“Freindly Fire Zone”

This column was originally published on May 9, 2007

Six Muslims were arrested this week for allegedly plotting to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey, with the expressed intent to “kill as many American soldiers as possible.”

It was yet another attack that was foiled on U.S. soil, and credit must be be doled out where it is due.

The FBI, despite all its baggage (and there is quite a lot) did a commendable job of injecting its informants into the inner circle of these terrorists, and they pulled the plug on the undercover operation at the right time.  There seems to be ample evidence for conviction.

The electronic store clerk's decision to tip off authorities regarding the suspects' suspicious activity was an act of extreme bravery, for he put his personal safety well behind the good of the country.  How many people can ever say that they directly saved the life of another human being, let alone many?  By doing the right thing, he is most deserving of “hero” status.

Perhaps most deserving of credit President Bush.  While he has done many things wrong, and is justifiably criticized for his mistakes, too often he is not credited when things go right under his leadership.  This is such a case.

Any leader will tell you that the buck stops with him, for good or ill.  Under President Bush's watch, the United States has not been attacked since September 11, 2001.  That's five and a half years---and that's a record for which he can be extremely proud.  There isn't any doubt that terrorist cells have been operating within America's borders for years, and continue to do so today, as evidenced by this latest episode.  There have been numerous terror organizations and plots that have been uncovered and stopped, as reported in the media.  But there most certainly have been other victories, which, for security reasons, have not been made public.  That is a fact of life in the intelligence community---you get criticized when something goes awry, but can't always garner public accolades when operations are successful.

George Bush has overhauled the intelligence community and formed the Department of Homeland Security, both monumental undertakings. Since this is his Justice Department, and his CIA, he must be given credit for successes such as diffusing the Fort Dix plot.

It is unfortunate when partisan politics and ego and get in the way of doing the right thing.  Far too few acknowledge the President's role in saving lives, and that is simply unacceptable. 

However, this Fort Dix story is not just about terrorism.  It is also about an issue that closely correlates with the war on terror, and one that, if implemented, would be the single most effective measure to increase America's security immediately and exponentially.

It is about illegal immigration.

Three of the six arrested were in America illegally, and had been for quite some time.  Yet they enjoyed virtually all of the benefits of citizenship, including quality education and jobs, without actually being citizens.  Benefits, by the way, that were paid for by the taxpayers.

Kind of ironic, isn't it?  We support and pamper illegal aliens, who in many cases are here with  explicit knowledge of the Government, who then turn around and try to murder American soldiers.

Something doesn't quite add up.

If America had a wall on its entire southern border---one that was actually built, not just “funded” but in limbo--- the people's wrath might be tempered.  If the Justice Department went after the real criminals on the border---and not United States Border Patrol agents doing their job--- perhaps anger would be mitigated.  Americans don't expect perfection, but they do expect their government to try. 

Maybe if just a fraction of the money our Government spends coddling known illegals was used to beef up the security personnel and equipment on all our borders, then illegal immigration wouldn't be such a hot-button issue.

If law enforcement was allowed to profile in search of terrorists....wait, scratch that last one.  Someone just told me that the Dix Six were blond-haired, blue-eyed Swedish Catholics.  I will get back to you after I verify the veracity of that information.

The President, as Commander-in-Chief, must take the good with the bad.  While he should be applauded for his efforts at Fort Dix, you have to wonder if such a plot would have ever taken place if our borders had been sealed and adequately staffed, especially if such efforts had begun on September 12, 2001.  We're not constructing a complex skyscraper, mind you.  It's a wall ---with barbed wire, cameras, and other technological gadgets thrown in, yes---but still just a wall.  Take it from somebody whose toolbox is the phonebook:  it's not that difficult or expensive to build.

The failure of the President and the Congress to act on such basic, commonsense issues is inexcusable. 

The government assures us we are safer by ripping grandma out of the airport line and taking away her nail clippers, but that is an illusion.  We rationalize our safety when told to take our shoes off, yet the vast majority of airline freight---present on almost every commercial flight--- is never x-rayed.  And our port security?  It's a joke.

The point is that until our Government gets serious about protecting our shores by tackling illegal immigration head-on, we are no safer.  Terrorists will continue to walk across the border with a Tecate in one hand and a bomb in the other. 

