AID TO HAITI IS AID TO AL QAEDA : DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES

DICK CHENEY SPEAKS OUT FOR AMERICA

By : Mr. Richard B. Cheney, Former Vice President of the United States of America (2001-2009); Chairman of the Board of Directors, Halliburton Co. (1993-2000); Secretary of Defense Under President George H.W. Bush (1989-1993); Energy Expert; Security Expert; Last Published Gross Income (2001): $36,100,000.

Two days ago, President Barack Hussien Obama pledged a fortune in U.S. aid to Haiti. He said that America "has not forsaken you" and that "the entire world stands with you in your hour of need." Even now, President Obama is earmarking huge shipments of American food and medicine to Haiti. He even sent 5,700 American soldiers and physicians to aid "relief efforts."

President Obama is treading dangerously close to treason. In a word, America must provide no aid to Haiti, because Haiti is a Caribbean al Qaeda stronghold. Al Qaeda caused this earthquake, not Mother Nature. America must not support countries that support terror, especially countries that commit geological genocide on their own people. Put simply, President Obama is to blame for failing to spot this disaster before it struck; intelligence sources clearly indicated that al Qaeda was planning a seismological attack. Now he seeks to deflect the blame by playing the "humanitarian."

In 2003, I said: "We know to a certainty that terrorists are doing everything they can to gain even deadlier means of striking us." See N.Y. Times, Cheney Defends Administration's Handling of Iraq, Oct. 10, 2003. As the case in Haiti shows, the terrorists recently learned how to cause earthquakes using sophisticated fault manipulation techniques. CIA reports indicate that Haitian al Qaeda cells obtained quake-inducing equipment from Osama bin Laden's deputy chief--Yasim bin al-Faqda--in December 2009. They then traveled to a remote site south of Port-au-Prince where they triggered the massive quake that left 100,000 dead.

It is unfortunate that so many people died. But we can take solace in the fact that Haitians are al Qaeda supporters who hate America. For that reason, we cannot send aid to our enemies. We are in a War; our enemies are prepared to harness geological power to kill us, just as I warned in 2003. How can we win this War if we try to save our enemies? For every Haitian we pull from twisted wreckage, we save a future underwear bomber. Every time we save an injured Haitian mother with free medical care, we allow her to bear yet another al Qaeda murderer in the future.

No matter what the networks say, this is no "humanitarian disaster." This is terrorism; and America must not support it. When terrorists die, no American should shed a tear--let alone send donations.

President Obama cannot handle the War on Terror. In just three months, President Obama has failed to act on credible intelligence that could have averted three major terror strikes. First, he failed to stop al Qaeda's Fort Hood shooter from killing soldiers in Texas. Second, he failed to prevent Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding plane in Holland with a bomb in his underwear. And last, he ignored clear warnings that al Qaeda possessed seismological terror weapons in Haiti.

Mr. President, when will you wake up? The American people refuse to live in fear. But they cannot live peacefully without protection from the Federal government. If President Obama continues to allow terrorists to strike freely, our entire country will collapse. Worse, President Obama perpetrates deliberate fraud on the American people by claiming that the attack in Haiti was actually a "natural disaster." Adding insult to injury, he now sends American treasure to the very people who mean to kill us.

Leaving terror to one side, America has no duty to help other countries in need. Even if Haiti were not a hornet's nest of anti-American Muslim extremism, America has no business solving other countries' problems. We do not provide free medical care to our own people. We expect self-reliance from them. Yet the moment some "disaster" strikes abroad, we immediately send elite American doctors and expensive pharmaceutical products to foreigners for free. I'm sure many Americans would like the same treatment that impoverished Sudanese and Haitians receive for nothing.

This is a national disgrace; it must stop. Health care is expensive enough for Americans. We can neither allow nor afford to waste resources on Caribbean geological thugs.

Furthermore, we cannot allow ourselves to pity people who could have protected themselves. Every human being has a duty to look out for his own safety. If people suffer injury because they put themselves in harm's way, they do not deserve sympathy. And they certainly do not deserve handouts.

