“This is the way the world ends ...Not with a bang but a whimper."

Does that famous quote aptly describe America’s future? Time will tell, but indications are that this nation, the most powerful, benevolent and fair in the world, is crumbling before our very eyes. Like Rome, it isn’t falling from outside invasion, but within. 

 And one of the biggest culprits is political correctness.

It’s all around us, but especially this time of year, as the assault on “Merry Christmas” accelerates.
 
It used to be a standard greeting, and people would reciprocate with a smile. Your religious denomination didn’t matter, or whether you even had one.  It was simply a friendly expression in a nation where the vast majority celebrated Christmas. And for those who didn’t, most returned the sentiment anyway because it was just a nice thing to do during the jovial season.

But all that changed as Americans’ sense of entitlement exploded. And yes, that included being entitled not to feel “offended” because something may not be to your exact liking.

“Merry Christmas? Well, I celebrate Hannukah or Kwanza or am an atheist, so how dare you presume to wish me your holiday? How offensive and rude!”

But it doesn’t stop there.  Hypocritical retail stores woo Christmas shoppers --- you know, the 95 percent who do celebrate Christmas and spend a half-trillion dollars doing so  --- but won’t put the word “Christmas” in their ads or on their displays.

It’s the Nativity scenes that are increasingly barred from public places. It’s residents who call the ACLU because a development hangs simple white lights on its trees. It’s office Christmas parties becoming a relic, replaced by generic “holiday” events. And yes, it’s Mayors like Michael Nutter who last year deliberately removed the word “Christmas” from the holiday retail complex near City Hall (but subsequently was forced to replace it).

All of it a brazen attempt to make America a more secular society through political correctness, and those who dare question it are labeled “bigots.” 

Several important points need to be addressed:

1) The push to make all things politically correct has been successful, as it is now entrenched in all aspects of society. Everyone gets a trophy in most youth sports leagues, we don’t keep accurate score when one team is winning over another, and all things must be racially, culturally and ethnically homogenous.

The problem is that’s not how the real world works. And it’s the basic principle that the Occupy movement doesn’t understand. You have to work hard and fight for things you want, but when they are bestowed upon us --- without merit --- from those who worship at the altar of political correctness, things go downhill fast.  Need proof? Just look at those who engage in PC the most ---Europe and the United States. Enough said.

2) This is a not call for “Thought Police” to mandate that everyone say “Merry Christmas.”  Quite the opposite. It’s a call for the silent majority to wake up and shove it right back at the small but extremely loud minority who shout “I’m offended” at every single thing. Saying Merry Christmas behind closed doors doesn’t take guts.  Saying it because you truly believe it and not worrying that such an innocuous greeting will offend does --- insane as that is.

3) Most important, Americans need to remember that actions have consequences. And until we connect the dots and see the error of being so PC, those consequences can, and will, have devastating results.

When good folks start looking over their shoulders before saying Merry Christmas for fear of "offending," it all begins to unravel.
 
Think the PC stops at that?  Well, think about the fact that the next time you step foot on an airplane, it may be your last day on Earth because your government --- we the people --- absolutely refuse to non-invasively profile the very folks who openly state their intentions to blow up said aircraft.  And it gets better, as the Transportation Security Administration just announced that children under 12 don’t have to take off their shoes for screening, and will not be subject to routine pat-downs like everyone else

Here’s the $64,000 question. What do we think al-Qaeda will do now? Here’s a wild guess. Start flying a lot more with children? What’s next? Not screening foreign children at all?
 
So when your wife gets incinerated two minutes after takeoff, and the wreckage of a jumbo jet falls on your child’s school because a terrorist put the bomb in his 11 year old's shoe, courtesy of the red carpet we provided, perhaps we shouldn’t wonder why it happened.

Or when your son gets his skull sliced in half by a bullet that emanates from a Mosque in Afghanistan which is "off limits" for retaliation for fear of offending the very people who don’t like us anyway, maybe we should think about where it all started coming apart.
 
Did it start from the reluctance to say Merry Christmas or the refusal to put a Christmas tree on a courthouse plaza? Did it originate from the refusal to acknowledge Christmas on a public school calendar while other religions’ holidays are clearly labeled as such?  It’s impossible to pinpoint, but it really doesn't matter.  That mentality is here, and has in large part led to the Great Decline.
 
So when the inevitable tragedy happens again --- one that could have been prevented --- and dumbfounded Americans stand around asking "How and why did this happen?", well, you'll know why.  The 40's and 50's were certainly not perfect, but people spoke their minds, were respectful, and America was a powerhouse. That attitude put a man on the moon a mere 60 years after the Wright brothers took flight but is now a fleeting memory.  Which is what happens when you bow to the wrong principles.
 