As has become our custom, we are fighting this war with a self-imposed hand tied behind our back.

It doesn't take stars on your shoulder to realize that's no way to win a war.

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Do we really think if the attacks had hit China, they wouldn't have erected bigger and better buildings by now?

“We Remember.” “Never Forget.”

These phrases have been bantered about endlessly in the weeks leading up to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

If only they held the true meaning that so many ascribe to them.

But to quote a line recently overheard: There’s what people want to hear; there’s what people want to believe; there’s everything else; then there’s the truth.

It’s time to cut through the emotion and get to the heart of where America really stands a decade later. Be warned: it’s not a pretty picture.  And through it all, no leader has appeared who can steer the nation back on track and take the bull by the horns to avoid another major attack --- and, God forbid, if there is one, lead the nation through it.

                                                                          *****

The Economy

After spending hundreds of billions on homeland security, and over a trillion more on two wars, is America in a stronger position than it was in 2001? Not even close.  In fact, despite the blood and treasure expended, this nation is in perhaps its most precarious state ever.

Manufacturing jobs have been hemorrhaging at an unprecedented rate, the economy is in shambles with absolutely no recovery in sight, the real rate of inflation is significantly higher than the government admits, and the incomprehensibly large debt has America on the brink of insolvency. 

And most of this can be attributed to one thing: the lack of an energy policy.  Or, more accurately, the abject refusal to institute an energy policy that utilizes America’s vast resources.

The result is complete reliance on foreign oil, especially from hostile Middle Eastern oil nations whose regard for America’s interests resides somewhere between zero and nonexistent. 

Mammoth spikes in gasoline, diesel and jet fuel prices continue to drive up costs, which puts companies out of business, citizens on the unemployment rolls, and keeps bank foreclosure executives very, very busy.

Perhaps most tragic of all, American’s immutable sense of pride and nationalism has taken a hit. 

Once, we possessed a “can-do” pioneering spirit that pervaded all aspects of American life, where “impossible” was not in the American lexicon.  That resolve is what vanquished the Axis Powers in World War II.  It’s what opened up the western United States, ultimately making California alone one of the largest economies in the world.  It’s how we put a man on the moon a mere 66 years after the Wright brothers’ famous 120-foot, 12-second flight. And yes, it’s how, under the leadership of Ronald Wilson Reagan, America won the Cold War --- and provided freedom for millions.

Failure to achieve success was the exception.  Now it’s become the norm.

The best example of our malaise of mediocrity? Ground Zero.

The most startling aspect of that hallowed ground isn’t that the Twin Towers, once the sentinels of American free enterprise, are gone, but that NOTHING stands there. Sure, there are reflecting pools and trees, and a shell of a building.  But that’s it.

It’s been ten years!

How is that possible? How can a decade have passed with no real progress? How could we have let the enemy win that important part of the battle?

As a comparison, if the Empire State Building had been attacked during World War II, it would have been rebuilt immediately.  No questions asked, and no moral victories for the enemy.

And to those who naysayers who would argue “it’s a different time,” think again. If the September 11 attacks had felled China’s buildings instead of ours, you can bet the ranch that they would have been resurrected --- bigger, better, and bolder --- in less than a year. Guaranteed.

Why? Because the Chinese took a chapter out of America’s playbook, and are mastering it to perfection. You know --- the same playbook that we seem to have relegated to the dustbin.

Are We Safer?

Given the hundreds of billions allocated for our security, are we really safer?

Despite some advances in communications, intelligence and specific security measures, the ultimate answer is no, for there are two gaping holes in our defenses: the borders are wide open and we refuse to profile.  Both are easily rectifiable, but because political correctness wins the day, Americans are living with a false sense of security.

Borders: What good does securing airports do if al Queda can simply walk across the border from Mexico --- with a suitcase nuclear weapon? Incompetent as that organization has proven to be, especially now that bin Laden is dead, they’re not dumb.  If they haven’t already smuggled weapons and terrorist cell members into America via our porous borders (fat chance of that, as intelligence experts concede cells are in place), they soon will.

Despite ample funds to build a wall --- a clear deterrent to both illegal invaders and terrorists --- neither Party chooses to do so for purely political reasons.  So much for real Homeland Security.

