It has been a long time since the previous volume of my exclusive series, “Short Bursts”. Certain situations require me to pull my “M-60 keyboard” out of the “armory”. I will apologize in advance, because this volume of Short Bursts turned out kinda long.

Beware of Hillary

As the person that organized the very first anti-Hillary rally in New York State, I could probably write volumes under the topic “Beware of Hillary”. The article linked above doesn’t even mention the rally itself, only a separate anti-Hillary activity. But, I knew the people that drove with the sign. It was a mini-van, not a tractor-trailer. They drove alongside Hillary’s vehicle, not parked along the road. If there had been a tractor-trailer, my friends would’ve noticed it and reported it to me. TV news crews from other countries, but not from the United States, filmed our rally. While skewing the attendance numbers, even a Hillary spokeswoman later admitted that our protest “seemed more coordinated” than others. “Thank you!”

I’m confident that Senator Clinton knows my name, because one of her best friends was a co-defendant in a lawsuit that I filed (pro se) against my congressman when I lived in Upstate New York. That friend was Judith Hope, who conveniently moved to NY from Little Rock, Arkansas, a couple of years prior to Hillary’s “spontaneous decision” to run for the Senate. Unlike how it works in the rest of the world, shortly after her arrival, Ms. Hope became the chairman of the NYS Democratic Party. The congressman was a Democrat (named later in this story), and that’s how her name ended up on the lawsuit. The lawsuit was for illegal campaign activity — using a public school as the setting for a campaign TV advertisement. (To comply with the NYS Education Law, the congressman would have needed to circulate a petition in advance, and get the approval of voters in the school district. He admitted that he never did that.)

At an event called “Operation Adullam” (named after the Cave of Adullam; see: 1 st Samuel 22:1-2), which I organized, dozens of people shouted “Go home!” as Hillary entered the Holiday Inn in downtown Binghamton, NY, on 09 June 1999. (Contrary to Left-leaning news reports, peak attendance was about 200 people, and the anti-Hillary crowd was about 130 of them.) This was a month beforethat cry was taken up at the “official” start of her so-called “listening tour” across New York State.

One of the terribly ironic facts of her ill-received first visit to the conservative Southern Tier of NY was her admitted ignorance of a key technology. Having set up a “brainstorming” session with employees at the Lockheed-Martin defense plant in Owego, Hillary admitted that she had never heard of MAGLEV rail transportation. Now, here is what the “mainstream” news media did NOT report about that fact. The reason that Lockheed-Martin employees were keyed-up about MAGLEV transportation when Hillary went there is because it was a key feature of my 1994 Congressional campaign!

But, the irony continues. I got the idea for using MAGLEV as a centerpiece after reading a mailing from … Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan! At the time of the 1988 mailing, I was employed by Link Flight Simulation — back then, one of many defense contractors in the area. Both of the US Senators from NY (Democrat Moynihan, and Republican Alfonse D’Amato) were warning the Southern Tier business leaders that they would not be able to continue basing the region’s economy so heavily upon defense contracting businesses. Moynihan went so far as to suggest a new strategy; but, few people listened. I was one of the few, and began researching the topic of MAGLEV high-speed passenger rail. As it turns out, all of the technology needed to make a MAGLEV train work is manufactured along a 100-mile strip of … the Southern Tier of New York State! (I lived at one end of the strip, and the Congressional District that I was running for was home to several of the companies that make the components needed.) My proposal was the topic of a front-page story in the leading newspaper in the area. It was also the topic of a unanimous declaration by the Broome County Legislature that my idea could create large numbers of good-paying jobs across the Southern Tier.

My opponent in the race was incumbent Left-wing extremist Congressman Maurice Hinchey. During the 1994 public debates, even he conceded that my idea was a good one. In 1999, Hillary Clinton came to Binghamton as the main attraction of a fundraiser for Hinchey. (That visit triggered “Operation Adullam”.) A month later, Hillary kicked off her “listening tour” at the farm of Senator Moynihan. The next day, speaking at Lockheed-Martin, she didn’t know what a MAGLEV was. (And, the Democrats need to squeeze votes out of defense-contractor employees — over whom they can still wield a certain “fear factor” — because they can no longer rely on the unions to drum up enough votes for them.)

