Aruba must solve the Natalee Holloway case


It has been nearly two months now, and some of you may be getting sick and tired of it all. The Fox News Network, and Greta Van Susteren on her show (10:00 pm Eastern) in particular, just won’t let go of this story.

I mean, there’s the continuing War on Terror in Iraq, John Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court, Boy Scouts going missing, NFL players getting shot, roller coasters colliding at Disneyland. There are even some intriguing courtroom stories out there, Greta’s forte’, as both Sadaam Hussein and the BTK killer prepare to possibly defend themselves in court.

What is so darned important about some little blonde teenage girl from suburbia going away on her class trip to Aruba, getting drunk on her last night on the island, hooking up with some Danish pretty boy, and then turning up missing in the morning when her classmates are returning to home?

Sure, it’s intriguing at first. Where is the girl? What happened to her? Was she murdered by this snotty little child of privilege who island-romanced her? Were any of his buddies involved? Did they drop her off at the beach, leave her down there on her own request or passed out, and she went for an early morning last swim in the waters of her idyllic vacation spot and drowned?

What happened to Natalee Holloway?

Well, it’s my opinion that the Fox News Network has it exactly right in this instance, and I for one am glad that someone, even Van Susteren, won’t let the story slip from our collective consciousness.

Far too often in today’s high-tech world we want things here and now, we want them fast, and then we want to move on to the next hot thing. Or story. God knows, there is always another hot news story coming down the pike.

The Holloway story was such at one time, about a month and a half ago, for a few weeks. But now, when was the last time that you heard more than a blurb or read more than a snippet on the case outside of the Fox/Van Susteren coverage?

There should be a quite obvious reason why this case is so important. It is the very reason that the case was important in the first place.

It has nothing to do with the young lady, Natalee Holloway, who appears to be tragically missing being a pretty young girl. It has nothing to do with the daily updates from her “I won’t leave this island without my daughter” mom.

The Natalee Holloway case must continue to have a spotlight shined brightly upon it until resolution for one reason, because it could happen to any of our daughters, or any of us for that matter.

Americans spend a tremendous amount of money every year at vacation destinations such as Aruba. Heck, I am planning an island trip of my own for later this year.

About five or six years ago, my wife and I sent one of my daughters away for a weeklong class trip of her own, all the way to Russia, where she visited both Moscow and St. Petersburg. I simply cannot imagine her not have returning from that trip, and our not knowing to this day where she was, or exactly what happened to her.

The government of Aruba needs to solve this case. And if they don’t, American consumers need to take their hard-earned vacation dollars to another of the many, many beautiful island vacation destinations.

As local Philadelphia politician and Abscamer Ozzie Myers has been famously quoted over the years, “Money talks and bullshit walks.” In the handling of the Natalee Holloway case thus far by Aruban authorities, there has been far too much BS. It is time for money to start talking. That is something the Aruban government and people will understand very well indeed.

So pay close attention to the Natalee Holloway case in the coming months, to the handling of the case by the Aruban authorities in particular.
And then, if you are not pleased with the outcome, vote with your individual and family wallets and pocketbooks. Stay away from Aruba, because next time it could be our daughter that is missing and never found, your family that is holding a memorial service without a body, as the Holloway family may one day have to face.

Michael Scheuer calls a spade a spade

Former CIA senior analyst and anonymous author of the book “Imperial Hubris” Michael Scheuer speaks on NBC’s “Meet the Press” during a taping at the NBC studios Sunday, Nov. 21, 2004, in Washington. Scheuer talked about the war on terrorism and the search for Osama bin Laden. (AP Photo/Meet the Press, Alex Wong) 


This morning on his local radio broadcast, Philadelphia talk radio icon Michael Smerconish had on as his main guest Michael Scheuer, former head of the “bin Laden” desk for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Scheuer has just released a book titled “Imperial Hubris”, which he wrote under the pseudonym of “anonymous”.

One thing that I found refreshing about Scheuer’s opinion is that he was and is able and willing to look beyond the usual labels that all political and ideological sides of the terrorist issue like to hang on bin Laden, and to simply call a spade a spade.

What I mean by this is that far too often those on the far end of the political Right want to label bin Laden as a terrorist, a madman, a demon, a devil, a deranged killer, a murderer.