Profiling: Grandmothers continue to receive prisoner-like exams at our nation’s airports, while olive-complexioned individuals from the Middle East stroll by, unquestioned, with smirks on their faces.  Why the free pass? Precisely because they look like Arabs.

America's lawmakers have caved in to a small element that shouts "racist" anytime profiling is employed, especially in, God forbid, airports. Such practice, they claim, singles out individuals just because they appear "Muslim" or "Arab" and, as a result, these flyers feel offended. 

Get over it.

Profiling is simply a tool for law enforcement to determine who and what may be a threat, based on an ever-increasing array of data. Certain packages may be the hallmark container for a bomb - and they should be checked. A specific type of shoe may be the favored choice of shoe-bombers – so that footwear, and the owner, should be closely examined.

And yes, certain Arab and/or Muslim individuals, based on historical events, and along with appearance characteristics, mannerisms, suspect financial transactions and other patterns of behavior, should be singled out for closer inspection.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with profiling in security sensitive areas. Yes, it's a form of discrimination. So what? All nineteen highjackers on September 11 were Muslim Arabs. And so was the twentieth, Zacharias Moussaoui. The 1993 World Trade Center bombings were also carried out by people of this ethnic group.  As was the trans-Atlantic shoe bomber, the bombers of the U.S.S. Cole, the Madrid train bombers, and the London subway attackers.

What are we missing? Why are we so scared to profile? What will it take for America to demand policies that actually protect, not appease?

Sadly, probably only another terrorist attack.

This is because our elected leaders are, for the most part, too scared to tackle the issue, even though the majority of Americans support such measures. They are counseled to stay away from "hot-button" topics, instead focusing on 30-second soundbites on irrelevant issues.

To be clear, I am not advocating that random people on the street be detained and interrogated, with no probable cause, just because they "look Arab." This kind of harassment is contrary to the freedoms our country provides.

But it's time we stop worrying about people's feelings and reintroduce some common sense into our security measures.

One thing is for sure: al Queda will not stop. And if we continue to give them openings, they will gladly take them. While it’s not possible to guarantee another attack won’t occur, it will be unconscionable if it does --- and if it was preventable.

If we truly want to honor the memory of the 3,000 soul who perished on 9/11, we need to jettison political correctness, enter the real world, and combat threats in a meaningful way.

God help us if we don’t.

 An accredited member of the media, Chris Friend is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

After ten long years, the wait is finally over. 

Osama bin Laden --- Public Enemy Number One --- had eluded capture for over a decade, casting doubt that justice would ever be served.  It was only natural to think he either died anonymously or blended so well into his surroundings that his fate would never be realized, and that America’s most painful wound would never fully heal.

But all that changed after a gutsy operation inside Pakistan led to his demise.  The massive celebrations around the nation left tears of joy in the eyes of millions, as unity once again took hold across America.  Notch a huge win for the good guys.

But at risk of putting a damper on the euphoria, it is clear that U.S. still is not wholly committed to winning the War on Terror. A glaring example is the debate over whether waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” should be used on terrorists hell-bent on destroying us.

There are conflicting reports as to whether the waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided information about an al-Queda courier, who ultimately led the U.S. to bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout.

One question: who cares?  Common sense tells us that waterboarding works, and has no doubt saved lives by obtaining intelligence that would have otherwise not been uncovered.  Whether that method was directly responsible for extracting the courier information may never be known, but debating that point misses the big picture entirely.

We are at war.  And when at war, you pull out all stops until victory is achieved --- Vietnam was supposed to teach us that. When you fight not to lose, the enemy becomes emboldened. 

Where we are right now is a perfect example of the adage “we have met the enemy, and it is us.”
We have allowed our security to be unnecessarily compromised, and, despite bin Laden’s death, the threat against the Western world remains high.

And it’s all done in the name of political correctness.

The blame cannot be directed just at President Obama, who officially discontinued waterboarding in 2009.  Under the Bush Administration, both the CIA and the military had effectively ended the practice years earlier.  And it was Republican John McCain who offered an Amendment prohibiting the U.S. from engaging in humiliating or degrading treatment of captured terrorists.

