Who Will Best Protect Us?

"Shall we have a straw house, wood house or brick house?"


With the primary season upon us, both major parties are now starting to make choices as to who will be the presidential nominee. There are many issues to consider, and different people have different opinions as to which issues are the most important. In my view, the two major issues facing America today are terrorism and illegal immigration. So to me, in choosing the best candidate (and party for that matter)I want to know who will do the best job in securing our borders and protecting the American people from future acts of terror. I already know which party will not do either of the above-the Democrats. Therefore, my choice (as an independent) is which Republican will fill the bill. I have yet to settle on one final candidate. I know there are many people out there who believe in open borders, sanctuary and amnesty for illegal aliens, as well as a diplomatic approach to the terrorism problem. I strongly disagree with those opinions.

I have chosen the fairy tale of the Three Little Pigs to make my point. Is it simplistic? Sure it is, but often, truth is simple. The question I raise for all Americans is this: If you think we live in a dangerous world, where would you prefer to live-in a straw house, wood house or brick house? If you think we should be able to control who comes into our country, where would you prefer to live-in a straw house, wood house or brick house? If you think we could experience another 9-11, which house is preferred- straw house, wood house or brick house?

Now if you are one who believes in open borders and a cessation of our War on Terror-involving our military, then in my view, a straw house is ok for you. Not for me.

In this world we live in today, I feel we need a brick house. The only question for me in this election is- who will build the brick house?

The CIA Interrogation Tapes

In the wake of the recent revelation that the CIA had destroyed tapes of its interrogations of terror suspects and the on-going controversy over waterboarding, Joe Biden (D-DE) is now calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate. First of all, I am not sure what it is that should be investigated. Secondly, how does Biden's call for a special prosecutor tie in with the revelation that members of Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, were given a tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and were briefed about interrogation techniques (including waterboarding).

First of all, I am not concerned about the CIA's destruction of the tapes. Being an intelligence agency, I don't see where there was a legal requirement that those tapes be preserved. Preserved for what? For demonstration to our enemies as to how we will interrogate them?

As a retired law enforcement person, let me draw a distinction between law enforcement interrogations and the CIA interrogations. When police interrogate a suspect or prisoner, it is commonplace to make a videotape-but not legally required. It is a good idea because it protects the officer from later accusations of impropriety and documents the confessions, admissions or false satements of the suspect as well as his or her body language. Once that tape is made, it is evidence and must be kept as such-and be made available for trial. It cannot be destroyed until all legal processes and appeals are completed.

The CIA is different. They are not in the business of bringing people to trial. Indeed, they are loathe to get involved in any legal proceedings in order to protect the identity of their operatives, sources and methods. So they are not involved in the day to day evidentiary process that police are. This is not to say that they are above the law. We have, indeed, prosecuted rogue CIA agents when they break the law. It is just that I don't see any legal requirement for the CIA to maintain and safeguard tapes they make of interrogations. I would add that the CIA does not tape interrogations for the same reasons as law enforcement does, which I outlined above.

So now, Joe Biden, as usual, is outraged. We need to get to the bottom of this, according to Joe. Of course, this is all connected to the on-going controversy over waterboarding, which seems to outrage most Democrats. Yet, the Washington Post has reported (December 9, 2007) that in September 2002, four bipartison members of Congress met secretly for a tour of CIA detention facilities and a briefing on interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. This group included current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. According to the Post report, no objections were raised as to the use of waterboarding. Indeed, according to the report, two of the congresspeople asked why harsher measures were not being used. In addition, according to the Post article, the CIA gave about 30 private briefings to legislators which included descriptions of waterboarding. Only one known objection was raised to the practice.

Maybe Biden has figured out that it would be very ticklish for he and other members of Congress to investigate an issue that would embarrass Ms Pelosi. You know the old liberal refrain: What did they know and when did they know it?

Mumia Abu-Jamal- Murderer and Darling of the Left

Officer Daniel Faulkner- The Victim


Mumia Abu Jamal- The Murderer


In the early morning hours of December 9, 1981, Philadelphia PD Officer, Daniel Faulkner was shot down and killed while making a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by William Cook. During the stop, a scuffle between Cook and Faulkner ensued. At this point, Cook's brother, Mumia Abu-Jamal (born Wesley Cook), joined the fray from a nearby parking lot. When it was over, Officer Faulkner was mortally wounded by shots fired from a gun recovered at the scene, which had been purchased by Mumia in 1979. Several spent cartridges were also recovered. Mumia was arrested at the scene as he lay wounded on the sidewalk by shots fired by Faulkner's weapon. Four eyewitnesses to the incident identified Mumia as the shooter. In addition, two other witnesses at the hospital where Mumia was being treated for his wounds, heard him state, "I shot the motherf-----, and I hope the motherf----- dies."

