Breaking News; OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD

it feels odd to even type that, but that's what the reports are saying.

The President's Statement:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Smerconish Begins to Show His True Stripes

An article for the Philadelphia Inquirer, as politically liberal a rag as exists anywhere in America today, titled "Sorry, but for me, the party is over", written by local quasi-celebrity Michael Smerconish was published in that paper's Sunday, February 21st edition 'Currents' section.

In this article, Smerconish reveals what every true local Philadelphia Republican has known for more than a year. The man who has billed himself as THE local Republican voice, who glommed on to the popularity of programs such as Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor", and who attached themselves at the hip to commentators such as Sean Hannity, is in fact not a Republican after all.

The article, which carried a secondary headline where it continued on page C3 titled "Parting ways with the party, after 30 years", reveals that Smerconish recently had an epiphany of sorts. And he had it while standing in line at, of all places, the DMV. The Inquirer, of course, then bent over backwards to advertise this alleged political change away from conservatism. But is it really a change at all?

Smerconish goes to get his license renewed and the clerk asks him at one point as to whether he would also like to change his voter registration party affiliation. Why this is an appropriate question for some clerk at the DMV to be asking in the first place is never revealed, nor ever fully explored by the allegedly dogged journalist.

Smerconish then goes on to reveal that this was his "hallelujah" moment. One can imagine a mystical light shining down on him from above and revealing that he is actually not a Republican, nor is he a Democrat, but instead he is that most cherished of ideals. He is an "Independent" thinker, beholden to no party values! Hallelujah!

He has the clerk switch his voter registration status from 'Republican' to 'Independent', leaving behind his party of the past three decades. Smerconish writes that in doing so he is better reflecting his personal values. He claims that actually, he is "not sure if I left the Republican Party or the party left me. All I know is that I no longer feel comfortable."

Now let me state before I go on that I myself have switched my formally registered political affiliation a few times over the years. As I have explained in full detail before here at this blog, during my 20's in the 1980's I was a fully-indoctrinated liberal Democrat. It was at some point during the first Clinton administration where I had my own 'hallelujah' moment, realizing that my values and positions had evolved to conservative ones. I made the switch to Republican and have not looked back.

During the time that I was a registered Democrat, however, I switched my party affiliation from Dem to Republican a couple of times. Each time I did so at the request of and specifically for my father, who was involved in the political process and publicly supporting Republican candidates such as John Egan for Mayor of Philadelphia. I would always switch back to Dem following the election cycle, and remained so until making the permanent switch during the mid-90's.

However, unlike the spineless Smerconish, I did not ever try to paint myself with the brush of mediocrity that is the act of being a registered Independent. Smerconish tries to make himself out to be some sort of victim to the system. "Where political parties used to create coalitions and win elections, now they seek to advance strict ideological agendas."

Malarkey! Political parties have existed in America since the earliest decades of our founding, particularly in the years following George Washinton's first Presidency. From those early parties like the Whigs through to Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" Party to today's liberal-dominated Democrats, political parties have displayed polarizing differences in their platforms and in their personalities.

Smerconish tries to defend his decision by pointing to a handful of examples of party inclusion of disparate ideas and visions. In every party there will always be individuals who are slightly moderated from the main party platform and ideals. But you rarely, if ever, can find a full-on conservative Democrat or a full-on liberal Republican, especially among the politicians.

That may prove Smerconish's point, that the parties are indeed ideological, but the fact of the matter is that situation has been in existence since those early years of our Founding Fathers. It didn't suddenly happen in the last election cycle. It didn't slowly develop in recent decades. Political party ideology has been around forever.

The fact is that Smerconish began broadcasting full-time in the early years of the George W. Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He took up the Republican mantle fully, supporting most Bush policies and positions vocally and publicly, including the use of torture on terrorist suspects.

Over the next half-dozen years, Smerconish became a quasi-celebrity, his public conservative positions landing him gigs as a guest host for O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and his largely conservative writings leading to New York Times best-sellers. Smerconish made a lot of money and gained a measure of celebrity in these years thanks to what were perceived to be his intact, well thought-out, mature political and social positions.

But what also was going on is that Smerconish was doing all of this while working at a local Philadelphia radio station. He was not a nationally syndicated host with a vast network of listeners supporting him, he was broadcasting in one of the most liberal cities in America. His stated positions made him a number of political enemies, and shut him out of a number of local sources.

Realizing over time that he was not going to break out nationally as had people like Beck and Hannity, Smerconish saw himself stuck in Philly and treading water. Then suddenly it happened, the savior, Barack Obama, came along with his glib tongue and his two faces. Smerconish began earlier than most to sense the momentum of the Obama campaign, and the alleged Republican talk radio host did the unthinkable in endorsing Obama for President.

It was in this moment that those of us who had suspected for years that Smerconish was simply a charlatan opportunist, using 9/11 and the Republican Party popularity of the early part of the last decade to his advantage, got our proof of that as fact.

There is no way that anyone who took any time to evaluate a politician's actual record before endorsing them, as a public personality with a radio talk show in a major market should, could ever find anything other than the facts. Those facts were that simply from his voting record and previous public associations, Barack Obama was one of the most, if not the single most, liberal members of the United States Senate.

Michael Smerconish threw in with Obama because he saw the momentum switch, believed strongly that Obama was going to win, saw that Obama was articulate and intelligent, and further believed that the sun was setting on the ideology of conservatism. Smerconish basically glommed on to the next big thing to maintain his local audience relevancy.

In the beginning it was actually a good thing to say that he was a Republican who was supporting Obama. In that way, Smerconish could actually try to portray himself as not being ideological himself, despite what was out there in the public purvey for the past half dozen or so years.

But as time has gone on, Smerconish has become more and more enamored with the Obama celebrity himself, tossing aside the substance of the issues for increased access to the administration. Thanks to his position as 'the Republican talking head who supports Obama', Smerconish was actually given the first live radio broadcast, interview, and listener question-answer session from inside the White House with the new President in August of 2009.

A man whom I happen to admire, Glenn Beck, has been an outspoken registered Independent for some time now. But with Beck there is a major difference. He legitimately sees and eloquently expresses his own ideology of American exceptionalism, pointing out with detailed precision how leaders of both parties have been led astray by political and social 'progressivism' and calling for a return to the Constitutional direction of the Founders.