Haitians should have known that they lived on a major fault line. They should have heeded warnings that al Qaeda was planning to cause an earthquake along that fault line. They should have purchased airline tickets to safely carry them from the danger zone. In short, they should have minded their own safety. Yet millions stayed put. Just as New Orleans residents had a chance to flee imminent danger before Hurricane Katrina struck, so too did the Haitians have a chance to leave Haiti before al Qaeda triggered the earthquake. The fact that they suffered reflects their own negligence and stupidity, not "random misfortune." In that light, it makes no sense to pity Haitians--or send them money--for deliberately ignoring clear warnings. We do not pity people who lay on railroad tracks, then complain that a train cut off their legs. They could have just gotten off the tracks.

In sum, we cannot tolerate aid to Haiti. Aid to Haiti rewards irresponsibility and supports al Qaeda. Aid to Haiti sends a message to our enemies that we not only tolerate their attacks, but also that we will even give them free money when they strike. At this dangerous moment, we cannot allow pity to blind us to the fact that al Qaeda is stronger than ever. The attack on Haiti was merely a test; if we let down our guard now, San Francisco might be the next city to crumble.

President Obama has betrayed the American people. He not only ignored intelligence that could have prevented three terror strikes, but now he even aids an entire Nation of terrorists by cynically labeling the effort "humanitarian support." This is not what a Commander-in-Chief does in wartime. A Commander-in-Chief punishes enemies; he does not feed them or give them free American medicine. At a time when millions of Americans desperately need health care, President Obama should be ashamed for wasting American medical expertise on terrorists.

We should not waste our time or our money saving Jihadists in Haiti. Rather, we should be searching worldwide for al Qaeda's weapons of tectonic destruction. Who knows what fault lines they are now reconnoitering. Who knows what geological terror they are now plotting. As the Haiti attack shows, we are in very real seismological danger.

We must remember that the War on Terror is very real. We must not allow President Obama and his fawning networks to mislead us into thinking that the Haiti attack was a "natural disaster." This was no "natural event." This was deliberate mass murder.

I believe it my duty to tell the American people the truth. I am--and always will be--a public servant. When I perceive threats to the country I love, I disclose them to the extent permitted by applicable Homeland Security protocols. And when I see the President of the United States defrauding the Nation by masking support for terror as "humanitarian aid," I must speak.

Stop pitying Haiti. When terrorists die, America takes one step closer to victory in the War on Terror. Not only that, America has no duty to help impoverished Caribbean islands when they suffer difficulty. Americans make their own way; other countries should, too. We don't get free lunches; and we don't give them away, either.

Turn off that television set. Stop listening to Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and Obama's other propagandists. Do not allow them to trick you into thinking that injured Haitians are worth saving. They are not. And don't even feel bad about it. It's not your responsibility to help them, even if they weren't terrorists.

Instead, listen to me. I was Vice President for eight years. I was Secretary of Defense for four. I led one of the Nation's most successful private corporations. I listen to CIA briefings. I care about this Nation's safety more than anyone else here. I know what I'm talking about. And I am looking out for you.

Protect yourself and your family. Stop worrying about Haiti. They got what was coming to them for supporting al Qaeda.

Now we must focus on ourselves. We must find al Qaeda's earthquake machine before bin Laden uses it on American fault lines. And we have no time to waste.

BIAS AND PREJUDICE IN THE PRESS : NO STORY IS EVER SIMPLE

AN ESSAY

I read the New York Post for two main reasons. First and foremost, it makes me laugh. The headlines are just flat-out funny. Its staff writes in a nasty, even satirical style to mock celebrities and other visible, well-off folks (invisible tycoons are different story because they are not visible). It also covers local New York City stories quite well. In all these ways, the Post is "populist:" It provides a laugh while dispensing relatively accurate local news.

Still, I read the Post for a second reason: To understand my intellectual opponents. While the Post's generic local coverage is populist and funny, its editorial spirit is neither populist nor funny. In fact, it is terrifyingly biased. That's not to say that the Post is any more biased than another newspaper. Every newspaper has a distinct perspective. But the Post's perspective is extremely right-wing. Bill O'Reilly writes columns in the Opinion section. 'Nuff said.

I like getting my news from as many sources as possible. I understand that human sense does not permit me to directly perceive too much in the world. So I turn to second-hand reporting to fill in the gaps. And because second-hand reporting necessarily reflects the bias of those who perceive things, I expect bias when I read newspapers.

