Category: Guest Authors

By Chris Freind

Je suis Charlie!

French for “I am Charlie,” it has become the rallying cry du jour to honor those massacred by radical Islamic terrorists at the satirical Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris.

The problem is, unless you’re a fan of the Viet Cong, “I am Charlie” doesn’t actually mean anything. What should have been a call to action for people, and especially media outlets, around the civilized world is instead, not surprisingly, simply a feel-good, flash-in-the-pan catchphrase. And in a week or two, the righteous indignation of so many leaders railing against heinous acts of terror will go by the wayside. In doing so, they will be handing the enemy yet another victory.

Let’s look at the French attack, and the changes we can expect:

1. Sure, newspapers around the globe printed cartoons in response to the Charlie Hebdo attack, with some knocking radical Islam pretty hard. But how many reprinted the Hebdo cartoons satirically portraying the prophet Mohammed that led to the terror attack in the first place? Almost none.

Every paper on the planet, but especially in Europe, should have done so, whether or not they agreed with the cartoon’s message. That, and only that, would have sent a clear message that the world was unified — unwaveringly — in its fight against radical terrorists. But they didn’t. Instead, most papers wimped out, content in letting someone else do the heavy lifting, an “I’m behind you … way behind you” mentality. The Financial Times typified this attitude when it editorialized that the Hebdo cartoons were “editorial foolishness” and that the paper had “just been stupid” to provoke Muslims with controversial cartoons.

You can clamor about freedom of speech all day long, and sound really good doing it, but it rings hollow if you don’t walk the walk. The irony is that there was no better time for thousands of papers to run the cartoons than right after the attack, since none could have been singled out. Not that true journalistic enterprises should ever need “political cover,” as it is akin to cowardice, but nonetheless cover would have been afforded.

2. That’s not to say there wouldn’t be risk, as there certainly would be, despite precautions. And it would be perfectly acceptable to be afraid. But that’s where courage comes into play. As Mark Twain said, “Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear — not absence of fear.”

Bottom line: Don’t say you are standing up for freedom of expression and honoring fallen comrades if you don’t put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, the bad guys win by default. If those in the media allow their fear to trump courage, they need to find a different profession.

3. Charlie Hebdo is a satirical publication. It is neither racist nor bigoted. Satire has been a cornerstone of Western civilization for centuries, and, by its nature, agitates and antagonizes. And it is precisely that approach that has led to significant social change, almost always for the betterment of society.

There is a difference between being satirical and mean-spirited. The latter is counter-productive, the last thing the Hebdo staff wanted. Hebdo isn’t anti-Islam, nor do they dislike Muslims. Quite the opposite, Hebdo believes that the radical elements must be called on the carpet in order to win liberty and freedom of expression for all Muslims. One of the ways it does that is to poke fun at the more ludicrous beliefs of the radicals, which, by the way, are at odds with the true interpretation of Islam. Hebdo has the guts to publicly expose what all civilized people know, but too few have the guts to say.

Satire is supposed to offend; it’s not meant to be taken personally. The fact that radicals attacked Hebdo validates everything Charlie Hebdo has been advocating all these years.

4. Did we know the attack was imminent? If not, why not?

One of two things is true:

A. The National Security Agency (in addition to Europe’s intelligence agencies) missed all the warning signs leading up to the attack. If that’s the case, it once again shows that no amount of technology will protect us in the absence of common sense.

How is it that the NSA sees more value in reading emails and monitoring phone calls of millions who pose zero threat than it does honing in on those with a proven track record of terrorism (or at least terrorist sympathies)? One of the two Hebdo attackers had been convicted of terrorism in France; yes, convicted! And both were well known in intelligence circles (as were the Boston bombers), including being on America’s Terror Watch and No-Fly lists. If those things don’t qualify as red flags, nothing does. So if they weren’t being tracked and closely monitored, why not? If that turns out to be the case, the NSA, given failure after failure, should close up shop.

B. The NSA did know, and pulled a “Pearl Harbor” strategy. History strongly suggests some Allied and even American leaders knew an attack was imminent, and, needing a reason to get a reluctant America into the war, allowed it to occur. It’s the “a thousand may die so that a million may live” mentality. Agree with it or not, it’s happened throughout history.