Whatever their motivations, I still believe that whether it be in Beck's principled stand against progressives or in Smerconish's unwillingness to publicly embrace either his change to liberalism or that he has no political backbone, registering as and championing oneself as a registered 'independent' is a bit disingenuous. There is no doubt that Beck's conservative lean would, for example, find him in the voting booth ever pulling the lever next to the name of any current Democrat, while there are any number of Republicans who share his basic ideals.

In contrasts to Beck's independence status, Smerconish is simply a fraud. He is an opportunist who now sees his best opportunity at continued celebrity by casting in with Obama and his liberal followers. Smerconish is waiting for this type of characterization. He is waiting for it and expecting it so that he can use it as well. He is waiting for conservatives to let loose on him for his alleged betrayal.

No, this indictment of Michael Smerconish and his allegedly changed political positions and resulting party registration change do not stem from feelings of betrayal. They come from a long-held belief that the man is all about himself, not any true, bedrock values or political positions. He has no political backbone whatsoever, and has only proven his irrelevancy with this registration switch. That is one man's opinion based on what I have seen and heard.

It is also my opinion that this move to alleged 'independence' is only itself a temporary move. Right now, Smerconish senses the unsure direction of the future political winds as Obama's plans prove to be the socialist failures that many of us predicted. I predict here that Michael Smerconish's political independence itself will not last, and that it is only a matter of time, and more security in the direction of those future political winds, before the big 'R' is back, or before the big 'D' takes a permanent place on his voter registration.

For local Philadelphia morning drive-time radio listeners, you do indeed have a choice. The intelligent, articulate, personable Bill Bennett can be heard by sliding your radio dial over to 990AM weekdays from 6am-9am. There, Bennett's 'Morning in America' program is a part of the "intelligent, conservative talk" that local station WNTP offers each weekday. The one thing that Bill Bennett will never be accused of by anyone is being spineless, and you won't ever see him change his political affiliation for career or financial expediency.

Islamism Series: What Are We Prepared to Do?

In the 1987 film 'The Untouchables', Kevin Costner plays famed lawman Elliot Ness, who is tasked to lead a fight against the violent empire of infamous crime boss Al Capone in Chicago during the Prohibition era.

In the beginning, Ness tries some of the usual law enforcement tactics of the day, but appears to be going nowhere in his efforts to defeat Capone. Finally his right-hand man in the film, street cop 'Jim Malone' as played in an Oscar-winning performance by Sean Connery, turns to Ness and asks him a blunt question: "What are you prepared to do?"

This is always the single most important question that needs to be asked, understood, and answered before committing to fight any war at any level. Whether at the level of law enforcement fighting criminal groups to keep the public safe on the home front, or at the level of national armed forces fighting enemies from abroad with the same goal, this simple question cannot be avoided.

Decades ago a war was declared against the United States by the forces of radical Islam around the world. It was declared with public statements, and those statements were backed up with physical attacks against American troops, citizens, and interests abroad and eventually with attacks against the American homeland.

For years the answer to that question of "What are you prepared to do?" seemed to be a tit-for-tat response. They blew up something of ours, we lobbed a missile at something of theirs. The international community cried if we killed civilians in our attacks, but shed no tears for American Marines and other service persons and civilians killed in attacks against our embassies or troops.

Nothing much changed until finally the radical Islamists were able to pull off a large-scale attack right here on our own shores with the physically, financially, and emotionally devastating attacks of September 11th, 2001 against Washington and New York.

Less than one year into his first term in office, President George W. Bush was faced with the question for the first time: "What are you prepared to do?"And for the first time, an American leader did not pull a knee-jerk response by lobbing a missile. For perhaps the very first time, an American leader and his team actually sat down and took a good, long, hard look at the reality of the situation.

The United States was not the victim of some random attack by 20 guys who hijacked some planes. The United States was attacked by an entity which viewed us as a sworn enemy and wanted nothing less than either our destruction or our capitulation to their worldview. Join up with Islam completely or die, that was and is the message from this enemy.

This was not the usual, traditional type of enemy, and fighting them would require an entirely new mindset and commitment level. In days now long gone by we could identify an enemy as a nation-state or group thereof, and largely pinpoint this enemy and defeat them on a geographical battlefield.

The enemy that we now faced was more of a network of ideological radicals scattered in both large and small groups all over the globe, including some in our own country, that was in some cases well-funded and trained. In some cases this network was being expressly, implicitly, or tacitly supported by a nation-state.

Faced with destruction, devastation, and death on his home front on his watch, President Bush answered the question fully when on September 15th, 2001 he said "This act will not stand. We will find who did it. We will smoke them out of their holes; we will get them running; and we will bring them to justice. We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them, and feed them, and house them. Make no mistake about it. Underneath our tears is the strong determination of America to win this war. And we will win it."

In this statement, Bush correctly recognized that the problem was not only with the people who actually pulled off the attacks of 9/11, but fully extended to those who supported and nurtured these people both physically and ideologically. Bush also here became the first American leader to publicly acknowledge that we were at war, and further, he promised that we would win that war. But he also went further, recognizing that this war would be long:

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient. But I can assure the American people I am determined, I'm not going to be distracted, I will keep my focus...It is time for us to win the first war of the 21st century decisively, so that our children and our grandchildren can live peacefully into the 21st century."

The problem was clear, a war was declared on us, attacks were taking place against us, and Americans were dying. The problem was recognized with an acknowledgement that we were indeed at war. The question of what we were prepared to do about it seemed to be answered appropriately: we would fight wherever necessary for as long as necessary to win decisively to ensure lasting peace.

While we dealt them blows on their home bases in Afghanistan and began to establish a democratic foothold in the Middle East both there and in Iraq, the Islamists continued the war with attacks on the trains of Madrid, Spain on March 11th, 2004 and on school children in Beslan, Russia on September 1st, 2004 and on the buses and subways in London, England on July 7th, 2005 among others.