Those on the far end of the political Left have called him an Islamic freedom fighter, a rebel, an insurgent leader. And of course, many have found far more colorful labels to hang on the man.

Scheuer points out that bin Laden is neither a demon nor a freedom fighter. He is a mainstream Muslim, a devout believer in Islam, a sincerely spiritual man.

Osama bin Laden says what he means, and he means what he says, and in this way he is a man of integrity. You don’t have to wonder what bin Laden thinks about any issue, he tells you how he feels, over and over.

In fact, more than we Americans, Osama bin Laden is willing to call a spade a spade.

For this reason, bin Laden is more dangerous to the United States and the future of our nation than most any other single man has ever been.

Radical Islam as an entity is a bigger threat to freedom, democracy and capitalism than any other ideology that has ever come down the pike. This includes everything from Nazism to Communism.

Scheuer puts forth in his book and in his commentaries a point-of-view that is enough to rankle both ends of the political spectrum. He holds the opinion that we are losing the War on Terror, not winning it as the Bush administration would have us believe. “Great stuff, this guy is on to something”, the liberals might say.

Not so fast. Scheuer believes that, rather than pull back or pull out, we should ratchet up the war, that we should “proceed with relentless, brutal, and, yes, blood-soaked offensive military actions until we have annihilated the Islamists who threaten us.

Wow. I may be in love. Someone who is willing to look beyond all the usual patriotic flag-waving, to see through all the appeasement weakness, and simply call a spade a spade.

Osama bin Laden is an incredibly intelligent, organized, worthy adversary. He is generous to his closest followers and those who suffer in the name of Islam. He is compassionate to his people. He is focused and forward-thinking. And he must be killed.

So often here in the United States we dance around political issues. We take the easy, go-along-to-get-along path. We use politically correct speech in public, and in front of our enemies, and then speak our real, true feelings only among other same-thinkers, or behind closed doors, or “off the record”. We concern ourselves more with how we are perceived by others, rather than living our lives true to ourselves.

Some call this being moderate, or being political. Some say that it is showing sensitivity, or respect, or consideration. Some say that it is simply being nice. I say it is nothing more than complete and utter “bull”!

If you think one thing, really and truly believe it in your heart and in your soul, and yet are unwilling to stand up publicly for that belief, for those feelings, then you are being dishonest with both yourself and your opponents. You are being insensitive, disrespectful and inconsiderate. You are saying one thing to someone’s face, and something entirely different behind their backs.

I think it is time to stop sugar-coating our messages here in America. It is time to stop saying things with a press sound bite in mind. It is time to speak our minds, and it is time to speak the truth. It is time to do what Michael Scheuer does when speaking and writing about Osama bin Laden. It is time to call a spade a spade.

Liberalism in general and the American Democratic Party in particular, are trying to lead us down a path towards central government intervention in nearly every facet of our lives.

The Dems are firmly against the President of the United States on every issue, no matter their own personal feelings, simply because they personally resent his holding of the office to begin with.

The liberals want to tax us more, and redistribute our hard-earned income to those they feel are more needy or more worthy. They want to weaken our military and our ability to defend ourselves, to such an extent that many of them refuse to even see our enemies for what they are.

They want to be able to take our property, our very homes, and give them to others who could perhaps make money with the property to fill the lib politician’s coffers, and those of their supporters.

And they want desperately to retain the liberal control of the Supreme Court that they have been able to orchestrate in the past few decades.

It is time to call a spade a spade. Michael Jackson is a weirdo. O.J. Simpson is a murderer. Hillary Clinton is an ultra-liberal politician masquerading in moderate sheep’s clothing.

Osama bin Laden is a dangerous, driven, organized leader of the greatest threat to freedom in history. A leader who must be killed and a movement that must be eradicated completely.

Call a spade a spade. The more people who are willing to finally do so, the easier it will be to do the difficult work of keeping America free, and the quicker we can return to some semblance of living in peace.

Who is John Roberts, and why should you care?

Embed from Getty Images

Earlier this week, in a nationally televised announcement befitting the importance of the occasion, President Bush introduced his nominee to the United States Supreme Court. He named Washington, D.C. circuit court judge John Roberts to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

But just who is John Roberts, and why should you care? Why is this whole Supreme Court thing such a big deal?