Perhaps some in the intelligence community felt that the only way to awaken a deep-slumbering Europe being overrun by, and capitulating to, radical fundamentalists was to allow such barbarism to unfold. While Europe’s follow-through remains to be seen, the sight of 3 million French filling the streets of Paris in protest (and similar gatherings throughout the continent) would never have occurred prior to the attacks.

5. The big question is how the West proceeds from here. Will it jettison political correctness and take the necessary steps to combat a ruthless enemy, such as profiling, renunciation of Sharia law in the West, and an aggressive, pull-no-punches approach to rooting out terrorism (while pulling troops out of the Middle East)? Or will the tough rhetoric fall by the wayside as the policy of placation seeps back into the picture?

Once thing is certain. Endless conferences, symposiums, summits and blue-ribbon commissions on combating terrorism are a complete waste of time and resources. Incessant talking won’t solve the problem. What is needed is decisiveness, common sense — and an iron will to see it through.

The solution to effectively fighting terrorism is simple; it’s just not easy. It’s time the West rolls up its sleeves and gets the job done, once and for all.

Only then can we all legitimately say, “Je suis libertie.”

Here is Chris’ article as it ran in the Delaware County Daily Times. What is missing from it?

Je Suis Charlie Hypocrisy

And, Je Suis Charlie Hypocrisy

Yes, Je Suis Charlie Hypocrisy

 

By Chris Freind

It’s time again to reflect on those who made life more interesting over the past year through their incomprehensible actions. In other words, the biggest boneheads of 2014:

–Soon to be Ex-Gov. Tom Corbett: Amount of money wasted trying to (futilely) win re-election after four years of incompetence, inaction, gaffes, and most of all, the Penn State/Jerry Sandusky albatross hanging around his neck? $25 million. Being the only statewide Republican incumbent in the entire nation (yes, the sole loser in America) to fall, despite the largest Republican landslide since 1932? Priceless.

The funniest thing is that Corbett actually believes he went down swinging, but as we all know, he never entered the ring. Let’s hope he golfs better than he governs, though that’s not exactly setting the bar too high.

Related: Pennsylvania consumers: While the rest of the nation is enjoying free-falling gas prices, Pennsylvanians just saw their fuel increase 10 cents per gallon, thanks to the unnecessary Corbett-initiated gas tax. But it’s the gift that keeps on giving, as we have three more years of increases. When it’s all said and done, Pennsylvanians will pay the highest gasoline and diesel prices in the nation (yeah — that’ll help the state’s moribund economy). To stomach prices that high, you definitely need a drink, though at least now there are two reasons to stock up over the border: cheaper gas and liquor. Cheers!

–Airlines and aircraft manufacturers: How is it possible that cellphones and cars can be pinpointed to within three feet using GPS, but we still can’t track massive commercial aircraft costing $300 million? Since it’s certainly not a technology issue, it comes to dollars and sense. The airlines and plane manufacturers don’t want to spend the money for installation and monitoring (showing no common sense) but really, how much could it be? They routinely increase fees and invent new ones, so why the stubborn cost-consciousness on this paramount issue? A one-dollar surcharge would undoubtedly fund the system, so let’s stop flying blind and get it done.

–The NFL: Commissioner Roger Goodell’s handling (actually, nonhandling might be a better description) of numerous domestic assault cases by players left the league with a huge black eye. He should have been sacked, but because he makes team owners a lot of money, they were willing to weather the storm and look the other way, keeping Goodell firmly entrenched in the Good Old Boys Club.

But the league once again looks really bad, for a different reason. An obvious penalty against Dallas in its playoff game against Detroit (which, if it stood, could well have sealed a victory for the Lions) was inexplicably retracted, giving Dallas a blatant gift. (This wasn’t a questionable judgment call, but an absolutely-no-doubt-about-it penalty). The Cowboys went on to win, leading millions to believe the NFL wanted Dallas to advance instead of Detroit, as ratings would be much higher (and thus, millions more for the NFL). But since football is America’s game, and fans will still pay a fortune for tickets and merchandise, nothing will change.