By way of explanation, waterboarding is when water is poured over the face of an enemy combatant, simulating the feeling of drowning.  If you're waiting for the rest of the description, you'll be sorely disappointed, because that's it.  Don't misunderstand---it's very effective, but derives its success due to psychological stress rather than physical harm.  No one gets hurt, and no one dies. 

But somehow that’s degrading, so despite its effectiveness, we stopped it outright. Does anyone really believe that if we politely ask our detainees for sensitive information, like their financial network, comrades' whereabouts, and the battle-plans to kill Americans, they will just tell us?

If the goal is to ensure that terrorists feel comfortable, then we were right to ban waterboarding.  But if we want to be seriously engaged in a global war against those who aggressively advocate our destruction, we must reconsider how we handle detainees, (who, incidentally, are afforded fantastic medical care, food reflective of their ethnicity, and prayer time).

Maybe we should ask the survivors and victims’ families of the 9/11 massacre, the Madrid train attacks, the London subway bombings, and a host of other atrocities if they care whether a prisoner, with possible knowledge of an impending attack (potentially nuclear, chemical or biological), has some water poured on his face, or feels humiliated.

Cutting through the PC, does the average American, or European for that matter, really believe such interrogation methods should be banned, putting the prisoner's well-being ahead of their own?  Are they really willing to jeopardize their children's future because a combatant's “dignity” is affected?

When Americans are captured, the enemy doesn’t feel compelled to reciprocate that dignity. Need a quick refresher?  Just look at the videos of Americans --- civilians and military --- being decapitated, dragged through the streets, burned, dismembered and hung from bridges.

Because we coddle prisoners, refuse to profile, won’t construct a border wall and tie our troops' hands behind their backs because of PC politics, we have become a paper tiger.  And the sigh of despair you hear?  That's the silent majority of Europeans who live on the front lines, too scared to publicly support anti-PC measures because their cultures have become the embodiment of appeasement.  They used to nod in admiration that at least one country still had the guts to take it to the enemy. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

We should use every means necessary to extract information that could save lives, and waterboarding is clearly one of them.  Just as Americans call for domestic drilling only after gas hits $4 per gallon, there will undoubtedly be loud calls to bring back enhanced interrogation techniques --- after the next attack.

But by then, it will be too late.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

A look at solutions for America’s impotent policies

Three…two…one…takeoff.  The F-16 fighter jet piloted by Lt. Col. Kevin Kelly of the New Jersey Air National Guard’s 177^th Fighter Wing --- with me aboard --- accelerates vertically immediately after going airborne.  After rocketing two and a-half miles straight up --- in ten seconds --- Colonel Kelly demonstrates a number of combat maneuvers that are part of the “Jersey Devils’” mission role.  (Except from August 2009 “Freindly Fire” article).

Included in that mission is protecting the airspace of the United States eastern seaboard from all threats.

That makes the 177^th the real deal, as they were first-on-scene over the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.  So it’s not a stretch to think that they were somehow involved in protecting our national interests last week when a number of inbound cargo and passenger aircraft, thought to be carrying terrorists’ explosives, were forced to the ground.

While the American people can sleep easier knowing the “wall” they live behind is protected by units like the 177^th, it’s incomprehensible that some of our leaders view using them as our primary strategy to combat terrorism. 

In fact, they are the last line of defense when all else fails --- which, due to our continued ineptitude in formulating a meaningful, proactive strategy, is all too common.

The focus of this election is clearly about the economy, but voters should also consider who will make the greatest strides in developing a sound national security policy, because more than anything else, a major terrorist attack now can and will immediately throw the United States into a depression.

*****

Rather than employ a strategy that takes the fight to the enemy, we continue with one based on two losing tenets:  reaction and reliance on Lady Luck. By definition, since reacting to the enemy means we’re always a step behind, and luck inevitably runs out, it’s time we stop bowing to the altar of political correctness and get serious.

Based on the events of last week, here are four immediate steps the government should take:

1)      Profile, profile, profile.  This cannot be stressed enough.  How is it possible that we profile packages, like the ones thought to contain explosives, but not people?  That absurdity is blatantly obvious to all except those making the policy.  And this is only an Obama Administration problem because he is President.  We did the exact same thing under Bush.

