Our Security Depends on Missile Defense

President Barack Obama made his first visit to a Muslim nation on Monday as leader of the “free world” and declared that the United States "is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.”

In his address to the Turkish parliament, he called for a greater partnership with the Islamic world and said that Turkey was an important U.S. ally in many areas, including the fight against terrorism.

He called for a greater bond between Americans and Muslims, and said that terrorist groups such as al-Qaida did not represent the vast majority of Muslims.

"Let me say this as clearly as I can," he said. "The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical . . . in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject."

At the same time the president was speaking in Turkey, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he planned to cut 15 percent of the missile defense program, and recommended stopping production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs.

Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal for the Department of Defense represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

He said that we must "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks."

As I see it, the message from President Obama is the right one, and although it’s been said almost verbatim by President George W. Bush and the preceding three or four presidents, the mainstream media is acting like it’s the first time they’ve ever heard it.

We are not at war, and we should not be, with the Muslim world or Islam; however, we cannot forget or ignore the fact that radical Islamic extremists are at war with us and will stop at nothing, including death to themselves, to achieve victories in their war.

Secretary Gate’s plan to restructure the Defense Department to address the unconventional threats against us is a must, but we need to very careful not to lose sight of the conventional threats we face; countries like Venezuela, Iran, Russia, and North Korea — three of which are being run by egotistical lunatics that would like nothing more than to see the collapse of the mighty United States of America.

If we’re going to slash defense spending, I think we really need to rethink cutting funds for the missile defense shield program.

I may be a bit “gun shy” if you will, but I just don’t think it’s a good idea to announce we’re cutting missile defense just one day after North Korea launched the longest-range three-stage intercontinental ballistic missile they have yet to build, coupled with its troubling nuclear program, which by all accounts is being developed for capabilities required to strike the United States.

With North Korea and Iran in a marathon race to acquire nuclear capabilities, the reality is that we could be placing our allies and ourselves in serious jeopardy.

An immediate problem scenario is that our allies may feel that we are losing our ability to come to their aide in the event of an attack and they seek that protection elsewhere. This could be devastating to our friendships in the Arab region and Eastern Europe that have taken years to foster.

I am all for cutting government spending and management accountability, but not at the cost of our national security.

North Korea’s recent act of defiance in launching that missile, coupled with the fact that the United Nation’s Security Counsel has proven time and time again that is has neither the courage or capability of holding rouge states and their leadership accountable for egregious violations of U.N. resolutions, is a clear demonstration why we must not cut this program.

The New Freedom Tower

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey made a decision last week to change the name of the tallest new skyscraper slated for the site of the worst terror attack in United States history, from "Freedom Tower" to "One World Trade Center".

I think it’s wrong and I believe that the name should stay, “Freedom Tower.”

The original Twin Towers were two of the greatest economic symbols in our country and the enemy that attacked us then and stalks us now, loathes our economic and religious freedoms and our support for human and women’s rights. Those principals of freedom and many others, are exactly why we were attacked in the first place.

Given the events of that day and its aftermath and reflecting on the innocents we lost and heroes that perished, I believe that this building must be one of the most symbolic and patriotic structures of just about any in our country, and that includes in name.

We owe it to the memory of those we lost – innocent people from more than 100 countries and every walk of life. We owe it to the men and woman from the PAPD, FDNY and NYPD that ran into those buildings and defended our freedoms in one of the greatest rescue missions in world history.

As the Twin Towers imploded and the five surroundings buildings collapsed, there was an overwhelming feeling of denial and anger. But within moments after the dust settled in what appeared to be hell of earth, something began to happen. Freedom began to ring out loud and clear… from every window, building, car antenna and street post… American flags in every size and shape began to appear and the message to the terrorists was clear…

We will not be defeated!

When officials announced 7 years ago, that the tallest of the five planned towers at the site would symbolize the nation’s triumph over terrorism, I thought of those flags, I thought of our freedom and I thought of the message that we would be sending the animals that attacked us.

This building should remain the “Freedom Tower;”

It’s just the right thing to do.

No More Lip Service on Darfur!

Last week, Oscar award winning actor George Clooney was granted a private meeting with President Barack Obama to discuss the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan.

Clooney, a United Nations messenger of peace, asked the President to help end a long and bloody conflict that has killed or displaced millions of innocent refugees.

The actor, recently toured the African nation of Chad and said: "We want him (Obama) to appoint a high-level, full-time diplomat to negotiate and work hard every day for a peace treaty," noting that the situation in Darfur has not improved since he first visited the region in 2006.

As admirable as Clooney’s intent and demand for action may be, is it equally if not more naive and unrealistic?

A few years back, Clooney told an audience at the National Press Club that "It is the first genocide of the 21st century," and what the people in Darfur "need now is the American people and the world's population to help them." However, the reality is, that wasn’t exactly true.

Long before the international community focused on Darfur, in another part of the world there were atrocities were being committed against millions of people who were killed or displaced by a sick and demented dictator, much like the Janjaweed leadership in Darfur. The United States, the UN Security Counsel, and the international community thought diplomacy was the solution but Saddam Hussein laughed in their face.

In the aftermath of 9/11, we finally did what should have been done years before, yet have been criticized ever since. Intelligence failures and our failure to find weapons of mass destruction have over shadowed the fact that Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime were removed and today there is a free and liberated Iraq.

They should have been removed years before and yet the UN, the United States and the international community did nothing – exactly what their doing in Darfur today and it’s wrong.

"What we cannot do is turn our heads and look away and hope that this will somehow disappear," Clooney said, and I agree. However, the United Nations doesn't want to step on the toes of the African Union, our political leadership here in the United States doesn’t have the courage to do what has to be done and Americans for the most part, don’t understand the problem, can’t afford the cost and definitely don’t have the patience to fight this battle.

Clooney’s trips to Darfur, lip service by politicians and protests at the UN are not helping the people in the Sudan. President Obama appointing a “full time diplomat to negotiate and work hard everyday for a peace treaty” will not work. A peace treaty with who, the terrorists like the Janjaweed who continually attack ethnic black Africans, raping women, pillaging villages and committing widespread atrocities with the support of the government? That’s like saying we want a peace treaty with Osama Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda. It’s a joke.

Terrorist groups and governments that sponsor them must be stopped and stopped by force if necessary.Until we as a world leader are willing to do what it takes to hold them accountable without worrying about world opinion or being politically correct, the people in the Sudan will continue to suffer.

If George Clooney wants the genocide and atrocities in Darfur to end, then he has to say it and mean it. He has to understand it will come at a cost, it will take time and it will not be easy. He must understand that although the international community voices their condemnation for what is happening there, they themselves don’t have the courage and perhaps the money to do the dirty work. Is Mr. Clooney, his friends in Hollywood and the political leaders standing on the Darfur soap box, prepared for that? Do they really want to do what it takes to stop the atrocities and genocide?

I feel we must. I strongly believe that as a world power we are obligated to save an entire generation of people from extinction, which is exactly what will happen without our intervention. Unfortunately, it will probably lie solely on the shoulders of The United States of America – leader of the free world.

Is Mr. Clooney and Hollywood prepared for that and would they support it to the end? I surely hope so.