Unfortunately a problem began to develop. As we finally took the fight to the radical Islamists, some Americans, particularly Democratic Party politicians who were out of political power and their media lackeys, all too quickly forgot the pain and destruction of 9/11 and the many other Islamic attacks on America and our allies. They began to use the continuing war and the inevitable American service person deaths as a political football.

During the final 2,682 days of his two terms stretching over more than 7 years following those 9/11 attacks, the policies and strategies of President Bush and his team kept the United States safe from any further successful attacks by a determined enemy who was demonstrating all around the rest of the world that it was still very capable of delivering death and destruction.

The current American administration wants desperately to end our involvement in this war. It was elected largely by painting President Bush as a hateful war-monger and won with a promise to take that very action, in fact. However, on actually taking office and being faced with the reality of the situation themselves, Barack Obama and his people seem surprised to find that is it not America that is the problem after all.

This past week saw a reminder from al Qaeda and the radical Islamists that this war is far from over. They again attempted to use airliners to deliver devastating attacks against the United States on American soil. In fact, they continue to seek nuclear, bio-chemical, radiological and other weapons of mass destruction in what will likely one day be a successful large-scale attack on the United States.

The radical Islamists do not care what American political party is in power. They do not care what the skin color or sex or age is of the American president at any given time. They care only about one thing, that America openly convert to Islam and accept Sharia Law as the ruling cultural influence and legal authority. Anything less will result in the continuation of the war from their end.

That is the real important thing that we need to remember, that a war is not over just because we pull many or even all of our troops out of any country. Vietnam did not end when we Americans fled with our tails between our legs. Instead, the victorious North Vietnamese slaughtered an estimated 4.5 million South Vietnamese who our brave military persons had been protecting. But hey, a bunch of hippies and newscasters felt better, so it was okay.

Unless we become even more determined to fight this war against radical Islam with stronger conventional forces and tactics backed by more determined diplomatic energy and support to the region in finances and infra-structure development over what will likely be decades of commitment, we will lose. And the ramifications of our failure now will be even greater than our failure to win in Vietnam.

It likely won't happen suddenly or overnight, and maybe not even over one generation. But Islam and its accompanying discrimination, intimidation, and hatred will eventually win out. Either that, or some totalitarian regime of Communism led by Russia or China will become the dominant power. The failure this time of the world's beacon of freedom, the United States of America, will be a devastating blow to freedom everywhere.

So as every bomb explodes, as every school is attacked, as every head is lopped off, as more Americans are threatened and killed, as our leadership continues to talk tough after an attack while plotting our retreat the question begins to shout out to the American public. Do you want to become Islamic, or die? If the answer is neither, then you are again faced with that one simple question: what are you prepared to do?

NOTE: This continues the ongoing 'Islamism Series', each entry of which can be viewed by clicking on to that label below at www.mattveasey.com

Join the 912 Project

The picture accompanying this story might look like a scene out of some late 1960's, Gump-esque, anti-Vietnam War rally with counter-culture hippies, radicals, and others disenchanted with the actions and policies of their government protesting those actions and policies.

However, the picture, one that many of you likely have never seen because the former mainstream media does not want you to know about these events and thus fails to cover them or underpublicizes them, is not from the 'Summer of Love' but rather it is from the end of this very past summer. September 12th, 2009 to be exact.

The Americans in this counter-culture demonstration, the new generation of 'radicals', gathered in the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument and all over Washington, D.C. to demand fundamental change.

You might have heard that before somewhere, the "Change" idea? The one word slogan was deftly used in last year's U.S. presidential campaign by Barrack Hussein Obama. It was meant to galvanize those sitting on the fence in the election to support a change from the policies of the George W. Bush administration which had governed for the previous eight years.

But while Obama and his people sold that idea as a change from Bush policies to what they described as some new, more enlightened and peaceful era, what they were actually selling was a bill of goods. Their real motive was a change in the very fabric, culture, and traditional values of America.

During their first year with full control of the American political process since 1994 the Democratic Party has shown that it's transformation from a centrist, populist party fighting for the middle class to one that is completely dominated by it's fringe left and bent on massive social change is now complete.

Just since coming to power in January, Obama and his lock-step congress led by California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Nevada senator Harry Reid have driven America further into debt than the combination of every political generation before them. And while risking financial catastrophe they have begun to risk our very safety and security with their weak foreign policy approach.

All the while, they and their supporters in the puppet media have begun to tear away at the very fabric of American spiritual and institutional culture, lurching it ever closer to collapse and their ultimate goal of a communist/socialist, totalitarian, government-run life for all.

Tens of millions of American did not vote for Obama or for much of any change in the last election, albeit as the lesser of two evils. Millions sat it out because they were not happy with the choices, even when they believed Obama was bad for America. And now millions more who did vote for that 'Change' have begun to realize that they were hoodwinked by these elitists masquerading as commoners.

In response to these mounting attacks on the American traditional way of life and value system, Americans from all walks of life, all races and social standings, began to mobilize at the grass-roots level, forming the beginnings of what has now grown into "The 912 Project" movement.

The movement began to organize with responses at a series of town hall meetings held by the Obama government meant to sell their socialist health-care program. Regular everyday people showed up and began to speak out against these policies. Then the 'Tea Party' movement was born, taking its name from the famous 'Boston Tea Party' protest action during the run-up to the Revolutionary War. This all culminated with the massive rally on September 12th, 2009 in Washington, D.C. Popular radio and television commentator Glenn Beck, among others, devotes a great deal of time and effort to spreading the message.

The term '912' or '9/12 mindset' comes from the idea that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks against our nation by islamofascist terrorists on September 11th, 2001 (9/11) the entirety of the population was together. We all were wounded, outraged, mourned, grieved. We all demanded and sought retribution and we all clearly saw the enemy and the dangers which they posed beginning on 9/12, the day after the attacks.

Since the first months after the attacks, however, the continued passing of time has seen many Americans drift away into a state of passiveness and apparent forgetfulness. They seem to lack the knowledge that the enemies who attacked us then continue to look for further opportunities to attack us now, and on a grander scale.

There also are some Americans who have intentionally moved past that post-attack period and are happy that many others have forgotten. These are actual Americans who believe that we simply got what we had coming to us on that fateful day in September 2001. They want a version of what the terrorists want, a complete change in American ideals and culture.