Apparently, Hillary wasn’t even “listening” to her two closest allies in New York! (And, I do mean close. I have a copy of an invitation to a White House tea, hosted by Hillary Clinton. There were only six ladies invited to the tea, and Maurice Hinchey’s wife was one of them. Tipper Gore was another.) After her faux pas at the Lockheed-Martin factory, she had a month to study up on MAGLEV before traveling to Senator Moynihan’s farm to launch her “listening tour”. If she had done even a cursory study on MAGLEV, she would’ve discovered that Moynihan was the government’s biggest supporter of that technology. And, if she sought his advice to run for the Senate, wouldn’t that have been something that she could’ve used in a job-creation speech? To not mention it was to insult Moynihan on his own turf. (Of course, job creation isn’t part of the “official duties” of the First Lady. As far as I know, Hillary’s only “official duty” at that time was being performed by Monica Lewinsky.) So, if she doesn’t even listen to her own elected Democratic Party allies, how could we expect President Hillary (gag!) to listen to the average American trying to preserve the Constitution?

There is a lot more to the Hillary-Hinchey connection; but, I think this is enough to prove my Short Bursts point: “Beware of Hillary”. Just as her bogus 1999 “listening tour” turned into a taxpayer-funded Senate campaign, you can expect her current “centrist” machinations to morph into what Cybercast News Service (CNS) calls “the not-yet-running-for-president candidate”.

Terrorist Hordes

One of my favorite sources of information about the Middle East is scholar and analyst Daniel Pipes, who reads source materials in Arabic. One of his latest columns is “British Opinion Surveys from an Islamist Hell”, published 25 July 2005. In it, he shows that an opinion survey commissioned by London’s Daily Telegraph produced results that were remarkably similar to a report by London’s Times of a leaked MI-5 report. Using logic, Pipes points out that the "extremely small" number of terrorists estimated by MI-5 to be living in England strikes him as “extremely large”. That number is 16,000! Pipes points out that the British government wants to engage in a “hearts & minds” program called Operation Contest, with the goal of using “moderate” Muslims to suppress the “extremist” elements within their community. As I said in my oft-quoted article “Louder Than Words”, the problem is that “… their god is at war with our God”. Therefore, the terrorists are acting (as they see it) as “pure” Muslims. Thus, anyone considered a “moderate” Muslim would simply be considered an “apostate” by the terrorist element, and such moderate leanings toward peace would not hold water with the terrorist element.

In his articles, Daniel Pipes does not put forth the assertion quite so bluntly. That appears to be caused by his reluctance to view Islam itself as the reason for terrorist zeal. (In an e-mail exchange, Mr. Pipes and I disagreed on a point that later became one of his most controversial articles: “Is Allah God?”. I say that he definitely is not, but Pipes says that he is.) If they are the same, then why do the followers of Allah make war specifically upon the followers of God? My assertion is that Allah (the moon god in the ancient Mesopotamian pantheon — the son of Baal, the sun god) is making war upon Jesus (the son of God). Thus, the followers of Allah (Muslims) make war upon the followers of God (Jews) and the followers of Jesus (Christians). Although this analysis seems simple, it is not simplistic. It fits with both history and theology. And, if space permitted, would also fit a linguistic argument against Mr. Pipes assertion. (Ironically, Mr. Pipes' assertion that Allah is God does not even fit the scenario of his own article about the definition of “jihad”. I submit that certain historic Muslim leaders have likely committed “linguistic jihad” against the distinctions between Judeo-Christianity and Islam — and the distinctions between the Bible and the Koran.)