Subsequent investigation connected the bullets from Faulkner's body with the weapon belonging to Mumia that was recovered at the scene. At his trial, Mumia, who was initially allowed to represent himself, disrupted the courtroom with his outbursts until he was removed. He was convicted and given the death penalty.

Yet, Mumia was the ideal sympathetic figure for the far left in America and abroad. A Black Panther Party member, he represented, to the left, the archtypical oppressed African-American, victimized by the brutal white police. Various individuals and organizations came to his defense. They questioned the reliability of the evidence and truthfullness of the witnesses.

As the years passed and the appeals mounted, Mumia never lost his support of America's university radicals, black nationalist groups and many Hollywood celebrities, like Ed Asner and Susan Sarandon. In addition, Desmond Tutu of South Africa has rallied to his cause as has Amnesty International. The European community, not to be left out, has also jumped to his defense. Mumia is an honorary citizen of more than 20 cities around the world including Paris, Montreal and Palermo. He has received various "human rights" awards and been allowed to broadcast a commencement speech at an American university from his prison cell.

The judicial system has dragged on all these years debating the conviction and the death penalty. As of this writing, Mumia still sits on death row while his supporters attempt to gain a new trial based on "new evidence" they say would exonerate him.

Now comes a new book by Faulkner's widow, Maureen, entitled, "Murdered by Mumia", co-written with conservative talk show commentator, Michael Smerconish. In her book, Faulkner argues against the support that Mumia has enjoyed from certain segments of the public, that Mumia is guilty and should, indeed, be executed for his crime. Predictably, the left-wing press is now attacking her. The Atlantic Free Press, for example, referred to the book written by Faulkner and "right-wing, Bill O'Reilly wannabe", Michael Smerconish.

On December 6, Faulkner was interviewed on the "Today" show by Matt Lauer, as Mumia supporters demonstrated on the street outside the studio, in effect, spitting in the face of the widow. Lauer, as might be expected, took a decidedly pro-Mumia approach in his interview, questioning Smerconish's motives, and referring to the demonstrators outside, asked Faulkner if she ever considered that they might be right. He also asked Faulkner this question: "Do you allow yourself to consider the fact that perhaps he didn't do this?"

This obscene nonsense has been going on for 25 years now. Not only has justice been delayed for so long, but supposedly serious people actually believe this puke is innocent. Do any of these people care a whit about Officer Faulkner, who had his life taken away at 25? Do any of them care a whit about his widow? No, they don't. They reserve their sympathy for a murderer who gives them the chance to indulge their belief that America is an evil and racist country. I have nothing but contempt for Mumia's supporters. In the case of the people in the entertainment community, I will refuse to patronize any film or show that they appear in. They are beyond disgust.

Is Hillary Getting Desperate?

"Obama is the Fairest of them all?!!?"


Ever since she made that big gaffe in Philadelphia trying to defend Elliot Spitzer's plan to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens in New York, Hillary Clinton's air of invincibility (among Democrats) has been steadily eroding. Suddenly, Barack Obama has crept up on her in Iowa and New Hampshire polls, he gas gained the endorsement of pop star Oprah Winfrey (as if that should mean anything-but it does), and now, Democrats in general are getting nervous about her candidacy. Of course, she still leads her rivals in national polls, but one state loss could snowball into another. Democrats also must realize that if she gets the nomination, Republicans will be mobilized like never before. Remember that something like 40-50% of the population in this country would crawl out of their deathbeds to vote against her. That could mean not only a crushing defeat for Her Nibs, but also a defeat for a lot of other Democrats in the process. It seems that Hillary is getting nervous. And When Hillary gets nervous, somebody gets hurt.

The obvious target is Obama, who is mounting a serious challenge to Clinton in Iowa, New Hampshire and now South Carolina, where Winfrey organized a huge rally for Obama this weekend. Hillary thought she had the Palmetto state in the bag after buying off local black leaders and candidates with her support. Not so anymore. I may be naive, since, after all, I am no political guy like Dick Morris, for example, but where does Hillary's campaign stand if she loses those 3 states?