Only these Americans want the opposite direction of change. Whereas the islamofascists want America to become an islamic theocracy with the Koran as the basis of its laws and the ruling clerics as the interpreters of social and cultural doctrine, these liberals want an open, anything goes society. They want to force their version of equality and collective group-think, based on what the government believes is best for everyone. Both ways directly attack the very ideals that America was founded upon.

The organizers of 'The 912 Project' tapped into that feeling from the day after the 9/11 attacks, that remembrance that we are all one nation, that our freedom is unique and vital, and that the ideals which the Founding Fathers of our nation established are worth both fighting and dying for.

The project bases it's organization on 9 principles and 12 values upon which it hopes to begin the process of refounding traditional America. The 12 values are: honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard work, courage, personal responsibility, and gratitude. Pretty radical stuff, huh?

The 9 principles are even more radical, depending on whether you share the Obama-led view that government is the boss, knows best, has all the answers, is unaccountable, and that you should just shut up if you disagree. These 9 principles are:

1) America is good
2) I believe in God and He is the center of my life
3) I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday
4) The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5) If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6) I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7) I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8) It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion
9) The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

While admitting that I agree with the vast majority of these principles and values, I have not always lived up to some of them. That is going to change. I am looking forward to dedicating myself completely to these basic foundational ideals in my life, and a fight to return them to their rightful place at the center of American culture, society, and law.

If you share the belief that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, that God has blessed America, and that we are supposed to be a nation of the people, for the people, and by the people then you need to look into 'The 912 Project' more deeply and consider dedication yourself in some way.

NOTE: As always, the title of this entry is a link to further information on the subject, in this instance taking you directly to 'The 912 Project' website.

Islamism Series: Call a Spade a Spade

The man shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he pulled out the FN Herstal tactical pistol which he had purchased back in the summer from a gun store in Texas. He then proceeded to methodically assassinate 13 Americans and injure dozens more in what has been described as everything from a 'crazed attack' to a 'shooting rampage'.

In fact, last week's attacks at the Fort Hood Army base have been called everything but what they were: a terrorist attack by a radical Islamist, the first on U.S. soil since 9/11/2001.

39-year old Nidal Malik Hasan is a psychiatrist by trade, a trade which he learned as an enlisted man in the United States Army. How could an American soldier shoot fellow soldiers and others? Was he simply mad? The obvious answer to anyone looking with clear vision is that Hasan was not mad, at least not clinically insane. What Hasan was and continues to be is an Islamist terrorist.

While performing his residency requirements at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Hasan made a presentation to colleagues on the proper role of Muslims in the American military. In this presentation, Hasan stated that "fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam."He further advocated the military releasing Muslims from their obligations to decrease "adverse events" and increase morale.

According to a cousin, Hasan was a practicing Muslim who became more devout following the death of his parents separately in 1998 and 2001. His family also said that he turned against the wars after hearing stories from troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2001, Hasan attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. The religious leader or 'imam' of the mosque at that time was Anwar al-Awlaki, and Hasan had deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings. This is notable because also attending the same mosque at the same time were both Hani Hanjour and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who was convicted for his role in an assassination plot against President Bush.

In the aftermath of the Fort Hood terror attack, al-Awlaki, who had conveniently fled to Yemen following the 9/11 attacks, praised Hasan for his actions in murdering the soldiers and for the overall shooting event. He also called on other Muslims to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal" if they were serving in the American military.

Hasan was said by fellow soldiers to have been constantly proselytizing about his faith with fellow doctors, patients, and soldiers. In the months prior to his attack, Hasan had come under investigation by federal authorities for internet postings that said suicide bombers were sacrificing their lives for a noble cause, among other messages.

Hasan was known to have made attempts at contacting al Qaeda directly, and had continued to exchange emails with al-Awlaki, especially seeking guidance as it became clear that Hasan was going to be deployed to the Middle East where he might have to directly fight against Muslims. On the day of the attack, Hasan handed out copies of the Quran, Islam's holy book, and was said to be in a peaceful state, often the description when a suicide bomber has resigned themselves to their fate.

Now comes word today that the Obama administration is going to take Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the acknowledged mastermind of those 9/11 terrorist attacks, to trial for those attacks in a civilian court. Not handle him as a war criminal, but in the same manner as a common criminal would be handled. This is the pre-9/11 mentality, handle terrorism against the United States as a law enforcement matter rather than as a matter of national security.

Terrorism analyst Neil Livingstone has made an incredibly chilling and proper analogy. Trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Islamist terrorists is akin to going back to World War II times and taking the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor to civilian courts rather than handling them as war criminals. Livingstone is, of course, exactly right.

This is just another in a long series of missteps by the Obama administration since taking office earlier in the year. The administration seems to be all about political correctness. The President has shown from the beginning, particularly in his hasty order to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, that he refuses to take responsibility for keeping America safe.

How many more Hasan's are 'sleeper' terrorists serving in the American military, or working in American businesses, or studying in American schools just waiting for either the orders, or the encouragement, or the inspiration, or the resources, or just for simply their own 'right moment' to pull the plug on their 'legitimate' American cover and take their own action in furtherance of the jihad to bring about Islamic rule under Sharia law here and elsewhere around the world?

To call Nidal Malik Hasan an "Army psychiatrist" or a "crazed gunman" is to tell the smallest portion of the truth of what he is in reality. To call Khalid Sheik Mohammed a murder conspirator is to tell the smallest portion of the truth. The truth is that both men are Islamist terrorists, and the time is long since past to both call a spade a spade, and to treat them accordingly.

NOTE: This is a continuation of the 'Islamism Series', an ongoing series relating to the issues of radical Islam in general and its presence here in America in particular. All entries in the series can be read by clicking on to the below 'Label'

Where Were You?

I've already heard it asked in my office, on the radio, and in a couple of other venues this morning: Where were you when you first heard about the attacks on 9/11? The answers have been numerous, from people sitting in their cars in traffic, to folks working as police officers here in Philly, to folks who had the day off and were watching it all on television.