Why are you going to be saturated with coverage of Roberts’ confirmation hearings, and why is the same thing going to happen as the President makes even more appointments in the future.

First, let’s get the biography out of the way. John Roberts is a 50-year old married father of two children, a native of Buffalo, New York who graduated magna cum laude from both Harvard College and Harvard Law School. While at Harvard he served as Managing Editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Out of law school in 1980, Roberts clerked for current Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He moved on to become an associate counsel to the Reagan administration, and then took on the position of deputy solicitor general under the first George Bush, arguing cases for the government position in front of the Supreme Court.

Roberts became a general partner with the firm of Hogan & Hartson, where he again argued a number of cases in front of the high court. He was nominated by the current President Bush to the D.C. court of appeals, where he was confirmed in 2003.

The academic, legal, and professional credentials of John Roberts to serve on the United States Supreme Court are beyond question and challenge. Even ultra-liberal Democratic leader Harry Reid said “The President has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials”.

Suitable? Come on Harry, you can be a little more enthusiastic than that for our nation, can’t you?

There comes the problem, the reason that you should know as much as you can about John Roberts. Over the next couple of months, Roberts is likely to be attacked, pilloried and have his good name and sterling reputation besmirched by a number of ultra-liberal individuals and groups who would oppose any generally conservative nominee put forward by President Bush.

Expect that he will face scathing, attack-style questioning from the likes of Reid, Teddy Kennedy and advocates for places such as the pro-abortion group NARAL, which has already come out publicly against his nomination.

Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa asked “Who knows about this guy?” when the nomination was announced.

Well, there are two answers, Senator. If you mean his personal and professional record, it is right there to see. The guy is “brilliant”, as classy Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum put it . He is perfect for the job. To put it in the vernacular of the President’s favorite sport, he is a homerun.

Ah, but that is not what Senator Harkin is really asking, now is it? What Harkin wants to know is where John Roberts stands on key topics and controversial issues, such as abortion, religion, free speech and civil rights.

He wants to know if Roberts will make largely conservative rulings, like those of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, or will he be more moderate, as was O’Connor perceived.

Well, you know what Mr. Senator, you just don’t know now, do you? And you know what, you are not going to know, not for awhile, and neither are any of us.

When nominated by the first President Bush, it was expected that Justice David Souter was going to be a conservative. Ditto when O’Connor was nominated by President Ronald Reagan. Neither turned out to be the case.

So we can poke and probe away at every last word that John Roberts has uttered in public for the past twenty years. We can dissect his law school papers, read up on his arguments in front of the high court as a lawyer.

The liberals can be wary of a remark he made back in 1990 in a brief that he co-wrote that stated “The court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion…finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”

This is the rub. The liberals are deathly afraid that John Roberts not only has respect for, but will cast his votes in support of the United States Constitution, a document that is the basic law of the land on which our nation was founded, and under which we have grown and thrived.

Roberts is right, the Constitution supports no “right” to an abortion. The liberal fear is that, unlike some other Justices who know this but choose to legislate from the bench, Roberts will actually let the Constitution be his guide.

There is every indication that John Roberts is an “originalist”, that he clearly sees the value in the original meaning of our Constitutional framers, and that he is prepared to cast his votes in this manner. This is the type of jurist that President Bush promised us all along that he would nominate, and I am quite sure that Roberts had to answer a few important questions from him in this regard before being offered the position.

So you now have a general idea of just who John Roberts is, and what makes him tick. And in understanding that Democrats in general and liberals in particular are going to attack the nomination vehemently, you understand the importance of knowing him.

Liberals are going to attack him because they fear him. They are also going to attack him because they fear even more the next nomination to the court that President Bush will likely make in the next year or so, to replace ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

It is expected that nomination will be even more obviously conservative, and the liberals will feel that they need to put up a strong fight on Roberts to show the administration just what they will be up against next time around.

I say, bring on the fight, Dems. Swing away, libs. Take your best shot. The President, and thus his Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, have a large army of us in their corner fighting right along side them, and there will be no “Borking” of Roberts or any future Bush nominee. This is exactly what we have been waiting for since Election Dday 2000.

