable in his determination to rid the world of their kind. The enemy declared a war that gives no quarter, spares no innocent, and tolerates no conclusion but the utter destruction of one side or the other. Every day, somewhere in the world, when he least expects it, a terrorist pays the price for choosing the wrong side in that war.

-=-=-

Lance Thompson’s writing and photography have appeared in many publications, including Air & Space Smithsonian, Cowboys & Indians, the Los Angeles Times and the Dallas Morning News. He has written for movies, television and issue-oriented web sites and lectures at the Scriptwriters Network. He lives in Southern California with his wife and daughter, who hope that his speaking engagements continue to keep him out of the house.
Contact lancethompson@mindspring.com.

From time to time, people tell me, “lighten up, it’s just a dog,” or, “that’s a lot of money for just a dog.” They don’t understand the distance traveled, the time spent, or the costs involved for “just a dog.” Some of my proudest moments have come about with “just a dog.” Many hours have passed and my only company was “just a dog,” but I did not once feel slighted. Some of my saddest moments have been brought about by “just a dog,” and in those days of darkness, the gentle touch of “just a dog” gave me comfort and reason to overcome the day. If you, too, think it’s “just a dog,” then you will probably understand phrases like “just a friend,” “just a sunrise,” or “just a promise.”

“Just a dog” brings into my life the very essence of friendship, trust, and pure unbridled joy. “Just a dog” brings out the compassion and patience that make me a better person. Because of “just a dog” I will rise early, take long walks and look longingly to the future. So for me and folks like me, it’s not “just a dog” but an embodiment of all the hopes and dreams of the future, the fond memories of the past, and the pure joy of the moment. “Just a dog” brings out what’s good in me and diverts my thoughts away from myself and the worries of the day.

I hope that someday they can understand that it’s not “just a dog” but the thing that gives me humanity and keeps me from being “just a man.” So the next time you hear the phrase “just a dog,” just smile, because they “just don’t understand.”

Written by Bob Patch

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

In the late afternoon of Monday, January 8, wind-driven flames tore over Malibu Colony Road in Malibu, California, destroying four multi-million dollar beachfront homes inside of two hours. As the sun rose Tuesday on those smoldering remains, we learned there were also embers burning on the radio waves. We have the greatest sympathy for anyone who loses a home, but to our surprise, most callers had little empathy for the misfortune of the affected Malibu homeowners.

Before readers arrive at the wrong conclusion, we wish to state we are dyed-in-the-wool capitalists who wholeheartedly believe everyone is entitled to the maximum fruits of their labor. The problem that disturbed many of the callers to the local radio shows is apparently the degree of conspicuous consumption in this country. It is having a fast-growing and deleterious effect on the middle to lower classes of our society. While we do not favor redistribution of wealth, or any other “ism” intended to strip the rewards of those who have earned their status, it was not difficult to understand where the callers were coming from.

It is the overexposure to and “flaunting” of wealth that engenders resentment in the hearts and minds of the working class. For now, let’s call it “Fungus from the Rich & Famous.”

We began by asking, “Are the less affluent in our society becoming weary—or perhaps resentful--of the excessively rich flaunting their hyper-wealth?” Do the wealthy really need to be reminded that the majority of less affluent Americans struggle to afford healthcare while they collar their dogs in diamonds and designer outfits? The idea that someone who can barely afford a small apartment with only enough money to ride public transportation not caring about a multi-million dollar home burning to the ground then becomes more palatable.

Does anyone, besides her most ardent fans, recoil when Oprah Winfrey can pend $40 million to build a school in South Africa after purchasing a jaw-dropping $50 million estate in Santa Barbara to live in alone? Reasonable human beings might wonder “how many fancy homes and cars does one really need?” F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “The rich are different than you and me” to which Ernest Hemingway replied “Yes, they have more money.” How they spend it has consequences beyond whether to drive a Prius and still commute by private jet.

Trendwatching.com informs its readers: “In a traditional consumer society, he or she who consumes the most, the best, the coolest, the most expensive, the scarcest, or the most popular goods, will typically also gain the most status.” Status—that would be the purchasing power of one individual in relation to another? Part of achieving status carries with it the repercussions of “in-your-face” acquisitions.

 ($12 million dress)

The New York Times ran a story on Tuesday, January 9 entitled “The Lure of Living Above It All.” It seems the wealthiest New Yorkers are becoming even wealthier, and developers can’t build $12 million to $14 million-dollar penthouses fast enough. As an example, at condominium residences on Central Park West, 15 penthouses in two buildings have been sold for as high as $45 million—that’s $45 million--each. One cannot help but wonder if the buyers are fully aware of the multiple illegal immigrant families who crowd into and share one and two bedroom apartments.

This is not an exercise in rich-bashing. Far from it. Exposure to opulence can be a positive influence giving impetus to our dreams and hopes for the future. But is it lack of self-esteem that drives the newly (and not-so-newly) rich to “ostentatiously” display their riches? Is it flaunted wealth and extravagant consumption that is in poor taste because they are anti-social and environmentally destructive, as Dr. Eckersley argues in his book Well & Good: How we feel and why it matters“? One need only look at how revolutions have evolved to understand that boorish behavior can and do beget a host of social problems.