Being a police officer who has worked the 'Last Out' shift for a few years, meaning that I worked a steady shift of overnight hours from approximately 11pm until 7am, I have often speculated that there must have been at least some officers of the NYPD who worked overnight and had just gotten home and in bed by 8am or so on the morning of September 11th, 2001. I was usually in bed by that time after working that shift myself.

I can imagine such an officer sleeping away their day, perhaps with their cellphone off or on 'silent' and with their home phone ring turned off. Again, this was my habit after working overnight. The last thing that I wanted to have happen was for anyone to wake me up for anything, let alone for some random call from work to reach me. Who could ever imagine receiving the call that those officers may have missed and later found on their answering machines?

Imagine those officers working all night, getting home on a typical Tuesday morning, and then waking up at around 3pm before finally hearing from some source: a phone message, the news on television or radio, some friend or neighbor in person telling them what had happened. Of course your first call is going to be in to your work place, and then begins the likely process of getting ready to head in to work, possibly having to make some special travel arrangements to get there.

All of that is speculative, but it takes no stretch of the imagination to consider that there were probably hundreds of such officers in New York city on that fateful day. Where was I that morning? I would imagine it's pretty typical, and typically uninteresting. I was assigned as a Detective with the Northeast Detective Division of the Philadelphia Police Department at the time, but was on a scheduled day off.

At about 7:15am I had left our home in the Somerton section of Philadelphia to drive our daughter Melissa to school. She had just begun her sophomore year at Archbishop Ryan High School in the Far Northeast section of the city, and it took me about 35 minutes to get her over to the building and out of the car, and drive back to our house.

I had been logged on to my home PC before we left, checking my email while waiting for Melissa to finish getting herself ready, and was listening to Philly's local "smooth jazz" radio station. It was such a beautiful morning when we left, and the mood with the jazz music was so mellow, that I left it playing so that I could return to this same atmosphere.

I got back and things were just as I had hoped. The day was still blossoming in gorgeous style with mellow temperatures and a high, clear blue sky. The jazz music was keeping that atmosphere just as mellow inside my house, and I sat back down to the computer. Many mornings would find me turning on and following Fox News, but this morning the music was so perfect for the day that I just left it play and kept out the news of the world.

At about 9am, my home phone rang, and it was my wife Debbie calling. She had a bit of an excited tone to her voice as she quickly asked "Are you watching TV?" I told her that I wasn't, and she replied "Well turn it on, they just bombed our embassy!" I told her okay, and we quickly hung up the phone. But I didn't turn on the TV right away. She called back a couple minutes later and said "Do you have the TV on?" When I told her that I hadn't turned it on yet, she more insistently told me "Turn it on!"

So I grabbed the remote and clicked on the television, wondering what could be upsetting her so much about one of our embassies being bombed. Not that it wouldn't be a big story, but I just didn't understand why she would be calling from her work about it. As the screen came in to view there on Fox was a picture of the first Twin Tower in the minutes after it had been struck. I told her "That's not an embassy, it's the Twin Towers, and a plane hit it" She just told me to keep it on, that they were talking about a possible terrorist attack, and we again hung up.

As I sat back and watched those early confusing moments, something almost unreal happened on the screen. While they were talking about a plane hitting the tower, and speculating on the nature of that crash, suddenly there was another jet coming in to view in the picture. In the split second that it took for the mind to go from "What the heck is a plane doing flying that low when one already hit the tower" to "Oh my God!" the second plane struck the second Twin Tower.

At that immediate instant it became clear that this was no accident. There was no doubt that this was an attack. Now the question was, what next? I clearly remember stopping right there and saying a prayer.

The rest of my day was filled with following the developments on Fox News and the other news channels. My wife was let out early from her work, and on her way home she picked up our daughter from school. I found that my other two older daughters were safe, and closely followed things to see if Philadelphia would ever become involved or our officers mobilized. Neither ever happened.

That is forever how I will remember that day, that moment. The incredible peace and tranquility of that morning suddenly ended by the phone call, and then that incredible moment on television of the second plane as it hit the World Trade Center. Eight years later it still is as clear a memory as the sky was on that Tuesday morning. I imagine that it will forever remain that crystal clear, and I hope and pray that there is never another day like it, or worse, in our nations future.

9/11

"The British are Coming!" "Remember the Alamo!" "A Date Which Will Live in Infamy" "9/11"

All of these phrases are now burned by history into the collective American consciousness, automatically bringing us back to times when our nation was under attack right here on our own soil. However, the first three are actually a bit misleading in that regard. Neither the British attacks in the Revolutionary War, the Mexican attack in Texas, or the Japanese attack in Hawaii happened in an official state of the Union.

In the first, the United States was not a fully formed, world recognized, independent nation, but instead was fighting for some type of independence from the British empire. It shouted a warning among the American colonists that British troops were approaching, and is usually specifically related to the midnight ride of Paul Revere. It also hearkens us back to a time when British 'red coats' were firing on Americans, burning homes and businesses, and marching across the land that we now know as the United States of America.

The battle at the Alamo mission also was not fought on what was then technically United States soil, but was fought between the Republics of Mexico and Texas in the aftermath of the Mexican revolution. It was a decade before Texas would officially become a U.S. state. The Texian forces fighting for their independence from the Mexican government where vastly outnumbered, yet fought off the Mexican troops valiantly before finally being overrun and massacred. The incident rallied Texians to eventual victory, and ultimately to statehood.

Again, the Japanese sneak attack in Hawaii did not technically take place on an official state in the Union. On December 7th, 1941, Hawaii was an annexed American territory and the site of an extremely strategic naval base located at Pearl Harbor. When the Japanese bombs and kamakazi pilots virtually wiped out the American Pacific Naval fleet that morning, it not only sparked our entry into World War II, but also showed the importance of Hawaii to our interests, resulting in full statehood by 1959.

Most people alive today know full well of the events of 9/11 as they relate to more attacks on American soil, attacks this time on an official state (New York) as well as on the seat of our government (Washington, D.C.), along with a thwarted attack that ended in the loss of American lives in Pennsylvania.