So how does Hillary's campaign fight back? How about this week's low blow? It now seems that the Clinton operatives, already legendary, have now come up with the "devastating" piece of information that, when Obama was in kindergarten, he wrote an essay stating that he wanted to be president when he grew up. (I think I wanted to be a cowboy when I was that age.) Next they'll discover that he wet his pants in class one day.

Well, that should do it! I can see Obama's poll numbers dropping through the basement now. First of all, let's set aside the pure pettiness of this charge. Let's also set aside the laughable claim that anybody writes an essay in kindergarten. Just think about what kind of people go digging back to when their opponent was in kindergarten, for crying out loud. What kind of people go looking for grade school classmates to dig up dirt on a candidate. Clinton's people, that's who. People like John Podesta, Harold Ickes and Sid (Vicious) Blumenthal. This is the same crew that collected FBI background files on some 900 Republicans during the Clinton Administration (a bureaucratic snafu). Remember Craig Livingstone, the barroom bouncer that wandered down to the White House one day and became a security supervisor? We still don't know to this day who hired this character. (He doesn't even know who hired him.) Yet, here he was, the "evidence custodian" for all those FBI files that had no business being in the White House. On second thought, wasn't his mom a Hillary acquaintance?

This is also the same "organization" that went out and dug up dirt on all of Bill's various "female acquaintances", who were coming out of the woodwork with their stories of encounters with Huggy Boy himself.

But I am digressing. Let's get back to the childhood "skeletons" in Obama's closet. Wasn't it young Bill Clinton that decided when he was in high school, that he wanted to be president? Interesting how the Clintons delight in charging their opponents with the very things that they have been documented doing themselves.

It's going to be an interesting primary after all. I hope Obama can give as well as he can get because, as he is starting to learn, nobody gets in Hillary's way. I have a feeling that more substantive charges are coming. Can you say Tony Rezco? If you don't know who he is, you might Google him. Give you a hint. He lives in Chicago and is under indictment.

Hey, wait a minute! I'm starting to talk like a Clinton supporter. After all, the Clintons have hundreds of Tony Rezcos.

A New Feature

I've decided to try a new feature in my blog, which is the inclusion of foreign language news articles from around the world. I will be including articles in languages with which I am familiar and can read before adding them. Some of you may have noticed that I had previously included occasional Spanish articles.

I would appreciate any comments you have on the usefullness of this feature. Since it requires considerable extra work, it will be on a trial basis.

I hope those of you who know other languages and follow international events will find it interesting.

Pearl Harbor

USS Arizona Memorial, Pearl Harbor



I don't want to let this day pass without saying a few words about Pearl Harbor. Sixty-six years ago on this date, Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Empire of Japan, launching our nation into World War 2.

If you have never visited Pearl Harbor, then you should put it on your itinerary when you go to Hawaii to visit the USS Arizona Memorial. I have made two visits to Pearl Harbor. On the first occasion, I took a launch out to the site, but the Arizona Memorial was closed. A few years ago, I was able to visit the Arizona. It was an overcast day, which was unfortunate because it limited the view of the outline of the hull only a few feet below the surface. One thing that is really striking is that every few seconds, drops of oil come to the surface-still leaking after all these years.

I also learned that over the years, several survivors of the Arizona who pass on have had their cremated remains interred below the decks, thus joining their long-lost comrades.

We should never forget December 7, 1941, not because we harbor ill will toward the Japanese people. Generations have passed, and Japan is a democratic friend of the US. We should never forget because if we are not vigilant, it can happen again, as it already did on September 11, 2001.

NBC Refuses Ad Thanking Troops

NBC has just cemented its reputation as the most left-wing major broadcast network by refusing an ad from Freedoms Watch that thanks the American troops serving overseas during the holidays. (The ad has been accepted by Fox News and CNN.) As its reason, NBC says that the ad would have carried Freedoms Watch URL web address at the bottom, to which they object. (Freedoms Watch counters that the URL is necessary for viewers to refer to the site in order to access further information relative to sending support to the troops.) NBC also states their policy of refusing controversial political ads. Oh really? So thanking our American soldiers for serving their country overseas in a war zone during the holidays is too controversial? Too political? Is that your position, NBC? What is your opinion, Brian Williams? Or yours, Keith Olbermann?