In an interesting parallel, homosexuals comprise somewhere between one and two percent of the population. But, they want the average citizen to think that they are “everywhere”. Look at how much influence that one-percent segment has had on popular culture in the last ten years. (Of course, that was the result of a planned strategy, helped by their willing shills in the “mainstream” news media. Well, now, there’s another parallel with terrorists….) Reasonably reliable figures indicate that terrorists comprise one percent of the Muslim population. Look how much influence that group has had on their larger segment — “moderate” Muslims — and upon the population at large. One could argue that homosexuals and terrorists have many parallel goals: most support Socialism in some form, they use “shock value” to get their point across, and they are hell-bent (literally) on destroying the Judeo-Christian foundations of any nation on Planet Earth. (Here’s a tip for MI-5 and their Operation Contest: use this parallel between homosexuals and terrorists — and between Communists and terrorists — and you may put a dent in terrorist recruiting among “moderate” Muslims!) It is imperative for everyday citizens and security planners alike to understand that jihad is a deeply-ingrained religious principle, which is highly valued in Islam. Thus, it should be no surprise that terrorists (and their families) feel no remorse.

Among other things, the above-referenced opinion survey reports, “One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists .” And, more than half “…understand why some people might want to behave in this way.” Islam boasts that it is the fastest-growing religion on Earth. If only one percent of Muslims in England can produce 16,000 terrorists there, imagine how much of an effect terrorist recruiting has in America — and throughout the world! During my 1994 Congressional campaign, I learned about the al-Fuqra terrorist training headquarters near rural Hancock, New York. (By comparison, note the date on this news report.) We don’t need to worry about terrorists “invading America”, because that happened decades ago. What we need to worry about is that Americans have become so soft that they no longer seem to care about the fact that terrorist cells have sprouted up like mushrooms among us.

And, unless that attitude changes, we can expect their numbers to grow until Muslim terrorist hordes do to America what they did to Europe after the fall of Constantinople (formerly Byzantium, capital of the Christian half of the Roman Empire) in 1049. In case you don’t know about that aspect of history, marauding bands of Muslim raiders went into the Christian nations to the north of Constantinople (which they renamed Istanbul). In those Slavic countries, they rounded up villages full of Christians, and took them back to their port city. There, the Muslims sold the Slavs as bound servants to Muslims in other countries. There was so much “Slav trade” that the word “slave” eventually made its way into the English language. “Pure” Muslims know only two spiritual states: the “house of peace”, and the “house of war”. There are only two ways to live in the house of peace: Muslim or slave. The concept of what we Americans call a pluralistic society is not only foreign to them, it is repugnant. It is a sign of “weakness”, a sign of “apostasy” from their view of the “pure” Muslim faith.

So, fellow Americans, we can either resist the ideology and the methodology of terrorists — while they are still approximately one percent of one minority segment of our population — or we can all become their slaves one hundred percent of the time. The terrorist hordes have already proclaimed their position, and they’re not kidding. So, it’s time we stopped kidding ourselves about their intentions — before it becomes too late.

Border security

Living in Tennessee, and being politically active, I’m on the e-mail lists of several groups. One of those groups is called VOLPAC. It supports US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, MD, who happens to also live in Nashville. Recently, Senator Frist sent out a message through VOLPAC. At the end of it, he wrote, “ As this is an issue of such profound importance, I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.” Well, sir, I’m glad you asked.

The message was about the security of our borders. Here is what the senator wrote.

I wanted to reach out to you about an issue you'll be hearing a lot about in the days and months ahead...the security of our borders.

We are facing a crisis.

Over 7,000 miles of land span our borders; 330 million non-citizens flow through those borders every year...an alarming number of them illegally.

Make no mistake, most of the people crossing our borders illegally do so for one simple reason:

They are coming to America in search of opportunity and prosperity and a better life.

That's why they risk their lives...and, sadly, some even lose their lives to get here.

Hundreds of illegal immigrants died last year in the deserts and mountains that separate the United States from Mexico.

Now more than ever, as a matter of law, as a humanitarian matter, as a matter of national security, we must protect our nation's borders.

We MUST:

• Deploy more patrol agents and investigators to our borders.
• Equip these professionals with the very best equipment and technology available.
• Build an enduring infrastructure -- frontline defenses -- that will protect our borders for years to come.