When Rome was at its zenith, it adhered to the simple principle that the well-being of its citizens was paramount. All of them.  In fact, so fervent was that belief that the Romans would literally go to the ends of the Earth to hunt down any thug that violated the rights of just a single Roman. They didn't let political correctness rule the day, and the Republic thrived.  But when it abandoned that principle, it all came crashing down.
 
They said Rome would never fall, but it did.  Many say the same about America.   Yet the whimper is at our door.

So if we are to ever return to our former glory, perhaps that path could begin by good folks jettisoning political correctness and saying two small but incredibly joyous words without reservation:

Merry Christmas!
 

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

“What do you and a catfish have in common? You’re both scum-sucking bottom-feeders.”

And that was the nicest, most printable comment Freindly Fire received after publishing the column “Don’t Like Airport Scanners?   Take The Bus To London!"

Link to Philly Mag: 

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/11/23/don%e2%80%99t-like-airport-scanners/

Quite frankly, the emotional barrage on this issue was a surprise, since it really is much ado about nothing. In truth, this was a media-driven frenzy whipped up to scare travelers before the busiest travel day of the year.   And it’s exactly that type of sensationalism that has led to the Fourth Estate’s plunging credibility.

That noted, there are some important points worth considering:

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.

                                                           *****

When both sides in a negotiation refuse to budge, the impasse is usually detrimental to both parties.

With that in mind, perhaps I can be of assistance in mediating the exploding conflict involving body-imaging scanners and pat-downs at some of the nation’s airports. 

On one side, we have the government that, despite its reluctance to employ profiling with these measures, is standing its ground.  On the other, we have groups such as We Won’t Fly.com, advocating that travelers not fly because the scanners are “strip searches;” if they do, however, they are encouraged to opt out of the “porno-scanners” and “raise holy hell.”

And I thought this was going to be a difficult negotiation.

There’s a very simple solution: do everything to accommodate the We Won’t Fly people. True, that’s not an effective negotiating strategy most of the time, but in this instance, it works perfectly.

Travelers in America will be somewhat safer, and the We Won’t Fly gang can take the bus to London.  I hear Greyhound has some great deals this time of year.

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

A frequent, and well-founded, criticism of American journalism is that too many reporters focus more on a good story than telling the truth. 

To be fair, though, that label must also be applied to a large segment of the American people.  Perhaps it’s because we’ve evolved into a quick-fix, instant-oatmeal society, or maybe it’s because tackling tough problems can seem hopelessly daunting. 

But maybe the main reason for the proliferation of red herring issues is that so many American politicians shamelessly take advantage of people’s fears, manipulating issues to their political --- and financial --- gain.

Whatever the reason, it’s no excuse for citizens to willfully ignore the real problems while blindly jumping on the bandwagon of those screaming about irrelevant matters.

The mosque slated for construction near Ground Zero in New York is a prime example.  And with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks later this week, there is no better time to laser in on the issues that truly need addressing.

                                               *****

Proponents want to build a $100 million Islamic mosque and cultural center with the stated purpose of promoting interfaith dialogue and peace.  The complex is to be constructed several blocks from where the Twin Towers fell on 9/11.

Standing adamantly opposed are those who view the Islamic center,  located so close to hallowed ground, as an in-your-face insult not just to America, but the 3,000 souls who perished that day.

Fair enough, because in all likelihood, it is. 

There are so many other places to build a mosque that to innocently choose that location just doesn’t pass the sniff test.

Americans have a legitimate reason to feel incensed, and are making that view loudly known.  But when calls are made to block the construction through legal means, and when some demand that the owners’ financing be investigated because we don’t happen to like what they stand for, America ceases to be America.

We must be extremely vigilant not to throw our freedoms to the wind just because we find something or someone insulting or offensive.  When cooler heads don’t prevail, the result is almost always catastrophic.

Jailing American citizens in internment camps during World War II comes to mind.

That’s why the Founding Fathers, knowing full-well the dangers of mob mentality, ingeniously created America’s law-making bodies.

The House of Representatives, elected every two years and therefore much more responsive to the people’s whims, is counter-balanced by the staid and deliberative Senate, with its more insulating six-year terms.

And as a final check, the Supreme Court, with its lifetime-appointed Justices free from future job considerations, is designed to provide the ultimate safeguard.

The intensifying mosque debate may be one that tests the system like no other.

Will Congress attempt to pass legislation regulating what can and can’t be built near war memorials? Stranger things have happened.

                                             *****

One of the most outspoken critics of the mosque has been former House Speaker turned political commentator Newt Gingrich. Like his views or not, Gingrich is universally considered an extremely intelligent analyst with well-thought out positions.

Which makes his pandering on the mosque construction so pathetic.