Sidenote: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a self-proclaimed Cowboys fan, was widely seen whooping it up with Dallas owner Jerry Jones in Jones’ private box. Fine. But could the guv really have been that stupid as to have allowed Jones to pay for his, and his family’s trips, to Dallas, in which they flew on Jones’ private jet? There are already allegations swirling of possible impropriety, which, truth be told, are probably politically motivated. But for a presidential candidate still operating under the cloud of Bridge-gate, doing anything that could generate bad headlines is inexcusably bad judgment. Why couldn’t he just pay for his trip out of his own pocket like most other people? Answer: hubris. Look for Christie’s candidacy to begin and end in New Jersey.

–Florida State football: No, not because they got annihilated, 59-20, by Oregon in college football’s first-ever playoff game. Blowouts happen. It’s how you handle them that show your true character. Flat-out, Florida State quit when they fell behind. And that’s simply inexcusable. Like it or not, they are role models to youngsters, and the lesson ought to be that you never quit. Period!

But even worse, the Seminoles showed their true colors when a whopping 70 percent of the team walked off the field without shaking hands. Responsibility for such horrendous lack of sportsmanship rests with coach Jimbo Fisher, who, like many of his players, apparently doesn’t believe in “class.”

–Kim Khardashian: Beyond the fact that her derriere resembles a place to park a bicycle, does this really need any explanation?

–Race relations: Too many on both sides with ulterior motives rooted in self-interest; not enough with the courage to call them out. Black and white and “read” all over is no longer reserved for newspapers, but is the state of America as more and more blood from blacks and whites is spilled in the streets. Brothers and sisters we are not, as societal colorblindness in now but a pipedream. We have failed to uphold the accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement, and that is a black – and white – mark on our history. Look for things to get worse before they get better.

–Big Brother: Bad: Closing public schools or opening two hours late because it’s cold. Snow or ice is one thing, but cold? When did we become so mind-chillingly wimpy? What’s next? Outlawing sledding? Why, yes.

Worse: Stupefying as it is, more towns are banning sledding. Part of it stems from the nanny-state mentality of power-hungry, sanitize-everything bureaucrats and politicians, and part of it is fear of standing up to the bloodsucking leeches, also known as trial lawyers. Where has our collective sanity gone?

Worst: Taking the cake is the state of Connecticut forcibly removing a 17-year-old girl with cancer from her home, placing her in the custody of child welfare, and forcing her to undergo chemotherapy, which she and her mother adamantly do not want. The state supreme court is now reviewing the case. More to come on this.

Everybody: We all suffered a huge loss when Robin Williams took his life. The hows and whys still need to be sorted out, but the bottom line is that we lost one of the very best. He made us laugh, cry, think, and laugh some more. He inspired us. He brought out the very best in humanity, dazzling us with a range of performances reserved for the truly elite. From “Good Will Hunting” to “Dead Poet’s Society” to “Patch Adams”, he wasn’t a character, nor even an actor. He was something infinitely more. Many can act, but Williams was an honest-to-God person to whom we could relate. He became part of our lives because his very essence — everything about him — exuded a passion that simply cannot be taught. He will never be forgotten, and there will never, could never, be another Robin Williams. And that is the biggest loss of all.

Boneheads Of Year 2014

By Chris Freind

It took over a half-century, but someone in Washington is finally using common sense regarding America’s relationship with Cuba.

Thank you, Mr. President, for re-establishing ties with our Caribbean neighbor. It’s about time.

Ever since the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion 53 years ago, America’s policy has been to isolate Cuba through a strict embargo, hoping to collapse its socialist government. Given that nothing positive has been achieved — let’s repeat that: There have been absolutely no favorable results — it’s safe to say that not only is our policy flawed, but the die-hard adherents who refuse to acknowledge its obvious failures give new meaning to the term “pigheaded.”

With bold leadership and foresight (along with a little humility), America can gain a huge victory for freedom and free enterprise by befriending Cuba. Yet, many refuse to even try, viciously criticizing those, such as President Obama and Pope Francis, who are attempting something new. Their “my-way-or-no-way” close-mindedness would make even the Castro brothers blush with envy.

Despite a majority of Americans favoring the re-establishment of ties, Republicans (primarily) are threatening to derail the process. Why? One of two reasons:

A. The GOP is the more patient party, believing that the current policy should be given a more appropriate amount of time to work — say, 150 years. Or,

B. Because it was President Obama who initiated the proposal to foster a more open relationship; in other words, pure partisanship. Given that Republicans now control Congress, it’s a good possibility that partisan politics will once again rule the day, to the detriment of both Cubans and Americans.