It is true, as NBC's defenders would point out, that any network has the right to accept or refuse any ad it wants. I agree. However, the action of NBC in refusing this particular ad speaks volumes about where they stand. If NBC, as a corporation, is against the war in Iraq, or the war in Afghanistan, or the overall War on Terror, that is their right. But what is the problem in at least giving some sort of thanks to our soldiers who will not be with their families during the holidays?

I can only conclude that the liberal suits at NBC are not only against what the troops are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they could care less about the troops themselves.

Kucinich Picks up a Huge Endorsement-From Sean Penn

Sean Penn and Hugo Chavez - "Hey Sean. Give my best to Kucinich."


As the Iowa Primary comes closer, candidates are starting to pick up significant endorsements that could raise their popularity ratings. For example, Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama is viewed as a major factor in the Democratic Primary, especially considering their pending joint appearance in South Carolina, which has now been switched to a venue capable of accommodating 80,000 people-certainly bad news for Hillary.

Not to be outdone, Dennis Kucinich, hereto considered the cellar dweller of the Democratic pack, has picked up a giant endorsement from........none other than Hollywood's Sean Penn! As Lawrence Welk used to say, "Ah wonderful, ah wonderful-ah!"

Well, this just might be the turning point of the campaign! It should not come as unexpected, however. Why wouldn't Penn, who has traveled the globe to suck up to Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, embrace the very candidate (Kucinich) who recently traveled to Syria to embrace the dictator, Assad, and criticize his own president and country in the process? As they say, there's a lid for every pot.

Curiously, however, Kucinich's campaign was somewhat reserved in its response to the Penn endorsement, stating in effect that Penn is an "intense individual, who says what he thinks, no matter what." Huh? Maybe the Kucinich people (are there more than one?)have figured out that the endorsement of someone as anti-American as Sean Penn might be considered as a negative.

The other tidbit that came out of the Kucinich campaign this week was that if nominated, he would consider as his running mate,among others,California Representative Maxine Waters, probably the most odious and obnoxious person in the entire US Congress. You know, someone who if anything happened to Kucinich, would be qualified to step in immediately as president.

But enough about Kucinich. Let's get back to reality. Frontrunner Hillary Clinton also picked up a valuable endorsement this week. Guess who? Jennifer Flowers.

Mike Huckabee For President? I Have Questions

Several months ago, I wrote a series of postings on most of the presidential candidates, both Democrat and Republican. I purposely omitted some of the second-tier figures since they didn't seem to have any chance. Lately, Mike Huckabee has risen into the top tier of Republican candidates and may well win in Iowa. Consequently, he has started to draw closer inspection, particularly his performance in Arkansas politics. For a conservative, there are causes for concern.

First of all, Huckabee, as Governor of Arkansas, raised taxes on several occasions. As a conservative who thinks we are already overtaxed, I am not prepared to vote for one who would raise taxes even more-unless it's to pay for a national emergency to protect Americans-a war for example.

When it comes to illegal immigration, there is also concern. As Governor, Huckabee supported legislation that would have given in-state tuition to children of illegal aliens in order to attend an Arkansas college. Huckabee was asked this question during a recent debate, and,in my view, did not handle it very well since the questioner asked if he would extend the same benefit to an out-of-state student who was a veteran. (Huckabee skirted that part of the question.)

Third, and perhaps more seriously, Huckabee supported the release of a convicted rapist in Arkansas, who subsequently went out and killed a woman in Missouri. Shades of Willy Horton, the notorious rapist from Massachusetts, who was granted a weekend furlough from prison and promptly committed another horrific rape. This came to light in the Michael Dukakis campaign and effectively sunk his candidacy for president. A couple of former members of the Arkansas Parole Board have come out and stated that Huckabee personally called them to press for the the man's release. For a Democratic candidate, this might not be a big deal in the primaries, but for a Republican, it could be fatal.

So I have some problems with Huckabee. I am not looking for another "compassionate conservative" who will not reign in government spending and taxes. Mr Huckabee has a lot of questions to answer, and they have just begun.

Romney's Religion- Should it Matter?

After months of resisting suggestions to publicy address his Mormon religion, Mitt Romney gave an impressive speech this week at College Station, Texas stating his position on what role if any, religion would play for him as president. I say it was impressive because, in my view, it should put to rest any doubts about Mormon influence upon public policy in a Romney Administration.