These are just a few of the steps that will secure America's borders.

Because when we enhance the security of our borders, we increase the safety of our citizens and all who set foot on American soil.

My opinion on this matter, Senator Frist, is simple and straightforward: obey the Constitution. Article 4, Section 4, says that the duty of the United States government is to protect the borders of every State in this Union “against invasion”. It does not mention “alternative methods of entry”, nor “undocumented immigration”, nor “creative ways to seek new opportunities”. Lets start calling the illegal penetration of our borders precisely what it is: an invasion.

The senator’s message is that we must “[d]eploy more patrol agents and investigators to our borders”. That message is wrong. We don’t deploy investigators to an invasion! We deploy soldiers; and, we let them do what we send them there to do.

The penetration of our borders is so intense and pervasive that, more than twenty years ago, our government put together a then-secret military unit to try to stop at least some of it. That unit was Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6). Yeah, they’re they ones that became “famous” in 1993 for conducting a military siege in Waco, Texas. The siege was called Operation Showtime. I won’t digress here about the problems with sending a large military task force to conduct operations against a group of civilians living on a farm. The only point of digression will be to ask this question: if it was really a law-enforcement operation — designed to arrest and prosecute alleged criminals — then why did the FBI 1) kill the children that they were purportedly trying to “rescue”, 2) kill the witnesses; and, 3) burn the evidence and bury the ashes?

It seems that, if our government is serious about securing our borders, then our government ought to do exactly what the Constitution specifies. First, we need to remind our leaders at the highest levels that an invasion is a matter of national security, not law enforcement. Second, we need to encourage our leaders to deploy the military forces necessary to secure those borders. Third, each of the affected border States should augment full-time military forces by deploying members of their Militia.

Please note that I did not say “National Guard”. Although the National Guard and Reserves are (mostly) part-time troops, they are distinct from the Militia mentioned in the Constitution. At the Virginia Constitutional Convention, signer George Mason said, “… I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people…” Federal law [10 USC 311(a)] defines the Militia as every able-bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45. (Technically, I no longer qualify. I’m 47 years old, and have a VA disability due to injuries from a parachute malfunction while freefall jumping from a military helicopter. But, the last time I went to the range, I shot a six-inch group at 50 yards with a .357-Magnum!) The companion section of the law, 10 USC 311(b), defines the two classes of the Militia: organized and unorganized.

There is no conflict between Federal statute, the laws of the several States, and the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution makes this point clear. Paragraph 11 authorizes the Army, and Paragraph 12 authorizes the Navy. Paragraph 13 authorizes the Congress to make the rules for “the land and naval forces” just authorized. But, as Paragraphs 14 and 15 specify, the Militia is a separate force, which belongs to the several States. The Congress may “call forth” the Militia from the States, and they may then be “employed in the service of the United States”; but, that is separate from the standing Army and Navy — which are already in the service of the United States. To the uneducated, or the apathetic, these points might seem like hair-splitting. But, understanding these points is vital to the protection of the borders of the United States!

Ten to twelve years ago, the “mainstream” news media did a superb job of vilifying the concept of belonging to the Militia. They never mentioned that “every able-bodied man …” was already a member of the Militia by law. They never mentioned that such membership is mandatory, nor that the governor of every State may call out the Militia when the need arises. No, all that the “mainstream” news media did was equate the word “Militia” with words such as “extremist”, “racist”, “separatist”, “skinhead”, and “Nazi”. The plan was working, until a Black man named James Johnson became a prominent figure in the Ohio Militia. (To learn about Johnson, scroll about halfway down this article.)

As a result of such government-media collaboration, membership in Militia groups plummeted. Now, our country is being inundated with illegal immigration. And, the Federal government admits that it is overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the invaders. Common sense would indicate that the affected border States could — with or without Federal mandate, or approval — call up their own Militia members. But, would the governor of any state have the fortitude to do so? I doubt it. And, in the absence of fortitude by State governors, would our Federal leaders call up the Militia? Again, it is not likely.