To be fair, enacting the embargo and restricting access to Cuba during the Cold War, when Castro cozied up to the Soviets, was reasonable. But common sense should have told us that if it didn’t produce results in several years, it would never work. Since, however, political common sense is an oxymoron, the sanctions continue — sanctions that only Congress can end.

Consequently, American products are denied a huge market within close proximity. We lose access to cheap Cuban goods, and the relatives of Cuban-Americans continue to suffer while U.S. law makes family reunions in Cuba all but illegal.

Since it would be beneficial to lift the embargo, why aren’t we? Consider the following:

1. Too many presidential candidates, including Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (along with much of Florida’s congressional delegation) still bow to the demands of a small but highly vocal minority of Cuban-Americans who detest “helping” a Cuba ruled by anyone named Castro. At one time, a candidate opposing this lobby could lose the state (much like opposing ethanol subsidies in Iowa). But the pols have failed to see that the Cuban voting bloc is no longer tied to the embargo issue. Each successive generation not only places less importance on the sanctions, but views closer ties as the path to prosperity.

Being beholden to a special interest is never good, but placating one that doesn’t exist is stupidity.

2. Development in Cuba is on the upswing, fueled by European businesses snatching up prime real estate and business opportunities. The embargo’s objective to collapse the Cuban economy is a train that has already left the station. Time for America to get in the game.

3. Fifty-three years of isolation with nothing to show? We can’t wait for three minutes at the drive-thru without complaining, yet we patiently adhere to a woefully ineffective law that will soon approach six decades of failure. What do we think will miraculously change?

4. The embargo hurts the Cuban people by denying them economic opportunities. The way to winning hearts is through wallets, as a growing middle class produces stability and respect for the law. Yet that lesson continues to be lost on many of our politicians.

5. Embargo defenders love to rattle off conditions Cuba needs to meet: human rights, fair elections and freeing political prisoners. Gee, that’s nice. And it would be great if the world were filled with rainbows and lollipops! Except that it’s not. Making those demands shows a naiveté at best and hypocrisy at worst, since adhering to such prerequisites would see our trading partners shrink to Antarctica and Santa’s workshop.

Take China. It violates human rights, ignores international law, sends toxic products to America, pollutes on a global scale and rapes the land. Oh, and it has nuclear missiles pointed at the U.S. Yet, American dollars have made it an economic powerhouse, so much so that Wal-Mart ranks as China’s seventh-largest trading partner.

So China gets a free pass, but Cuba, on whom we can exert infinitely more economic leverage, must be angelic?

Under the “human rights/democracy” rationale, anyone opposed to Cuban ties should bike to work (since, despite low fuel prices, much of America’s gasoline comes from Middle Eastern nations, not exactly bastions of freedom), and buy virtually nothing from overseas — both ludicrous propositions. Fact is, the best way to expand America’s ideals is through the exchange of trade, culture, and, most of all, ideas.

Looking at the big picture, Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski said it best: “You can’t build a future on top of resentments.”

In lifting the embargo, America would showcase that freedom and capitalism are its biggest exports. China still has a long way to go, but America has transformed that nation in a revolutionary way, guiding it towards liberalism (small “l”). A vibrant middle class has been born, tasting the good life as more freedoms are earned and opportunities realized.

If we can accomplish that with China, doing the same with Cuba should be a walk in the park.

So let’s build a bridge to our neighbor and, as a great American once said, tear down that wall.

Cuba libre!

Lifting Cuban Embargo Is Right

By Chris Freind

“I have repeatedly made clear that profiling by law enforcement is not only wrong, it is profoundly misguided and ineffective. Particularly in light of certain recent incidents we’ve seen at the local level and the widespread concerns about trust in the criminal justice process … it’s imperative that we take every possible action to institute strong and sound policing practices.”

So said Attorney General Eric Holder as he announced sweeping changes for federal law enforcement agencies. Profiling will now be banned on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, sexual orientation and gender identity.

Holder isn’t just wrong about profiling being ineffective, but is totally misguided in his rationale for instituting the new policy, as the recent incidents of white police officers’ altercations with blacks had nothing to do with race.