It is an inarguable fact that profiling works.  Just ask the Israelis, who profile better than anyone and, as a direct result, have never had a hijacking on their airline, El Al.  The critical difference between us and them is that they don’t care if someone feels “offended” when they are singled out for additional screening and questions. 

So why do we?  Flying is a privilege, not a right.  If one feels slighted by getting singled out, fine.  Take the bus to Europe.  But if we really want to show a “compassionate” side, we could offer a $15 gift card, good in any American airport, to anyone who is actively profiled. Such a move would go a long way towards mitigating any hurt feelings while still accomplishing our security goals, and could be easily afforded by a ten-cent surcharge on airline tickets.

2)      Profile the right way.  It’s not enough to just single people out, but to single out the right ones. This means not harassing 80-year old grandmothers from Missouri, but taking a closer look at those fitting certain age, gender, ethnicity, and country of origin/passage characteristics. Last time we checked, all 19 hijackers from 9/11 were males of roughly the same age, and all of Middle Eastern origin.  Seems like a good place to start.

But to be proactive, we should also be keeping an eye on al-Queda’s next generation of bombers: women and children. As long as people understand that no one is off the table, and active interrogations can be performed at any step along the way, we will make huge gains in bolstering our security.

3)      Discard irrelevant security measures.  Dollar for dollar, shoe-bomber Richard Reid did more damage to us than the 9/11 attacks.  When that bumbling bomber bent over to light his shoe, he cost us billions in useless regulations and lost productivity --- even though we can bring lighters, matches and even lighter fluid onto a plane. And keep in mind that virtually nowhere in Europe are shoes screened. 

One hopes this isn’t merely a grandstand play.  Remember the millions of cigarette lighters confiscated because they weren’t permitted aboard planes? And after all that, the policy was discarded, with the then-head of the Transportation Security Administration saying, "Taking lighters away is security theater."

Which brings us back to profiling.  If we inspected the shoes of just those fitting a high-risk profile (and occasionally at random) rather than every single traveler, we would be in a far better position to actually catch terrorists. And the tedious monotony would be alleviated from security screeners, ensuring a sharpness that would put them at the top of their game.

4)      Require Homeland Security personnel to perform all duties related to screening passengers and cargo on direct flight to the United States. This wouldn’t be necessary at all foreign airports, but those in countries posing the greatest threat to America.  And if the Turks, for example, don’t approve of Americans taking the lead in security for America-bound flights, the answer is simple.  They don’t fly here. 

Why this need? Just think back to the Times Square Bomber. Despite being on the No Fly List, and buying a one-way ticket to the Middle East in cash, he actually boarded a plane at JFK airport trying to escape.  This was made possible because Emirates Airlines hadn’t consulted the updated No Fly List against its passenger manifests.  How we don’t have real-time access to every airline’s passenger records is unfathomable.  Remember, flying is a privilege, so privacy concerns shouldn’t apply.

This isn’t a panacea, of course, but it is a huge step in taking away our enemies’ safe havens.  Sure, they can travel to a country without American screeners and attempt to fly from there, but it makes their missions infinitely more complicated.  And keeping an enemy off-kilter is the best way to thwart --- and ultimately catch --- them.

The U.S. government must also conduct a thorough and independent review of “lessons learned” from this latest terrorist action.  Homeland Security is so large and bureaucratic, with so many competing agencies, that we must definitively know who worked well with whom --- and who didn’t.  We also need to assess how we worked with our foreign allies (kudos to the Saudi intelligence in this case), and what can be done to be more proactive in the future.

There is no such thing as “guaranteed security,” as we live in a high-risk world.  But one thing is certain:  if we continue burying our head in the sand by failing to implement a comprehensive security plan --- one with no regard to political correctness --- we will have no one but ourselves to blame when the next big one hits.

And by then, it will be way too late.

*****

Link to FFZ article on F-16 flight:

http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/component/k2/itemlist/date/2009/8

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Pakistan's leader, General Pervez Musharraf, has just declared a state of emergency.  In doing so, he suspended the constitution, ousted the country's top judge, baned public meetings and rounded up opposition leaders.  Parliamentary elections were also halted for the foreseeable future.  Democracy, if that's what you pretend to call Pakistan's system of government, has taken a backseat to authoritarian rule.