Professor Thomas J. Stanley points out in his hugely successful books, “The Millionaire Next Door” and “The Millionaire Mind,” that most millionaires live balanced lives, and live far below their means. “They share basic ingredients to success: integrity, discipline, social skills, a supportive spouse, and hard work,” all of which we applaud. These, we believe, are not the qualities shared by narcissists who flaunt what their money can buy and hedge their own futures by leveraging goodwill with short-term gains.

We would therefore suggest to them that it would be wise if they get their noses out of their toys for two minutes and become more fully aware of the great divide that exists between the haves and have-nots, and pay attention to the socialist stew the Left is brewing in this country.

by Lance Thompson

In early December 2006, the Mars Global Surveyor obtained compelling photographic evidence that the Red Planet concealed liquid water below its arid surface. This tantalizing discovery, hustled quickly off the front pages and cable news crawls by more Earthly matters, alters every priority and plan for interplanetary exploration. It also calls out for repudiation of a forty-year old agreement to prevent nations from claiming territory in space, to compel space-faring nations to share the benefits of extraterrestrial discoveries with all nations, and to prohibit military installations in space.

In 1967, the United States joined the other United Nations members in signing the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, hereinafter referred to as the Outer Space Treaty.

The Outer Space Treaty provided in Article I that, "The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind."

Article II of the treaty provided that "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. "

Article IV, limiting military installations or personnel in space, except for peaceful purposes, states, "The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden."

The United States agreed to these, and many more restrictions on the development of extraterrestrial territories, despite the fact that at the time, the number of spacefaring nations totaled exactly two. Now, forty years later, that number has scarcely risen. The European Space Agency launches spacecraft, and communist China has put astronauts into orbit. Still, this treaty compels all spacefaring nations to invest, risk and explore for the benefit of the 98% of the nations on Earth who will never have a space program. These nations include Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and other nations that actively support a continuing terror war against civilized states.

Regarding Articles I and II, no nation ever explored, settled or derived benefit from a new frontier for the benefit of all nations. The prime motivations of those who settled new frontiers were self-interest, commerce and private speculation. Every nation that established colonies in uncharted areas of the world did so based upon the prospective economic or strategic benefits of those colonies.

Furthermore, successful economic enterprises are not created by governments. This has been proven by such disparate examples as communism’s failures of "central planning" as well as America’s counterproductive wage and price controls. Governments can only provide a fertile ground for private enterprise to grow and prosper. There is risk enough in establishing, building, and overseeing a commercial enterprise in a new world. It is many times more risky to do so in an uncertain political environment. The capital required to inaugurate economic growth comes from investors who must be assured by the laws, authorities, and governments that will regulate their businesses.

The Outer Space Treaty clearly intends the overseeing agency representing all nations to be the United Nations. This organization is too corrupt, unpredictable, and arbitrary to attract venture capital to new worlds under its administration. Investors know that venture capital is safest under an open government that adheres to the rule of law, is able to enforce that law, and provides equal access before the law to all who fall under its jurisdiction. The United States is one of the few governments that can make that claim.

Clearly, no "world government" can give greater confidence to private extraterrestrial investment than that of the United States. Also, to date, no other government has invested the resources to place astronauts on other worlds. Since the successful exploration, settlement and exploitation of extraterrestrial opportunities relies upon private investment, the United States must be able to claim sovereignty, and thus impose law and order, over distinct territories in outer space in order to encourage that investment. Realistically, only the United States can create the environment necessary for extraterrestrial settlement.

Thus, Article IV cannot stand either. In order for the United States to claim, protect, and nurture the exploration and settlement of extraterrestrial territory, it must have the ability to enforce its laws. We have no idea what resources will be available to those who prospect beyond our world, but one thing is certain–the more valuable they are, the more likely some entity will try to seize them by illegitimate means. Until local government is established that can defend its territory, protect its people and resources, and enforce its own laws, the responsibility to preserve law and order will fall to military personnel. Thus, "the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications," must not only be tolerated, but is, in fact, a necessity.

The discovery of liquid water on Mars is just the first glimpse of the vast resources that await mankind on other worlds. But those who dare to risk their lives and fortunes to obtain those resources will only be encouraged to do so if there is opportunity to enjoy the benefits of their ventures. That opportunity can only be assured by administration of the rule of law by a government with the resources, culture and commitment to regulate commerce, defend lives and property, and prevent illegitimate seizure of territory and resources. The only government that has demonstrated those abilities is that of the United States.

Extraterrestrial exploration involves tremendous risk and the potential for vast rewards. As always, only the most daring, resourceful and visionary among us will reach for the stars. The United States has taken the lead in space exploration since Neil Armstrong and Buzz Alrdrin landed on the moon on 20 July 1969. We should continue to do so, unconstrained by the Outer Space Treaty which discourages, penalizes and handicaps those pioneers upon whom our future rests.