Some critics (such as Barry Lynn, who has made a career out of the issue of separation of Church and State) are complaining that Romney made no mention of atheists in his speech since he did mention Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Muslims. Similar sentiments appeared in the editorial pages of the Washington Post, New York Times, Seattle Post Intelligencer and Portland Oregonian. I think that is nitpicking. All in all, I thought Romney's speech was convincing and given in a forceful and sincere style.

I also find it interesting that Romney is being singled out for a religious test. No one seems interested in Hillary Clinton's religious convictions. Nor Obama's even though his church in Chicago is thought by some to be rather Afro-Centric. The pastor, Jeremiah Wright, is a controversial figure. His appearance a few months back on Hannity and Colmes was pretty confrontational.

As for Romney, I want to state here that I am not a Mormon. I also want to state that I don't know a great deal about their beliefs and practices. One reason is that many of their practices are kept secret from the public. However, when I look at Mormons that I have known, I am quite impressed with them as fellow citizens. So I would have no problem with a Mormon being in the White House as long as he or she adhered to the principles laid out by Romney in his speech.

Do all Americans feel that way? Apparently not. I remember seeing one gentleman refusing to shake Romney's hand on a campaign stop due to the Governor's religion. I think that was unfortunate. A recent poll suggests that a high percentage of voters would not vote for a Mormon, Jew or Muslim.

Now for a confession: In thinking about religions that I would not vote for, while I have no problem voting for a Mormon or Jew, I have to admit that under present conditions, I could not vote for a Muslim. (Apparently, about 80% of the population would also not vote for a Muslim.) Is this racism or religious bigotry? I don't think so. In my view, it's more nationalistic since a significant segment of Islam is at war against America and its very way of life. Until that situation passes from the world, I would not vote for a Muslim. Sorry, but that's the way it is. We currently have one member of Congress who is Muslim-Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN). From what little I have seen of him, I am not impressed. I can give him a pass on insisting on being sworn in on a Quran instead of a Bible. Where he really turned me off was with his behavior as a committee member during recent hearings on the Jena 6 imbroglio. On that occasion, he was very condescending and belittling in his treatment of the black US Attorney for New Orleans over that office's refusal to indict white high school students for hate crimes. Ellison basically implied that the gentleman was an "Uncle Tom".

But back to Romney. I am willing to judge him on his merits, beliefs and policies. I am yet undecided on whom I will vote for in the primary, but Romney is near the top of my list. If he gets the nomination, I will certainly vote for him against Hillary or any of the other Democrats.

At any rate, I think we should put the religious issue to rest for Romney.

Time to Release Ramos and Compean

In 2005, two US Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, were involved in a shooting incident in the border area near El Paso in which a Mexican drug smuggler, Oswaldo Aldrete Davila, was shot in the buttocks while trying to escape by foot back across the Mexican border. Aldrete, who was driving a van loaded with marijuana, was chased by the agents on foot. During the incident, Aldrete was shot by one of the agents who maintained that the suspect, after a scuffle, had a suspicious object in his hand which appeared to be a gun. Subsequently, both agents were indicted by the US Attorney's Office, who used Aldrete as a witness. The agents were both convicted, and are now serving 10 and 11 year sentences in federal prisons. Last year, Ramos was severely beaten by Mexican prisoners at the Federal Prison facility in Yazoo, Mississippi after they recognized him as one of the Border Patrol agents involved in the incident.

All during this controversy, many supporters of the agents, including members of Congress like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, both running for president as Republicans, have pushed for the release of the two agents. As of this writing, President Bush has refused to pardon the two agents, backing the prosecuting US Attorney, Johnnie Sutton in the process.

In my view, I feel that President Bush should, at the least, commute the sentences of the two agents for the following reasons.

First, let me state at the outset, that as a former DEA agent, I recognize that there are federal guidelines that prohibit the shooting of a fleeing felon unless that person poses a threat to the life of the agent or other person. There are other guidelines that dictate that any shooting incident or discharge of a firearm be reported by the agent involved. It appears there may be some violation by Compean and Ramos in this regard. Nevertheless, I am troubled by certain aspects of this case.