Here in Philadelphia and along much of the American east coast, today is a dark, gloomy day on which the rain pours from the skies. I will refrain from talk of it being tears for the lives of the nearly 3,000 victims lost that day. The only reason that I point out the bleak weather conditions today is to relate how stark the contrast it is with that absolutely gorgeous late summer morning, now eight years ago.

America awoke and began it's commute to work on that Tuesday morning with little thought of the radical Islamic assault that was fully planned and already operational. Despite repeated threats and actual attacks leading up to that day, most Americans had their heads in the sand regarding men such as Osama bin Laden and groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. We were virtually untouchable and absolutely indestructible as a nation. All that went away in just a couple of hours.

Despite the magnitude and suddeness of those attacks, the loss of all of those lives, the televised attacks on and collapse of the iconic Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, a jet airplane ramming through the core of our national defense at the Pentegon, the grounding of American air traffic for almost a week, and the subsequent wars fought in Iraq and Afghanistan we seem to have learned little.

The radical Islamists who attacked us that morning were not representatives of any particular nation. We were not attacked that morning and at other times by Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Iran, or Libya, or Egypt, or any single Middle Eastern or Arabic nation or group of nations. We were attacked by radical groups operating within those nations who are inspired by the Koran and their faith to conquer the world on behalf of Islam.

In past wars and battles, whether fought to form the United States as with Britain, to expand the United States as with Mexico, or to defend the United States as with Japan the enemy was usually an easy to define nation-state. It had borders, populations, armies, resources, and allies that were usually easily definable. To win, you had to defeat the other guys in head-to-head physical combat. There was a measure of ideology that needed to be defeated as well, but ultimately if you won the physical battles and suppressed the enemy troops and their leaders, you were the clear winner.

I put it to you that it is no different now. We still need to win that physical battle. But as with those past conflicts, this is also a war of ideologies, and we must also win on that front to ever have a long-lasting peace. This war must be fought and won on two fronts, both of which we must be willing to support and sustain if we want to win.

On one hand we must support and sustain the ideological war that is raging within Islam itself. There are moderate forces within that religion, the 2nd largest on the planet with an influence over approximately 1.5 billion people, or almost 1 in every 5 people on the planet. The radical forces calling for that religion to control the world not only religiously, but also sociologically, financially, politically is growing. We must support in every way the forces within Islam that want to maintain it as a part of the whole where the world is concerned, not as a world domination ideology.

On the other hand, we must be willing to back that financial and rhetorical support up with our armed forces. The radical Islamist groups are heavily armed, well equipped, and train regularly. And their numbers and influence are growing, as is their technology. It is just a matter of time before nuclear weapons are in the hands of radical Islamic terrorist regimes. Once that happens, these groups will use these weapons to further their agenda in Israel, Europe, and here in America. Until such elements are effectively wiped out, we are going to have physical battles to fight.

There will be a number of remembrances across the country and around the world today on the 8th anniversary of those radical Islamic attacks on September 11th, 2001. There will be a few television programs this evening that will recall the events of that day. If you have not yet seen them, I can highly recommend four different films that you need to watch.

"9/11" was perhaps the best documentary on the day of the attacks, and is available by clicking on to the title of this article through Amazon. This and "United 93" are probably the two best films ever made to this point. "World Trade Center" is also a well made dramatic depiction of the New York attacks. Finally, the documentary film "Obsession" tells the full story of the radical Islamic problem across the world today.

9/11 was not the beginning of this world-wide ideological struggle, and we will not likely see the end any time soon, if ever. There will be further dates to remember, catch-phrases to live in infamy. Today we should remember those who lost their lives that day, as well as those who fought and continue to fight for victory in the continuing ideological struggle against the forces of radical Islam. Those forces are still out there, still bent on that same world domination, and the United States of America continues to stand as the best defense against their aggression.

A Heart That Plots Wicked Schemes

On this Sunday morning we continue the discussion of Proverbs 6:16-19 in the Bible which lists those things which the Lord hates. The fourth item in the list journeys deep into our hearts. Not our physical hearts, but those things which can be found at our very inner core - for each of us, the heart of the matter in all things that we consider in our lives. Those whom the Lord hates in this item are plotters and schemers of sin. Those who plan to do someone else ill. Those who plan to take what is not theirs. Those who intentionally and with malice aforethought actually take the time to sit down and think about their sin and how to make it happen. The man who sees a way to deceive his business partners of money, and then goes about the planning and execution of his embezzelment. A woman who feels the desire and sees an opportunity to steal the body and possibly even the heart of a man who is already married to another, and then begins to lay the bait for her seduction. The first human schemes occurred way back in the beginning of man himself. Eve used her seductiveness to get Adam to take a bite of the apple, the very act of defiance of God's will that drove man from paradise. She knew they were different, man and woman, for God had made them that way on purpose in order that they might procreate and populate the earth. Eve had been led into this plot by the whisperings of the great deceiver Satan, who had lied and manipulated her as only he can to pull man away from God. Eve knew that her feminine charms would be enough to coax Adam into the bite, and went about the task of using them for that very purpose. Soon after man was driven from the Garden of Eden for this defiance came the second human plot. Adam and Eve began to populate the earth when they gave birth to a pair of sons, first Cain and then Abel. Jealous of what he perceived to be favored attention towards his brother, Cain plotted in his heart against Abel saying to him: "Let's go out to the field", where Cain subsequently killed his own brother. It is the wickedness of sin that keeps man apart from God. What God is revealing to us in this fourth of the things He hates is the fact that while the commission of sin is bad enough, the person who thinks over a sin and then devises the means to make it happen is committing a separate, particularly evil act. Think of Mohamed Atta and the other terrorists who sat down together and devised the intricate plan to first hijack and then fly airliners into American buildings on September 11th, 2001. Think of O.J. Simpson gathering a face mask, leather gloves, and a large knife before driving to his estranged wife's home to murder her. Think of men like Andrew Fastow, Jeffrey Skilling and others involved in the Enron scheme to hoodwink the entire financial services industry during the 1990's. Think of any married man or woman who becomes sexually attracted to someone in their workplace or their neighborhood, and then begins to formulate a plan to begin a relationship with that person. Or a single person who does the same with another who is married. Think of the woman who learns that she is pregnant, and goes to the phone book to find an abortion clinic. Think simply of someone who, no matter the circumstances, allows a wedge to be driven in the relationship with their parents, and then intentionally perpetuates that heart-hardening. "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not commit adultery", "Honor your father and mother" are all commandments given to man by God Himself. All are involved in the sins just mentioned. All involved some amount of plotting, planning, and scheming in order to make them happen. We have all done things like this during the course of our lives. Some who are reading this are taking actions such as this right at this very moment. You are continuing estrangement from your family. You are having an adulterous affair. You are taking things that do not belong to you. We are sinning in a way that God tells us is particularly hurtful to Him when we allow our hearts to be filled with such wicked plots. If you find that you are involved in any actions such as these, you need to put an end to your involvement in them immediately. If not, you just may find that your continued insistence on doing these things which God hates will end in a much worse way than you could ever imagine, either in this life or the next.
NOTE: This is the continuation of the regular 'Sunday Sermon' feature, each entry of which can be viewed by clicking in to that below label.