Historic opportunity for parents of Philly school children

Embed from Getty Images

Well, the ultra-liberal City of Philadelphia has done it again. Back in June, the school board voted to make African-American History a required course for all students in order to “further the understanding of black history.

I have just one question for the board. What about American History, period?

Ask many of the kids currently in Philly’s public school system about American history and you will get back a blank stare.

Our kids have heard of George Washington (he was a President, right?) and Abraham Lincoln (he freed the slaves, right?) They may even have heard of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The vast majority of Philly’s public school children get a sampling of real American history. But that exposure is inside a program that has become watered down. It is wholly incomplete, and virtually of little or no use in instilling a feeling of the shared national pride with which we and our parents and grandparents were raised.

Forget about learning the basic foundational principles of our nation. Forget about teaching of the many great men and women, and the pivotal events establishing the same.

Have there been black Americans who have contributed greatly to the success of America during it’s founding and growth? Of course. Just as there have been great white, Asian, Hispanic and Native American contributors, to name just a few ethnic and racial contributors.

Having an “elective” class on African-American history would be wholly appropriate, given that there is a large percentage of these students within the Philly school system. Same can be said for Hispanic-American history. These classes would teach the culture beyond what the students already receive at home (at least, we hope it is being taught at home, since it is so important) to anyone interested.

But to have a “mandatory” class in this subject is ludicrous. Kids who are not of this background and who share none of it’s culture, and who have little or no interest in it, will now be force-fed the subject matter, having it compete for their valuable study time with science, mathematics and other necessary courses.

Why is Philly doing this? Because they can. Because, in the immortal words of African-American Mayor John Street “the brothas and sistas are runnin’ this town” now. This is nothing more than another Street-influenced move to further liberalize the already deteriorating City of Brotherly Love.

Businesses and families have fled, and continue to flee, the old town for the past couple decades, and the radical polarizing efforts of this administration have just made things worse.

Philly has steadily dropped in national rank of population from it’s once and longtime position as #4 behind only New York, LA and Chicago. It will never return to the top five, not as long as the liberal politicians continue to run the town into the ground with policies like this mandatory class.

The Philadelphia school district is not doing enough to churn out kids who will be highly productive citizens in the future. School violence is rampant, especially when compared to Philly’s local Catholic and other private schools.

But the parents of Philly’s school kids have a choice. They can vote with their feet, just as their fellow citizens have voted with theirs over the years, and get their kids out of the public school system before it is too late.

Of course, this will likely take a commitment in dollars. Parents will have to shell out the cost of education, the cost of tuition at a decent school.

As someone who went through twelve years of primary education in a non-public setting, and someone who saw three daughters through a mixed bag of public/private education, I can tell you that it is absolutely worth the cost. Whatever sacrifices you need to make, make them.

At the very least, Philly’s parents need to begin to stand up for a stronger basic education for their children in the really important subjects that will help their kids compete on a national and world stage. These same parents need to demand a stricter disciplinary system that sorts out and deals substantively with juvenile delinquents, many of whose parents are a large part of the problem.

Getting the system to change in a positive direction in Philly, be it in city government or in the school district, has become one of the most difficult chores, one that is beyond the scope of most parents.

But the parents can do one thing for sure. They can ensure greater odds of success for their own children by pulling them from the sinking ship that is the Philadelphia public school system.

Hello, American liberals? London calling

Embed from Getty Images

What a difference a day makes. Twenty four little hours.

It was actually less than a day ago when the city of London was awarded the rights to host the 2012 Summer Olympics. The city exploded with joy, and all of England looked forward to their opportunity to shine under the spotlight as the world gathered in the British Isles for the greatest sporting event for the first time in over sixty years.

And then less than twenty four hours later, Londoners were dead and wounded on their buses and in their subway cars, and the Brits were in shock. At least seven different explosions spread over at least four different sites rocked the city as the public transportation system became the target of a coordinated terrorist attack by Muslim extremists during the morning rush hour.

A branch of al-Qaeda operating in Europe has taken responsibility for the blasts, and warns specifically that the Danish and Italian governments, and the governments of all “Crusaders”, must pull their troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, or those nations will be next on the terrorists hit list. The group specifically states that the attack is in direct response to, and as retaliation for, the military activity in the Middle East.