Let’s look at the truth behind race and profiling:

1. Michael Brown was not profiled in Ferguson, nor singled out because he was black. He was approached by Officer Darren Wilson because A. he was illegally walking in the street, and B. had allegedly just committed a felony in a convenience store. He fought with Wilson in the patrol car, and, as a 6-foot, 4-inch, 300-pound individual, was a potentially lethal threat. Agree with the grand jury process or not, let’s be perfectly clear that race was not a factor, as Wilson would have undoubtedly acted in the same way no matter what color his attacker was.

Race also was not a factor in the chokehold death of black New Yorker Eric Garner by a white police officer — a fact bolstered by his widow who said, “I really don’t feel like it’s a black-and-white thing.” Garner was being arrested for selling cigarettes illegally — (Really? That’s the “crime” to which New York’s finest should be allocating their time?) — but he wasn’t being profiled. Unfortunately, the grand jury got that one wrong, as Garner’s death was preventable and excessive force was used. While the officer utilizing the chokehold (a maneuver banned by the department for over two decades) should have been held for trial, the key point is that race wasn’t a factor.

So if these “recent incidents” that Holder cites were not racially motivated, why the need for new rules at all?

2. Holder’s ban only applies to federal law enforcement agencies, but he is strongly suggesting all state and local police departments adopt them. Given that some departments bow to political correctness, and still others prostitute themselves to the federal government, look for many to follow suit, especially if the feds tie their funding to implementing the rules.

3. Quite interestingly, there are exceptions. The new rules will not apply to screeners at airports and the southwest border, the Secret Service, and certain types of national security investigations. Two things come to mind:

A. Since we have exceptions for these crucially important areas, that must mean, by definition, that profiling works. In other words, it’s not “ineffective.”

B. Given that it is effective, why are we disallowing it in all other federal law enforcement areas? That’s like a football coach telling his team that they can only pass the ball when near the goal line. The self-tying of America’s hands is as dangerous as it is stupid.

4. The answer, of course, is that Holder’s ban is rooted in misguided ideas about racism and bigotry, and his belief that government-mandated political correctness is the solution. But in establishing this new policy, he has shown himself to be a hypocrite, as many of his traditional allies on the Left have been pointing out.

If profiling is bad, then it’s bad, period. Holder should have banned it in all circumstances. But since he didn’t, it’s disingenuous for him to take the moral high ground, preaching against the “evils” of profiling while still allowing it in numerous circumstances. Whatever little credibility Holder had is now gone.

5. What’s next? Will broadcasting a person’s color or gender over police radio when describing a suspect be outlawed too? Don’t laugh. That’s coming.

As it is, the FBI last year succumbed to pressure from Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott and other PC groups when it halted its “Faces Of Global Terrorism” ad campaign in Seattle (which sought the public’s help finding international terrorists). And why? Because, in McDermott’s words, the “ad featuring 16 photos of wanted terrorists is not only offensive to Muslims and ethnic minorities, but it encourages racial and religious profiling.”

Really? Showing pictures of people who, it bears repeating, are wanted for terrorism, is racist? Trying to nail people who committed heinous acts is religious profiling? Most sickening, 13 of the 16 weren’t even American! It’s bad enough that we are placating the “offended-by-everything” American crowd, but now we are instituting policies to make nice with foreigners — including those hell-bent on doing us harm. Too bad politicians aren’t profiled for intelligence before taking office.

6. Profiling is an effective tool of law enforcement, from Coast Guard interdiction to kidnappings. But, like anything else, there should be limits. Stop-and-frisk, for example, is a policy that goes beyond tactical profiling and targets people simply because of color, leading to police abuse and loss of civil liberties.

But for the vast majority of investigations, profiling serves as a reliable starting point, and for good reason. At its core, profiling is using the huge amount of law enforcement and psychological knowledge acquired over time to develop efficient methodologies to catch the bad guys. If people’s feelings are “hurt” because they happen to be the same ethnicity or religion as wanted individuals, tough. Either they have a guilty conscience, or they aren’t smart enough to understand the difference between law-breakers and law-abiders.

As a huge melting pot, America presents unique challenges to law enforcement. Terrorists are increasingly “home-grown,” and criminal syndicates are often foreign-based. To effectively combat them, profiling is the one tool, above all, that can give America’s protectors the edge they need. With proper oversight to safeguard civil liberties, profiling should always have a home in America.

Profiling Works Says Freind