2008 American of the Year: George W. Bush

George W. Bush is winding down the final three weeks of an eventful eight year Presidency. For the past seven of those years, the President has been under as heavy a burden as any American President before him. There have been many of his predecessors who have had to guide the nation in a time of war. Some notables include Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman during World War II, and Ronald Reagan in the 'Cold War', or World War III. Lincoln, Truman, and Reagan each had the faith, the strength, the moral courage, and the personal timing to bring these struggles to a successful close for the nation. Roosevelt, alas, did not live to see the fruits of his difficult labor, but his vision and courage, his willingness to stand up to the evils of Nazism and totalitarianism were vital to our American future, indeed the entire free world's future. Much the same can be said of President George W. Bush these past seven years. As we all know, on September 11th, 2001, just over eight months into his first term, the United States suffered a major attack on our continental soil by the foreign power of Islamism. The forces of Islamofascist terror had been at war with America and the western world for at least a decade to that point. They declared it against us, and they had previously taken action with attacks against our interests both abroad (Kenya, Tanzania, Lebanon) and here at home (the first WTC attack.) Still, while we knew they meant us harm, few understood the imminent danger in their ability to actually reach out and destroy serious targets on America's shores. That reality was slapped home on 9/11 when a pair of airliners flew into the Twin Towers and resulted in their destruction, and another flew into the Pentagon doing serious damage to our main national defense headquarters. A third airliner had been thwarted from doing even further damage thanks to the bravery of the passengers, who had learned of the earlier attacks. In the end, approximately 3,000 Americans and foreigners lost their lives as a result of the attacks. The Bush administration plans for the future, both in domestic policy and foreign affairs, was forever altered. The fact of the matter is that the primary responsibility of the President of the United States, of our national government in fact, is to preserve, protect, and defend the union. In his seven years in office following those attacks, the President has taken us on the offensive against the Islamofascists, and has thus averted any further attacks on us by an enemy sworn to inflict even further damage. In the aftermath he established what has become known as the 'Bush Doctrine', which is basically the combination of ideas stating that there is no 'moral relativism'. We are good, they are evil, and that is a fact beyond dispute. Further that the United States will go on the offensive in wiping out these organizations, and will also deal with nations who support them in an aggressive manner. And in doing so we will not only be reactive, doing something only after we are attacked, but will also be preemptive in hitting those who clearly state their intention to harm us. The President responded to 9/11 by sending our troops into Afghanistan to wipe out the Taliban regime that was both terrorizing its fellow Afghanis, and which also was harboring the terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda, who had attacked us on 9/11. He followed that up by sending them into Iraq to rout Sadaam Hussein and his Baathist government, and to help Iraqis install a democratic government that would serve as both a launching pad and a beacon of hope for the entire region. All the while, our troops military actions in the Middle East would attract the attention of the Islamists, diverting them from America's own shores. Despite the ups and down of every major military struggle in history, the strategy has worked remarkably well. The seeds of freedom have been planted in a region of the world where they had not existed for centuries, and where it appeared just a few years ago that they would never take root. Perhaps most importantly, the President has clearly done his job of protecting the United States, as we have not been successfully attacked on his watch again since 9/11. From Afghanistan to Iraq, from Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, the President and his team have been proven out to be consistently correct in their efforts to keep us safe. As he leaves office, he can also hang his hat on a pair of tremendous achievements: keeping taxes low and appointing constitutional SCOTUS judges. The current financial meltdown is a problem largely outside of the President's scope to control, the mistakes that led to it largely having begun in the Clinton administration anyway. But keeping taxes low has allowed the crisis from being even worse. And in his appointments of both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the President has hit a pair of homeruns that will benefit our nation long after he leaves office next month. It is true that he needed direction in the Alito appointment after initially wanting his friend, Harriet Myers, for the position. But he showed great leadership in his willingness to listen and in his ability to admit when he was wrong, and he ultimately made the correct decision and nomination. There were outstanding candidates this past year aside from the President, most notably the Republican VP nominee and Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who was the runner-up. It is very difficult to justify someone like President-elect Barrack Obama, whose only real action this year was in running for an office. Perhaps one of these individuals will be honored here in the future based on their actions, rather than for a political campaign. But in this past year, no one in the country had a more difficult job than President Bush, and he came through with flying colors. Despite an intensely negative media portrayal and the utter disrespect of the Democrats over almost the entirety of his terms in office that resulted in his low approval ratings, the President has kept his head high and his country safe. The day that he leaves office next month, the nation will likely become a far less safe place, and that will likely only deteriorate over the ensuing months and years. In the long term, it says here that Bush will be viewed in a positive light, and will be proven even more right in his positions. For his leadership, for his continuing to fight for the nation despite the ravenous attacks of his enemies, for the continuing example of his public faith in God, and for keeping America safe, the website is proud to honor President George W. Bush as the 5th annual 'American of the Year', following in the footsteps of previous honorees Pat Tillman (2004), Bill O'Reilly (2005), Rev. Billy Graham (2006), and P/O Chuck Cassidy (2007).