And guess who, once again, is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong?

The United States is leading the charge in condemning Pakistan for its actions, calling it a setback for democracy.  Apparently, we don't support Musharraf's “extra-constitutional means” by which he governs, so now we are thinking about cutting off billions of aid  to one of our staunchest allies in the War on Terror.

When will we ever learn that this is precisely why we are hated in many parts of the world?  We continually impose our values on everyone else, and do so in such a morally superior way that it generates results opposite of our intentions. Our actions are, at best, politically naive, and, at worst, downright dangerous.

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is aggressively pushing a plan that would allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses. As you might imagine, there has been quite an uproar.

But why?

The Governor, who is sworn to uphold the law, claims that roads will be safer, auto insurance rates will drop, there will be fewer uninsured drivers, and drivers' licenses for illegals will enhance law enforcement efforts.

Sounds like a plan. And its not like al-Qaida operatives will be flocking to the DMV to apply for legitimate identification credentials that would allow them to move freely---and legally--- throughout the country.

Oh, wait. The 9/11 high-jackers actually did do that, allowing them to open bank accounts, rent houses, and, yes, board planes.

Scratch that last one. But 9/11 happened eons ago. Its not like theyre planning to attack again.

Anyone opposed to the license plan is clearly racist, bigoted, pro-law enforcement, and doesn't like burritos, manicured lawns, or fair wages. Illegal invaders are such an integral part of our society that to limit their rights in any way does irreparable harm to these United States of Mexico.

Go Eliot!

One small caveat, Governor. If the brotherhood of Mohammed Atta decides to target the Empire State Building with weapons and explosives bought legally with their state-sanctioned drivers license, or, on the off-chance, they take a one-way joyride in a 767, you may have a few people knocking at your Mansion door.

In such a case, I am sure that if you explain the merits of safer roads and lower auto-insurance rates (even though they won't decrease), all will be well again. Of course, you may encounter some opposition when you invoke the enhance law enforcement line, but thats just a guess.

Why is this man not running for President? Hed definitely be in the 'driver's seat'.

It wouldn't be the first time we had a criminal in the White House.

You see, Spitzer's action is undeniably in violation of federal law. Any attempt to encourage or assist illegal aliens is against the law. Period. Since there is no gray area in this regard, Spitzer is committing a crime.

Where is the President Bush's Justice Department? Why have they not brought the hammer down on this proposal, as well as the other states that already have such a law on the books?

If only we had Alberto Gonzales to rescue us, but he's busy mounting his own legal defense for perjury.

And if a Democrat wins the White House next year, expect more of the same.

How is it that, since a clear majority of Americans oppose these policies (in a recent poll, 72% of New Yorkers are against the Governor's plan), and such action, by its very nature, violates the law, we continue to see programs solely designed to coddle illegal aliens?

Follow the money.

Republicans are in bed with big business, and these fat cats want the cheap labor. Democrats want the votes. There are already a significant number of illegals voting in our elections, and that number will rise as more of them can provide legally-obtained drivers' licenses. Since the majority of these invaders vote Democratic, the D's continue their push for these programs and ignore the destruction of America's sovereignty. What's the point of American citizenship when foreign nationals are participating in, and affecting the outcome of, our elections?

The most blatant example of this treason---and that's exactly what it is--- is that the Spitzer administration reversed a policy that would have prohibited the DMV from handing out motor-voter forms without receiving a Social Security number. So illegal alien and terrorist alike will now be able to obtain a license without a Social Security number, and use that license to vote. All of which is---let's say it again---illegal.

When our highest elected officials are so blinded by arrogance that they show open contempt for the oaths they took, the Republic is in serious jeopardy.

In the midst of the most dangerous time in our nation's history, our "leaders" go out of their way to aid and abet the enemy.

In case you're interested, the Governor's Mansion is in Albany.

FREINDLY FIRE Archive from July 26, 2007

At issue is the pathetic handling of airport security in the United States. For those who have been isolated in the Antarctic for the past six years, airplanes are the preferred method of terrorists for carrying out spectacular attacks. Of course, since competence in government is a key component for leadership, that goal was never achieved. A quick look at this past week's events explains why.

                                                           *****