For me, reading the news is as much about learning competing arguments as it is about learning "facts." As a philosophical matter, I have difficulty even understanding what a "fact" is, especially when I have no first-hand knowledge about the matter in issue. News reporting purports to relay "just facts." But in reality, its "facts" reflect interpretation and bias as much as any objective "truth." In that light, I suspect every fact I read in a newspaper. The only things I can confidently learn are the newspaper's biases and arguments.

And what luscious biases I find in the Post. To be fair, all American newspapers espouse a particularly virulent bias against Islam. But the Post takes shortsighted prejudice to a fantastic extreme. For almost a decade now, Americans have wondered why "Muslim extremists" attacked the United States on 9/11. I have always known why: Because Western commercial values--which treasure earthly existence over all things--clash fundamentally with Muslim teachings--which eschew earthly success for spiritual success. The fact that Western powers have long encroached on Muslim territory for commercial gain brings this tension in values to confrontation. In essence, the struggle between the West and Islam is a struggle between competing views of human existence: One grossly secular; the other grossly religious. Both are anathema to one another. Misunderstanding and acrimony are inevitable.

But you won't find that analysis in any American newspaper. Rather, you'll find self-righteous odes to the American way over the Muslim way. It's a colossal exercise in "us vs. them." No newspaper makes an effort to see the debate from the Muslim perspective. Heavens no; that would be treasonous. Instead, American newspapers--especially the Post--fan resentment against the "mortal Muslim enemy" by exulting American values over Muslim ones. In the process, they cast difficult questions in a simplistic light, using prejudice and stereotypes distort reality.

Consider two recent Post articles that illustrate these tactics at work. In the first, the Post reports about a Muslim man who fled the FBI, leading agents on a 90 MPH chase through Queens that culminated in a crash and foot chase on the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge. See N.Y. Post, Bridge 'Terror' Thug's Allah Cry, Jan. 9, 2010 at 5. The article says that the man--Adis Medunjanin--was a "high school acquaintance" of Najibullah Zazi, the New York student arrested last year for hoarding drugstore hydrogen peroxide in an alleged effort to build a bomb. Id. The FBI staked out his home for months. Finally, Medunjanin just left the house and ran. According to the report, he "praised Allah" in Arabic shortly before striking a car on the bridge. The report also claims he said: "We love death more than you love life!" in Arabic. Id. Finally, it says that authorities first merely charged him with leaving the scene of an accident. Later, they added terror-related charges. Id.

It is not clear how anyone heard these statements. The article does not say how FBI agents could hear what Medunjanin was saying in the instant before he crashed his car. It is also not clear under what circumstances he said "we love death more than you love life."

What is the net effect here? In short, the report leads the uncritical reader to assume that Medunjanin is a terrorist because he "said things in Arabic" and because he praised Allah. These are gross stereotypes. After all, what does the neutral evidence show here? It shows that Medunjanin was a high school acquaintance of a terror suspect six years ago. There is no evidence that they interacted with each other since that time. The FBI surveilled Medunjanin for months. Presumably, they also wiretapped him. The article does not divulge what the FBI may have heard in those wiretaps. All we know is that Medunjanin fled and crashed his car after saying something in Arabic about Allah, life and death. Those details suffice to brand him a terrorist.

That is bias at its worst.

What about presuming people innocent in the United States? What about fairness? How can Medunjanin escape the stigma that will now follow him? I find all these things unfortunate. After all, we are talking about a criminal prosecution for terrorism. That carries severe penalties. Yet the Post here gave Medunjanin an unfair trial before he was even arraigned. In so doing, it revealed the pernicious American bias that pervades our media: It made him a terrorist because he spoke Arabic, had a Muslim name, mentioned Allah and knew a suspected terrorist six years ago.

But is this the only conclusion to draw from the evidence? Perhaps Medunjanin simply "lost it" after being surveilled without reason for so long. And how do we know what he said in the car before he crashed? What if he said something in English, rather than Arabic? Would that have made a difference? What if he had said: "Oh shit, I'm about to crash" in Arabic? Would that still make him a terrorist? Who knows. All I know is that no one ever reports on these difficult questions in the American press--and especially not the Post.

In the second article, the Post again espouses its virulent prejudice toward Muslims. See N.Y. Post, How Did 'Undy Bomber' Get a Visa? Jan. 9, 2010 at p. 19. Columnist Michelle Malkin takes the opportunity to both generalize about Muslims and castigate the Obama administration for not spotting Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab before his failed bomb attack on Christmas Day.