Islamism Series: The Mujahideen and the Taliban

One of the most difficult hurdles for someone to overcome in understanding the meaning behind the many stories that they hear bandied about the airwaves and internet is basic definitions: who are we talking about, what exactly are they doing, why are they doing it, and how does it affect me? The stories, people, cultures, and issues are usually not easily definable in the few short sentences or paragraphs that a blog or column allows in order to really educate someone. When discussing the issues of radical Islam here, I usually try to be as simplistic as possible, because that is all that space allows, and it is enough to paint a picture that gives someone a basic education on the issue. Anyone who has paid attention to the news over the past decade or more has heard of both the terms 'mujahideen' and 'taliban', but few know who or what these terms represent. The most that many know is that they might have something to do with Afghanistan, and something to do with the war. Let's try to give you a basic primer. First, in our modern terminology a 'mujahideen' is generally one who struggles as a fighter for a radical Islamic cause and is inspired by religion and idealogy. Picture yourself in the Afghanistan of the late 1970's. The government of your country is aligned with the Soviet Union, and you don't like that, so you join a group which actively fights your own government to free itself from that influence. Your government asks the Soviets to come in and directly join the fight against your group, which is joined by other anti-Soviet and anti-government groups in this struggle, which you perceive to be largely about defending your Muslim faith. These groups joined in this struggle are the beginning of what we know today as the 'Mujahideen' forces. They fight in and around Afghanistan throughout the 1980's against the Soviet troops and their influence. You are largely supported with funds and weapons from the outside by forces that wish to see the Soviets fail, including the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, and even Iran. Finally in the late '80's, the Soviets pull their troops out, and you are seen in your country as victorious defenders and heroes. Ronald Reagan himself calls you "freedom fighters", and you are portrayed positively in a number of western films. A key leader in those battles was a Saudi national named Osama bin Laden, who not only used his vast monetary fortune to help support the war effort, but also personally fought himself. In the aftermath of the Soviet pullout, various mujahideen groups fight one another for control in a devastating civil war that lasted for years. In an attempt to bring some order, a new group known as 'The Taliban', literally meaning 'students', was formed from among some of the students from the most restrictive Muslims schools. They wrestled control at the capital of Kabul around 1996, and then ruled over Afghanistan through 2001. During their rule they instituted the most strict and severe form of Sharia (Islamic law), including the mistreatment of women, that the Muslim world had ever seen. The Taliban had a very strict interpretation of Islam, and refused to allow other strains of the faith to gain a voice. They began an attempt to spread their views and their power into neighboring Pakistan as well. Mullah Mohammed Omar (pictured above) was considered the Taliban leader during this time, and he went into hiding at the start of the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan, when the United States and others went into the country to begin addressing radical Islam by driving out the Taliban. After gaining control of the country, the U.S. and NATO powers began to assemble and help support a new, democratic Afghani government. Omar continues in hiding as a wanted man for supporting and hiding Osama bin Laden, who had gone on from his heroic mujahideen days to become the leader of a world-wide Islamic terrorist organization known as al Qaeda, which perpetrated those 9/11 attacks. After being driven from Afghanistan, The Taliban eventually gathered its remaining forces and adherents in the tribal areas of Pakistan and began to reconstitute itself, and now has begun fighting back in an attempt to overthrow the U.S.-backed Afghani government and regain control. The bottom line: the Mujahideen who fought the Soviets and the Taliban who fought America are both radical Islamic groups wishing to gain territorial and political power to back and strengthen their radical religious beliefs. These are exactly the types of groups, and both Mohammed Omar and Osama bin Laden the kinds of people, the we desperately need to eliminate in order to crush the oppression of Islamism and help the freedoms of democracy spread throughout the world.

Incredible 9/11 Video

I was going to write today on the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, but there is just so much information out there, and so many perspectives that have already been shared, that it was difficult to decide from what angle I wanted to approach it this time. Then I came across a video at the National Terror Alert website, and I knew that the best thing to do would be to simply share that video. It was shot as a home video by a couple living in an apartment building just 500 yards from the North Tower of the World Trade Center, with a remarkable view and incredible real-time commentary from the couple as they viewed things happening live that tragic, unforgettable morning.

View the video here: 9/11 VIDEO and never forget!

A Better Country

In September of 2002, with the first anniversary remembrances of the 9/11 attacks taking place across the country, and with America obviously preparing to go to war to thwart another such attack, Arthur Borden began to notice some disturbing reactions coming from his Democratic Party, even among his own friends and colleagues. These reactions and the totality of the circumstances involving 9/11 and it's various related issues led Borden to study the issues more closely and led him to realize that he was now living "..in an America which is not the country where I went to college, served in a good war, and enrolled in law school.." The result of his studies is the book "A Better Country: Why America Was Right to Confront Iraq" released this year as a soft cover by Hamilton Books. In it's short number of pages (67 plus a handful of indices), Borden makes a compelling argument that not only was President George W. Bush right in going into Iraq and deposing it's despotic leader Saddam Hussein, but that this move was vital. He also makes the case for remaining in the country, and possibly for the need to extend the conflict into Iran in the near future. From the free flow of the oil that is vital to our national and the world economy, to a geo-political presence vital to securing peace and democracy, Borden moves through the many varied and important issues over the last few decades that led to the Iraqi campaign and the larger War on Islamofascism. Borden presents that both of the Bush administrations and the Clinton administration recognized the threat of the Hussein regime. These administrations recognized that it was reasonable to confront the Iraqi regime based on the longstanding and widely-supported 'Carter Doctrine' which recognized the vital interest regarding the free flow of oil from the Middle East. He goes on to present that a combination of intentionally biased liberal media attention, a near traitorous attitude by many Democratic Party politicians, and even the faux pas committed by the current 'W' administration led eventually to the public turning on this necessary war effort. His chapters on "The Missing WMD" and the Joe Wilson-Scooter Libby issue of the "Aluminum Tubes and Yellow Cake" are particularly insightful, revealing, and well researched. What Arthur Borden does with "A Better Country" is present a better narrative for this necessary effort in Iraq. The book is a short and easy read, but also a detailed and educational must-read for anyone interested in exploring the issues behind the necessary sacrifices being made by America's troops in Iraq over these last few years. As always, the title of this posting is a link, this time to the 'Amazon' listing where you can purchase the book.