So, private citizens are doing for themselves what their elected leaders are neglecting: making every reasonable effort to secure our borders. The most famous modern effort is called The Minuteman Project. And, even though it is only a few months old, the Minuteman Project is already spawning similar projects across the country. I’ve already been invited to an upcoming rally of the Tennessee Volunteer Minutemen. Nashville talk-radio host Phil Valentine recently held a populist rally called “De-Magnetize Tennessee”, and plans to host another one soon. (I’m a frequent caller to Valentine’s program. But, so far, I have not been invited to guest-host it when he’s out of town.) When I ran for Congress in 1994, I advocated the shoot-down of drug-laden aircraft that penetrate American airspace. (I still have a copy of Soldier of Fortune magazine, with a report about a similar measure that was brought before Congress in 1988.) I believe that our borders should have signs that read, “use of deadly force is authorized”, in several major languages. And, if we say it, then we ought to mean it.

It is already widely known that Middle Eastern terrorists are entering the United States through our southern borders — taking advantage of the fact that, to the inexperienced eye, they resemble Mexicans. (When I worked in a jail in NY, I proved to my partners that a man they thought was named “José” was really named “Hossein”. I spoke to him in Farsi, and he responded appropriately.) If we don’t plug our porous borders, then we can expect acts similar to those recently experienced in London. (Take a good look at the photo of the bomb.) Do you want that here? Are you willing to take a stand (literally) to prevent it? The Constitution and all relevant laws say that we can, and common sense says that we must.

Well, Senator Frist, you asked for my opinion. I couldn’t fit that onto a postcard.

Squirrels and Guns

OK, no volume of Short Bursts is ever without some humor. And, since this volume has included some fairly long bursts, it’s time to cool down the barrel a little. (But, just as my serious points are rarely without a bit of humor, so this humorous point also has its serious side.)

A recent issue of MensNewsDaily.com linked a British headline in our “Sex and Metropolis” section. The headline read, “SEX-MAD squirrels are destroying trees in an ancient forest - to try to impress their girlfriends...” (The news article featured a photo from the more-open British press. The photo could be described as “acorn-o-graphic”.)

It seems that the squirrel population in the Forest of Dean, in England, has grown dramatically in recent months. Part of their mating ritual includes gnawing bark from trees. There are so many squirrels tearing so much bark that the trees are dying in significant numbers. British forestry officials say that they “do not have the resources to cull squirrels”.

I’d like to take this opportunity to remind readers that Great Britain has very strict gun-control laws. That is why they “don’t have the resources” to trim the squirrel population. If they can’t even stop squirrels, it’s no wonder that they can’t stop terrorists! Here in Tennessee, where many people have guns, we don’t have many trees falling down dead from “spontaneous explosions” of their outer bark. This is especially true during squirrel season.

send Bochco “Over There”

As I was typing part of this article, the new TV series “Over There” premiered on the FX cable-TV network. So, as a “bonus feature” of this volume, you also get a review of the program. And, because we’re talking about Hollywood here, I’ll get to the emotions first, and save the facts for later.

Although the action and the visual effects seemed fairly realistic, my over-arching memory of the show was that I heard the name of God blasphemed about twice-per-minute for every minute of dialogue throughout the program. Even when I was stationed in Korea, leading a counter-terrorist team, I don’t think I heard that much cussing. That is a signature feature of shows by Stephen Bochco, creator of “Hill Street Blues” and “NYPD Blue”. Knowing that, I almost didn’t watch it in the first place. And, I probably won’t watch it anymore.

The other significant impression I got from the show was a sense of hopelessness. I hope that none of our troops watch this show before they deploy, and that none watch it while home on leave before returning to the war. If they do, my concern is that they will carry with them a gut feeling of “what’s the point?”, and the accompanying hopelessness that could take away “the edge” and get them killed. The soldiers in “Over There” spent most of the premiere episode pinned down behind a short berm. When they did fight back, it was in violation of policy. And, even when they were victorious, the soldiers were left with a sense that it was hollow. (Admittedly, these feelings are sometimes genuinely present in real combat. But, the problem here is that it is the premier episode of a program about a war, while that war is still being fought. Premiers set the tone for the series, and the tone of this show is not good.) I feel that troops, and their family members, watching “Over There” could become demoralized to some degree.