The attacks are fresh and new, and the rightful target of our wrath should be those radical Muslim terrorists. Our rightful targets should be al-Qaeda, bin Laden and his agents and supporters. Our rightful thoughts should now be with the British people as they mourn solemnly their many losses, the least of which, as we know well here in America from our own experiences on 9/11, will not be the psychological damage inflicted on a free and open society.

However, there is another group, a group right here at home, that needs to be pointed out and singled out right now, while this latest transgression against humanity is still fresh in our consciousness. That group would be those in the American liberal political movement in general, and the Democratic Party in particular.

For many, many months now, leading liberal Democrats have been berating President Bush over the War on Terror. They have stated that it was an unjustified war, and have called for American troop withdrawals loudly and publicly, the drumbeat of their insistence getting louder and louder, the negativity of their rhetoric getting stronger and stronger, as the weeks have passed.

The liberal mouthpiece, the New York Times, said on June 28th in response to the President’s speech to the nation on the Iraq chapter of the war that Iraq “had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks” on 9/11/2001, and that it was wrong for the President to have used those references so strongly in his speech.

This is a theme that the liberals, from Ted Kennedy to Harry Reid, from Hillary Clinton to John Kerry, have been putting forth ad nauseam with speeches at the halls of government and on the airwaves and in the print media. These liberals have been using the fact of many mainstream Americans tiring of the war effort for political capital, trying to paint themselves as moderate, tolerant, and peaceful.

Well, you were wrong Teddy, Hillary, John, Harry, and friends. This is a war, and Iraq has as much to do with it as any other nation. Iraq is not alone. Afghanistan was the first chapter, Iraq the current, but it won’t be the last. The words of the European radical terrorists prove it once and for all, that the 9/11 attacks were a coordinated effort by a real enemy that is bent on destroying our way of life. And now they have struck our friends and allies.

Need still more, Teddy? How about the efforts of Saddam’s regime to recruit bombers to take out Radio Free Europe in the late 90’s?

Need more, Hillary? How about your own husband’s Justice Department in a ’98 indictment against bin Laden that stated “… Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq” on projects including weapons development. Not the Bush Justice Department, your husband’s.

Need more, Msrs. Reid and Kerry? How about Saddam harboring ’93 Twin Towers bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin for a decade? Or his statement after the ’98 embassy bombing attacks by al-Qaeda calling bin Laden “an Arab and Islamic hero”? Or Abu Musab Zarqawi choosing Baghdad for surgery in 2002 after being wounded while fighting Americans?

There is so much more. The links between Iraq and al Qaeda, between Hussein and bin Laden, are so clear to anyone who looks with open eyes.

But the eyes of the American left, the liberal Democrats like Kennedy and Clinton and Kerry, remain blinded by an all-consuming hatred of George W. Bush, so much so that they endanger the lives of America’s service men and women by issuing anti-war and anti-administration proclamations on a daily basis that outlets like Al Jazeera use to fan the anti-American flames in the Middle East.

The actions and comments of the American liberal, leftist, Democratic party have been shameful as we try to fight and win a justified War on Terror, a war that they have made even more difficult. Shame on them, and all of their media mouthpieces like the New York Times, Al Franken, and Michael Moore.

The attacks this morning on our good friends and loyal allies over in England once again highlight for us that we are in a real war, one that will not be fought and won over weeks and months, but over years and perhaps even decades. In response to the attacks, President Bush stated with resolve; “We will not yield…we will spread a message of hope and compassion that will overcome their ideology of hate.”

God bless you, Mr. President. And God bless all of our fighting women and men in this most historic struggle. It is the age-old classic struggle of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, moral vs. immoral. It is really that clear a struggle, and it is long past time for the liberals to set aside their politics and stand up for democracy and freedom for once.

And finally, may God bless the British people as they struggle to come to grips with the war reaching their shores. Here is to hoping that they and all of Europe are prepared to do what needs to be done over the long haul to win this war. Because against this enemy, much as against the fascism of Nazi Germany over a half century ago, nothing short of complete and total victory is acceptable.