First of all, Ramos and Compean stated that Aldrete was believed to have a possible firearm in his hand when the shooting occurred. True or not, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the agents in this regard. The US Attorney's Office maintains that this is countered by evidence that the two agents attempted to cover up the fact that they had fired at Aldrete.

Secondly, the Government, when it learned of the incident, reached out to Aldrete in Mexico, brought him across the border, treated his wounds and obtained his testimony against the agents in court. Not only that, but when Aldrete was subsequently arrested for bringing another load of marijuana into the US months after the shooting incident, this information was withheld from the court and the jurors deciding the fate of the two agents. This seems to me a clear violation of the Discovery Act, which dictates that any derogatory information regarding a prosecution witness, particularly a criminal witness, must be disclosed to defense for the consideration of the jury in judging the witnesses' credibility. Thus, the jurors were unaware that Aldrete had been involved in a subsequent smuggling venture. Indeed, the prosecution had advised the jury that Aldrete was a one-time violator only attempting to make some money to feed his family. Would the jury have voted to convict the agents had they known this information? According to at least one juror, the answer is no.

At this point, both agents have languished in prison for one year. Aldrete has recently been indicted for his later smuggling activities (which were withheld from the jury). Unlike some observers, I choose not to make any judgement about the US Attorney, Johnnie Sutton and his motives in prosecuting this case. I don't pretend to have all the facts. Yet, as much as I hate to put on a defense attorney's hat, I am greatly troubled by the fact that two agents were convicted on the testimony of a drug smuggler without the jury having the full amount of information regarding this witness. On legal grounds alone, it seems to me to be a miscarriage of justice and reversible error.

I don't much like the idea of presidential pardons unles the President is convinced that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I have previously written in my blog about the outrageous pardons issued by Bill Clinton, which seem to me to be a case of out and out bribery. However, this case seems to cry out for a commutation of sentence if not a pardon itself. Whatever transgressions Ramos and Compean may have committed, I feel they have been punished enough. A sentence of 10-11 years seems excessive.

I hope the Appeals Court in New Orleans, which just heard this case this week, will reverse the convictions. If not, I hope President Bush will issue a pardon or commutation. (I have previously sent the President such a message in writing.)

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean have suffered enough.

Islam vs. the West- Where Are We Headed?

Demonstration in London. Will This Come to America?


The recent events in Sudan regarding the British teacher and the teddy bear named Mohammed once again underscore the crisis that is engulfing the Islamic world and its relationship with Western Civilization (or Asian Civilization for that matter-witness events in the Philippines and southern Thailand.) To Western eyes, the sight of mobs in the street demanding the execution of a 54-year-old woman from Britain for defaming the Prophet Mohammed is nothing short of barbaric. Aside from that issue, we have also recently witnessed the prosecution in Saudi Arabia of a young female victim of gang rape. In Dubai recently, a 15 year old boy from France was gang-raped by three men. When he reported the incident to the police, he was accused of being a homosexual and is subject to prosecution since homosexuality is illegal in the UAE. Clearly, we have a culture clash here. It would be easy to shrug it all off and say that, if that's the way they want to run their societies, let them. We'll just not go there anymore. As simplistic as that is, we must also consider that many (not all) Muslim immigrants in the West want to establish that kind of society in their adopted countries.

Let's look first at Europe. Most western European countries are socialistic and liberal in their policies, especially in regards to immigration and granting of asylum. Many European societies, like France and Germany for example, brought in workers from Islamic countries to do the manual work that the Europeans would not do. In the case of France, many came from former French colonies in North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa-predominately Muslim. Today, major riots have broken out among these immigrants twice in the last two years, sparked by police encounters where Muslim youths were killed. (It should be pointed out that much of this unrest stems from economic and social issues in France among immigrant youth.)

In the case of Germany, in the past two generations, waves of workers have been brought in from Turkey, which has had hereto a secular tradition. Of course, Muslims from other countries have come to Germany for study, including some of the 9-11 hijackers.

In Spain, the country basically capitulated to Muslim terrorism after the train bombings in Madrid. They elected a new Prime Minister and pulled thei troops from Iraq.

In Holland, probably the most liberal nation in Europe, that country is witnessing extreme problems with many of their Muslim immigrants. In many cases, Muslim communities are isolated within and around major cities like Rotterdam and attempting to establish their Islamic law within their communities even if it violates local law. More seriously, Dutch film producer Theo van Gogh was murdered for having produced a movie critical of Islamic treatment of women. A Somali immigrant, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was also involved in the film and a former Muslim, has had to live in hiding from extremeists who want to kill her.