By contrast, real troops don’t always blaspheme God

(Old saying: “There are no atheists in the foxholes.”)
(photo from Anointed.Net — source not credited)

Now, for some of the technical details. Most of the uniforms, equipment, and weaponry were accurate. The way that the two female characters were inserted into the scenario was unlikely at best. (Corporal “Doublewide” deployed as part of a forward infantry unit, even though women are not assigned to infantry billets — especially in a combat zone.) But, this is in keeping with Hollywood’s echoing of Left-wing extremist demands for “gender equity” when it comes to the “opportunity” to be shot at, wounded, captured, tortured, or killed.

One amusing moment came when some reinforcements showed up for “our” squad while they were pinned down. The squad leader, Sergeant “Scream”, was on the left flank of the battle line. The vehicles from the reinforcing squad pulled up behind the first squad. From the Humvee parked right behind “Scream”, a gunner opens fire with a .50-caliber machinegun. As the distinctive sound dominates the scene (and, in theory, the thumb-size bullets are flying over Scream’s head), the intrepid sergeant shouts, “I sure wish that 50 would get here!” It’s a good thing I wasn’t trying to drink anything at the time, because I would’ve chortled so hard that foam would spew out of my nose. Anyone that has ever been around serious weapons would definitely know that the .50 had arrived and was on the job — especially from such close range that the barrel gas could’ve almost caught his pants on fire.

I won’t bother going into details about how the sergeant failed to take advantage of available terrain and cover to better protect his squad and overcome the enemy. (If I could see the opportunity from the comfort of my couch, then the director could surely have seen it on the set.) I will ask why the reinforcements, in vehicles, didn’t try to outflank the enemy (who was on foot). But, on the whole, for the untrained eye, the combat sequences were acceptable by Hollywood standards.

What was not acceptable, even by Hollywood standards, was the stupid way that the “dramatic conclusion” was set up. One of the characters, Angel, tells his squad-mate, Bo, that he is a “natural leader”. Bo mentions that he played quarterback in high school, because people have just followed him all his life. In the very next scene, spaced-out pot-head “Smoke” strikes up a conversation in the mess tent. He explains that Echo Company, posted down the road a few miles, has some whiskey in mouthwash bottles. He suggests that they go negotiate for some of it. Everyone at the table agrees to go along with this foolhardy idea — including the “natural leader” Bo. And, apparently without anyone’s knowledge (hasn’t Bochco heard of sentries?) or permission, the group obtains a truck and a Humvee, and goes out on a convoy to get the booze.

At no point in this scenario did anyone have the courage to speak up and tell Smoke that he was an idiot. No one had the courage to “just say no”. (These are men that have just faced a well-armed enemy force at 50 meters?!) They all just went along with it. The “natural leader” scarcely paused before obeying the whims of the known pot-head. Nobody in the group bothered to mention the possibility that the rumors about the whiskey might be false. Nobody considered the possibility that Echo Company might not want to part with their booze. And, our gang managed to obtain the vehicles and drive merrily out of the camp without incident. Of course, while driving down the road, they do manage to pull off to the side and park on a land mine, and get everyone seriously injured. The scenario mocks the seriousness of the danger that our real troops face every time they go on a convoy — to get supplies, to recon the area, or to provide medical treatment and other services for Iraqi civilians.

My best friend’s son is a third-generation Marine, in a special unit that is deployed all over the Middle East on short notice. The final scenes of the premiere episode of “Over There” are an insult to him, and to the tens of thousands of other troops that are fighting over there — so that we won’t have to fight terrorists over here.

To help improve his insight, I recommend that Stephen Bochco go “Over There” himself. Perhaps, then, he won’t be so inclined to make money by telling half-baked stories to demoralize our troops during a war. In the old days, that might have been called “treason”.

Hoo-yah!

Tom Kovach