Malkin argues that U.S. consular officials should never issue "coveted entrance pass[es]" to "globe-trotting, Nigerian-born nomad[s]" who "buy tickets in cash" without "checking in much baggage." Id. Later, she adds that "unmarried, rootless Muslim male nomads" should never receive U.S. visas, either.

Leaving the practical problems associated with Malkin's consular formula to one side, I find it appalling that she recommends a Federal policy based on invidious religious and ethnic stereotypes. After all, Malkin says that "Muslim male nomads" should not be allowed into the United States. Neither should "Nigerian-born" nomads, or "rootless" people, or "globe-trotters," or "unmarried people" or "people who fly with little baggage." These are not workable standards. And they are certainly not standards to which the United States should subscribe, a country that has always prided itself on diversity and equality. It would be awkward at best for the U.S. State Department to advertise America's openness to the world by saying: "Come one, come all…unless you're Muslim, a nomad, unmarried or Nigerian-born."

Hell, I'm unmarried, I fly with little baggage and I sometimes globe-trot to Europe. I shouldn't get a visa, either. Imagine if I was Nigerian: I'd really be in trouble.

In short, Malkin wants prejudice on a governmental scale. Yet her anti-Muslim views find strong support in the Post. Although Malkin's position is extreme, her basic bias against Muslims finds constant expression throughout the American press. In that light, I wonder why the Arab world casts a suspicious eye on America? Could it be that its media routinely mocks them and judges them as terrorists before the fact? I wonder.

We will not solve the tensions between the Muslim world and the West until we stop viewing Muslims as one-dimensional villains. The problems between the Muslim world and the West are understandable. We must merely examine the sharp contrast between the two value systems to see why problems persist. Unfortunately, newspapers do not like talking about value systems. Newspapers do not analyze values; they simply voice them. But the confrontation between the West and the Muslim world will continue until the West tries to understand why its values contrast so strongly with Muslim values.

Sadly, I do not think that's going to happen any time soon. Stubborn self-righteousness inheres in Western thought. And I think the West would rather fight a permanent war against a religion-based civilization than deign to comprehend it.

UNDERPANTS ARE DANGEROUS AND MUST BE SEARCHED, NO MATTER THE COST

A CRITICAL MESSAGE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

By : Mr. B. Kyle Hosenfeld, Ph.D., Acting Commissioner for Airport Security, Department of Homeland Security (appointed by President George W. Bush, 2005-present); Former Chief Financial Advisor, Traxxx Garment Manufacturing Company, Inc., Toledo, Ohio (1990-2005); Lingerie Expert (since childhood); Ladies Hosiery Hobbyist (1976-present).

Terror does not take a Holiday. Terror does not distinguish between the old year and the new year. For terrorists, every day is another opportunity to kill Americans and disrupt American business. Here at the Department of Homeland Security, we know that.

That is why we never rest. We are committed to protecting the American people from Muslim fanatics, as well as any other fanatics who attempt to depress the stock market through violence. This holiday season, we saw that terrorists remain determined to strike America. Almost a decade after 9/11, a Nigerian Muslim named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow himself up on a packed airliner above Detroit. To accomplish his dastardly plan, he packed explosives into his underwear. Thankfully, they did not detonate; he succeeded only in setting his own pants on fire. The New York Post dubbed him "The Crotch Bomber." The Daily News called him "Fruit of the Loon."

We concur. But despite Abudulmutallab's failure, we understand that the American public remains concerned about terror. For that reason, we have instituted new airport security measures to assuage anxieties concerning hosiery-borne weapons of mass destruction. We believe that we can stop terror attacks before they happen. And that means searching every piece of underwear in the airports--and that means all of it, right down to the buttocks.

Searching underwear is the only way to verify whether an airline passenger is really a terrorist. In the past, we have seen that various garments can carry weapons. Learning from the past, we here at the Department instituted a new airport security principle: Target the offending garment. When Richard Reid tried to detonate a bomb in his shoe in 2001, we decided that all shoes are dangerous and must be searched. In the years since, Americans learned that they had to take off their shoes before boarding an airplane.

We should apply the same rule in this case. Here, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to detonate an explosive in his underwear. The "offending garment," then, is underwear. Just as we required all Americans to take off their shoes at airports because Richard Reid transformed shoes into an "offending garment" in 2001, so too must we require Americans to take off their underwear today. It is the only way to ensure maximum safety for all.