He’d have been better off just coming clean, saying he’s raising millions on the issue, which could help him prepare for a presidential run.  But while he’s placating the evangelicals, he’s approaching lunatic status with the mainstream.

To say, as Gingrich did, that we shouldn’t build mosques in America until Saudi Arabia has churches and synagogues on its corners is, quite simply, insane.  And Newt knows better.

Since when do we elevate Saudi Arabia --- or any other country for that matter --- to equal status with the United States of America?

We may despise how Saudi Arabia conducts itself, but that is their business.  The way to change it is not to interfere in its sovereign affairs, but to do what we’ve always done best: be the beacon of light for the rest of the world.

When America leads by example --- such as it being the most generous, free and forgiving nation in the history of mankind --- it makes other nations and peoples emulate it.  That is why millions want to come here --- to be part of the dream found nowhere else on Earth.

Yet Gingrich misses this point entirely.

In a recent column, he correctly criticizes an op-ed which compared sharia law (the Islamic code) with the Declaration of Independence. “This isn’t  mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism,” he wrote.

So Gingrich wants it both ways.  He’s offended when the Declaration is compared to sharia, but wants to impose his values on Saudi Arabia. 

The point that Gingrich and so many of the anti-mosque people are missing is simple:

“So what?”

So what that they are building a mosque? 

In America, people have private property rights and the freedom of religion.  To stand in the way of either of those two guiding principles because, as one critic said in an interview, “I don’t have anything in common with those people,” is a slap in the face to all who died defending the freedoms America offers.

We abhor the KKK, but let them march.  We are repulsed by neo-Nazis, but allow them to buy property and peacefully assemble.

What’s the difference here?  Simple.  It’s an attempt by politicians to conceal the unassailable fact that we are no safer now than we were on September 10, 2001. They want to run as far away from that reality as possible, for good reason.

That’s the truth. And THAT’S the real issue here --- the one which no one wants to discuss. 

                                           *****

Are planes safer?  No. Just look at all the cases where, if not for completely inept terrorists, hundreds would have died (the shoe bomber, the Christmas Day underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber who BOARDED a plane despite being on the No Fly List, etc).

Do we profile?  Of course not.  Instead, we bow at the altar of political correctness, reluctant to “offend,” a strategy al-Queda knows --- and exploits --- all too well. The result?  The aforementioned bombers.  Utilizing luck as your foremost national security tool probably isn’t the best idea we’ve had. At some point, Lady Luck will make an exit.

Do we have a secure border?  Not even close.  Incomprehensibly, nine years after the horrific attacks, the border remains wide open, beckoning terrorists to cross not just with logistical expertise, but with chemical, biological and yes, nuclear weapons.

When will we learn? After Phoenix --- or Philadelphia --- becomes uninhabitable for the next 50 years?  A catastrophe along those lines is a virtual certainty, because we’re more worried about building a mosque than a border wall.

Is our intelligence community efficient? Wishful thinking.  We took a system that was dysfunctional --- but fixable ---and turned it into a massively inept bureaucratic nightmare called the Department of Homeland Security.  Intelligence information isn’t shared, budget battles and turf wars are more prevalent than ever, and the core mission of the alphabet-soup agencies is once again lost.

Do certain states still issue drivers licenses to known illegals ---including potential terrorists --- thereby making their movements and purchases in America infinitely easier?  You betcha.

Have we, as a nation, condemned judges and other institutions that have embraced sharia law in this country?  No, because that would offend, and just wouldn’t be politically correct.

Yet what are we worried about, so much so, that bus protests are organized, and talking heads act as if the end of America is at hand?

A mosque in New York (where there are already 100), from which one can’t even see Ground Zero.

With all of our other problems, expending so much energy on that issue just doesn’t seem prudent.

It’s time that our leaders, both political and in the media, stop enriching themselves with fear-mongering tactics at the people’s expense.

Because when the next attack comes, we will have invited it upon ourselves due to our inability to distinguish the real issues from the manufactured hype of selfish demagogues.

Let’s keep our eye on the ball, before it’s too late.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist 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 also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX 29.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

The arrest of “Jihad Jane,” a white American woman accused of plotting with known terrorists, is both good and bad.

Good, of course, because those associating with terrorists should be brought to justice. (Colleen LaRose, Jane’s real name, showed her genius by publicly posting her intention to kill Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks, who had drawn Mohammed in a way she found offensive).

So yes, she’s a freak, and was a threat. Enough said.

But bad, because of all the politically correct morons who have once again come out of the woodwork, ranting that “profiling” is racist and doesn’t work. After all, they tell us, LaRose was one of us, and didn’t fit a terrorist profile, so therefore all profiling should cease.

It’s truly incredible how seemingly intelligent people can be so obtuse.