In Scandinavia, it is the same thing. Police in Malmo, Sweden don't dare enter the Muslim quarter of town. Denmark? Cartoonists now have to live in fear in their own country for having drawn cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammed. Danish embassies were attacked and burned over the cartoons as well.

Probably the worst situation exists in the UK, where certain mosques openly preach hatred toward their adopted country, protestors carry banners in the streets advocating the beheading of those who insult Islam, the killing of the Pope and another 9-11. On 7-7-05, words became action with the bombings of London subways and buses. While the British Government has done its duty in fighting radical Islam in Afghanistan and Iraq, it has no clue as to what to do about extremists in their own country, many of whom are native born Brits themselves.

It is probably safe to say that most of the problems involve the younger generation of Muslims as opposed to their parents' generation. They have become radicalized, perhaps feeling like 2nd class citizens and turning inward to religion. In the mosques, many Imams are fomenting that resentment toward the West. As a result, many Muslim immigrants and native-born immigrants are calling for an Islamic takeover of the West and imposition of Shariah law.

Sound ridiculous? How could a tiny minority in Western Europe take over a nation and impose their own religion, taking away freedoms that have been hard-won by Europeans? Consider this: If present immigration and birth rates continue, Western Europe will be majority Muslim within 2 generations.

Here in the US, we have long held the position that our Muslim population was distinct from that in Europe since Muslim immigrants to the US were better educated and, thus, their off-spring were more assimilated into our society. True, we have not seen the violent unrest among Muslim immigrants that Europe has experienced. Yet, especially among the younger generation, educated as they are, it is growing. If you spend any time on a college campus and pay attention to the fiery speakers that they bring onto campus (such as my school-UC Irvine), you would be alarmed. Many of these speakers call for the destruction of Israel, praise suicide bombers as heroes and call for the takeover of America by Islam.

In addition, we have seen the FBI and other law enforcement authorities make arrests of Muslims in the US for plotting to conduct terrorist operations, such as the plot to blow up Ft Dix, NJ. Is this representative of our Muslim population? No, I don't think so. I feel that the older immigrants especially are mostly grateful for the opportunity to live in a free country and better their lives. Yet, it is a cause for concern. If there are, as estimated, 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, the majority of whom are peaceful, even 1/2 of 1% who are not means a lot of people we need to watch out for. I am concerned that many of our younger generation of American Muslims are feeling increasingly disaffected from America. If this should reach the level of say, Britain, then we would have a serious situation on our hands. Obviously, we want our Islamic population to be on our side in the War on Terror.

The situation in the Islamic world itself is obviously another cause for concern. Consider the worst-case scenario. First, we have a radical regime in Iran building a nuclear weapon capability and talkng about the destruction of Israel. Syria is another supporter of terrorism. Suppose we leave Iraq and that country becomes a satellite for Iran and base for terrorists. Suppose we are not successful in Afghanistan and the Taliban returns to power. Pakistan, with its growing militancy (and nuclear weapons) is in danger of falling apart and being taken over by radicals. Lebanon is still a mess, as it has been for a generation. The corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia is under threat from radical Islamists as well. What if they fall? It doesn't take much imagination to visualize a Muslim world controlled by extremist elements.

That leads to the ultimate question: What would we (the rest of the world)do if we find the whole Muslim world aligned against us? Do we surrender? Do we convert to Islam? Do we give up the freedoms we have sacrificed so many millions of lives to enjoy? Do we allow customs like female circumcision, stoning adulterers, fatwas and "honor" killings to be conducted in our countries? There are voices in the US, Europe and the rest of the world who can only think of having peace. Are they willing to surrender everything for the sake of peace?

My answer is no-never. Muslims should understand that while we want to live in peace with them and allow them to worship as they please in our lands, that we stand for freedom of religion-and many other freedoms that some of them would take away. We will not give up those freedoms. They should also understand that the US, while trying to help bring peace to the Middle East, is committed to the survival of Israel. We also expect that immigrants to the US should assimilate into our society and accept our values as Americans-even while keeping their religion. A couple of years back, John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, publicly told Muslim immigrants in that country that if they were not prepared to accept Australian values, they should leave and return to their countries of origin. The world needs more leaders like John Howard.