Contact Lance Thompson at: lowdowncentral@earthlink.net

by Lance Thompson

On 3 January, an hour before midnight, an American National Guard unit operating as a US Border Patrol entry Identification Team, operating in a known drug smuggling corridor between Nogales and Lukeville on American soil, was overrun by an unknown number of gunmen who attacked from south of the border. It is unreported whether shots were fired by the invaders, but the National Guard, following their orders, did not fire on the intruders, and retreated. The National Guardsmen suffered no casualties.

This incident emphasizes not only the importance of controlling our borders, but also the increasingly severe consequences if we fail to do so. We cannot patrol our 1951-mile border with Mexico, let alone our 5525-mile border with Canada. An effective wall or fence system is prohibitively expensive.

Yet there is a comparatively affordable, highly effective means of controlling border incursions available to us. We could reduce unauthorized border crossings to an insignificant level by the installation of a barrier of land mines.

The United States, along with Russia and communist China, never signed the 1997 treaty outlawing land mines. This is fortunate, because one of the few unquestionable advantages of these weapons is to defend one’s territory against mass invasion.

We have tried to stop immigration with federal and local law enforcement, the National Guard, and private citizens’ groups. We have enacted legislation that penalizes illegal aliens, those who hire illegal aliens, and those who aid and abet illegal aliens. Various states have passed laws to refuse entitlements, education, free hospital care and official identification to illegal aliens. We have tried negotiation with the Mexican government and "one-time" amnesties for illegal aliens. The net result of all these measures is that illegal border crossings have increased steadily over time.

There are economic arguments on both sides of the illegal alien debate. Proponents maintain that illegal alien labor fills jobs that legal citizens will not do. Opponents point to the added costs to school districts, emergency rooms, and welfare programs caused by those who use the systems but don’t pay for them.

In any event, the economic considerations are not at issue here. The only issue to be solved is that of illegal entry into this country.

Controlling the border is a national security priority. It is not selfish, cruel or racist to insist that those who enter this country do so by following the regulations we have enacted for that purpose. We do not force anyone to enter the country illegally–the illegal alien defies our laws, trespasses in our country, and knowingly commits a crime literally the moment he sets foot on American soil. Deterring such people is the right and duty of the American government.

It remains only to identify the best deterrent to illegal immigration. A quarter-mile wide barrier along the border sewn with land mines certainly merits strong consideration. Mines are cost effective, indiscriminate, technologically advanced, and immensely discouraging to those who make illegal incursions.

Mines are cost effective compared to human enforcement. It would take a budget-busting ten-fold increase in the Border Patrol to monitor just our southern border with Mexico twenty-four hours a day. A fence or wall across the same territory can be defeated with a single breach. Any barrier must be 100% effective over every foot of its span, or it is useless. Weak spots are easily spotted, created and exploited.

Land mines have none of those disadvantages. Once placed, they remain effective indefinitely. They need replacement only if used, and each use merely reinforces their effectiveness. They need not cover every inch of the border–their mere presence is discouraging enough. Unlike a fence or wall that can be circumvented, or human guards who can be avoided, mines are invisible until detonated. The uncertainty of their location multiplies their deterrent power.

Opponents of a secure border argue that security measures are discriminatory or racist because they unfairly target Mexicans or Hispanics. Land mines cannot discriminate. Anyone who steps on one is penalized. This also highlights another cost-savings factor. The violation and penalty are inextricably linked, with no need for hearings, trials, deportation or appeal. Anyone who trespasses in the mine barrier accepts the risk of immediate, severe punishment.

Naturally, the Mexican government would be informed of the mine barrier, warnings would be posted, and there is certain to be a significant amount of media coverage, thanks in advance to the ACLU. Just as illegal immigrants are familiar with our employment opportunities, our laws pertaining to illegal aliens, and every possible maneuver to circumvent them, so too will information about the mine barrier spread quickly to all concerned.

Technological advancements like GPS and satellite imagery will allow the US government to pinpoint exactly the location of all mines, in the event that we would ever need to remove or reposition them. They could be deactivated in situations that require authorized passage through the mine barrier for maintenance or official business.

The deterrence factor of a mine barrier is immensely greater than that of any other disincentive to illegal trespass across our borders. First, the severity of the penalty is greater than any previously enacted or proposed. Second, the penalty is the same for illegal aliens and those who guide or lead them across the border. Third, very few mines would actually have to be placed. With the first incidence of an illegal alien detonating a mine in the barrier, the entire cost-benefit analysis of entering the United States illegally would have to be recalculated.

A mine barrier is cheap, effective, and doesn’t even mar our scenic Southwest vistas. It presents prospective trespassers a much more risky proposition than any previous barrier or deterrent employed or proposed. It also forcefully asserts that the boundaries of the United States are to be respected, and that our laws are to be observed. This would be completely contrary to the situation we have lived with over the last century. That in itself is argument enough for the mine barrier’s implementation.