We do not believe that Americans will find it inconvenient to remove their underwear prior to boarding aircraft. In 2001, Americans understood that Richard Reid nearly blew up a plane with a shoe-bomb, so they willingly suffered some inconvenience by removing their own shoes in the years that followed. In 2010, Americans understand that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab nearly blew up a plane with an underwear-bomb, so they will not mind suffering some inconvenience by removing their underwear, too. When safety is at stake, Americans do their part. Underwear is no different than a shoe. When removing a garment is necessary to protect America from Islamic terror, we are confident that Americans will gladly--and publicly--take everything off.

We recognize that civil liberties advocates will object to our new underwear search protocol as excessive. They will say that requiring all Americans to remove their underwear will encroach upon their dignity. They will say that it will invade their privacy. They will even say that it will embarrass children and women, especially overweight ones.

We disagree with these contentions. For one, we point out that privacy must yield to national security concerns. We all like privacy. But when it comes to preventing terror, we all must be prepared to bare all for safety. If we are a little embarrassed about our bodies, we must learn to overcome our shyness, whip off our underwear and put it on the automated x-ray conveyor belt. Second, the United States Constitution does not guarantee "dignity." Even if stripping naked in public were somehow "undignified," we reject the assertion that an official, Federally-mandated underwear search violates "dignity." If nudity occurs pursuant to law, it is not undignified. More to the point, we are certain that every American would rather sacrifice their dignity by removing their underwear in front of leering, apathetic Transportation Safety Agents than be blown up in midair. Viewed in that light, we see absolutely no merit to the claim that mandatory underwear searches violate "privacy" or "dignity."

Mandatory underwear searches will do more than merely stop terror. They will also yield beneficial secondary effects. For example, many drug traffickers elude detection by packing narcotics in their underpants. By requiring everyone to remove their underwear, we would eliminate that subterfuge for good. Furthermore, mandatory underwear removal will enable Federal agents to identify dangerous, ugly, unpleasant and malodorous genitalia. Under applicable Federal statutes, such genitalia are "weapons of mass destruction" that subject the possessor to felony terrorism charges. Until now, it has been difficult to locate dangerous genitalia because they are generally camouflaged under trousers, skirts, underpants and stockings. But thanks to the new underwear removal procedures, we will be able to effectively enforce the law against recalcitrant genital terrorists.

In sum, we here at the Department are committed to protecting Americans, no matter the cost. We believe it is logical, consistent, effective and reasonable to require all airport travelers to remove their underwear prior to boarding any flight originating on American soil. Contrary to all objections, this is not a drastic step. It is no different than the regulation requiring Americans to remove their shoes. By orienting airport security scrutiny around the "offending garment" principle, we achieve theoretical and logical consistency for our enforcement efforts. Not only that, we also increase safety, deter terror and reduce genitalia-related crime in interstate commerce. We achieve all these salutary goals merely by requiring Americans to take off their underwear at security checkpoints. Balancing the burdens against the benefits in this case, we must conclude that we have found a winning procedure.

In a final step, we have also determined that all travelers with the word "Abdul" anywhere in their names must be forbidden from air travel. That includes American Idol judge and pop singer Paula Abdul, as well as avowed terrorists such as Abdul Sheikh Mohammed. Although liberal activists and Middle Eastern scholars will doubtlessly claim that this measure sweeps too broadly, we respond that we have conclusive evidence that people with the name "Abdul" stand a much higher chance to commit terror than people named Swanson, Harrison or Clark. When it comes to security, we must consider probabilities. And in this case, we are simply playing the numbers: Abduls are more dangerous than Clarks.

It is safe to fly in America. Do not let terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab discourage you from taking a trip. Despite his nefarious attempt to kill Americans with explosive underwear, we have emerged from this crisis safer than ever before. We have learned that both shoes and underwear are mortally dangerous. To that extent, we have tailored our security protocols to ensure that neither shoe nor slip poses a threat to law-abiding Americans. From this day forward, we promise to search every last undergarment that passes through any airport in the United States.

Terrorists beware: We will search your underwear.

And behold America's resolve: We are not afraid to take off all our clothes, even for a Podunk flight from Tuscaloosa to Memphis. Even if we weigh 500 pounds, we are unafraid. We will take it all off.

When in doubt, just remember our new slogan:

Because security begins with safe underwear®.