A Tale of Two Public Schools

"The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frederic Bastiat

This is the tale of schools over a thousand miles apart. One is in Massachusetts and the other in Texas. Both are supported with taxpayer money and are supposedly responsible to the community. One believes in education while the other prefers indoctrination. You can decide which one you would want your children to attended

According to a report in the AP Texas News there is a grade school in Victoria, Texas that teaches fifth graders lessons of like by actually allowing them to experience them. “There's no money in education these days, Aloe Elementary teacher Kelly Lorance will say, unless you're a fifth-grader in her class.”

On any given day, there are hordes of cash spilling from students' fingers or waded into desks for safekeeping. One student has $500 saved, and Garrett Weber, scarcely taller than a doorknob, is already a landlord with multiple tenants.”

Lorance's students practice economics every day in their self-created society by earning fake cash, buying and selling everything from pencils to $2 rubber duckies. “It teaches them everyday life skills that you can't really teach to them in a lesson," Lorance said. "I can't really teach them how to be organized by pulling up a lesson plan. It's got to be hands on to show them what our society is."

The concept is simple: Students get paid for earning good grades or odd tasks and use it to pay obligations like desk rent or fees for missed assignments. They can even save their money and buy up other student's desks, like Garrett does.

He's a slight, blond-headed boy who wears glasses and quickly interrupts his fellow students as he explains how he's come to be a landlord. "It feels like you're gaining power over someone," he said.

Garrett bought three of his classmates' desks, lowered the monthly rent, but still nets $60 at the end of every month. His goal is to have the most money in the room and continue growing his business. "I want to buy the whole room," he said.

Every bit of the approach is student driven, Lorance said. Students set the prices for job salaries — a janitor earns $15 while a tutor earns $20 — and so on. Students also set their grading pay scale and can earn up to $3 for an "A" or owe up to $5 for missed work.

The approach comes at an ideal age and in a perfect way, said youth financial literacy expert Lori Mackey. "Employers reward sales people with commission, and so on, and when you reward a child with money, you're just teaching them how money works," she said.

Grade school is an ideal time to start simple financial concepts like compounded interest and how to buy and sell things because teachers have students in one classroom the entire day, unlike upper grades. If students grasp the concepts early, it can prevent them from financial woes later in life. "The less educated you are with money, the more it costs you," Mackey said.

With the economic climate deteriorating, Mackey believes financial literacy must start with children now more than ever. "Our states are falling apart because they can't manage money. So we, as parents and states and educators, have got to teach financial literacy," she said. "The only way we can do that is teaching our children to work with money."

But the love of money also ushers another concept — greed. When Lorance's students drop money on the floor, it quickly becomes a free-for-all.

"It's gotten wilder. Way too wild," said Destiny Rios, 11, who's seen her share of money dives. "Sometimes there are at least four people bumping heads getting money," Garrett said.

The money grab is part of the class rules to keep kids vigilant, and if cash is touching the floor, it's anybody's dollar. "If they lose their money, too bad. So sad," Lorance said. "I'm not replacing it. It's just like the real world." So far, it seems to work. "Once you drop it, you're never going to drop it again," Destiny said.

Lorance even planned for counterfeiting by buying the last and only brand of cash at a sports store. Overall, the process seems effective though it requires extra effort to manage the 27 students.

Grades are rising, and Garrett is anxious to spend his savings. "It's burning a hole in my pocket," he said.

Some of you may think this is bit severe for fifth graders, but I believe it allows them to learn responsibility, entrepreneurship and financial management, something lacking in our schools today where the trend is towards communal living and wealth sharing.

Chuck Rogér writes in American Thinker Preschools Are Using a Marxist's Theories to Manufacture Collectivists

He states: “The obsession with social versus equal justice parallels a learning theory called constructivism. A devotee to the theory, Vygotsky viewed knowledge as each person's individual "construct." The notion, contemptuous of reality, led the man to conceive methods that trap children in progressivism's central struggle: the rejection of said reality. Preschools, which use Vygotsky's creative play to relieve the tension between pretend and real worlds, implant fairy-tale realities in children. The progressive K-12 system then supercharges the Pollyannaish programming.”

“As one researcher notes, Lev Vygotsky theorized that by changing "the tools of thinking available to a child, his mind will have a radically different structure." At Metropolitan State College of Denver, the "Tools of the Mind" organization develops Vygotskyian curricula and trains teachers to wire radically different thinking into the brains of children in 18,000 preschool and kindergarten classrooms throughout America. And the number is growing.”

This teacher in Victoria, Texas is taking a different approach, more in the vein Socrates and Plato than the communist Vygotsky. She is allowing her students to learn about freedom, choices and consequences, values this Republic was funded upon.

The second school is Brookline High School, Brookline, Massachusetts. On April 30, 2005, with the help of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Boston Public Health Commission a book titled "The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st century"” was distributed to middle school and high school age students, sans parental approval, by the Boston-based AIDS Action Committee. The event that day was designed for children and their teachers across Massachusetts, organized by the "Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network" (GLSEN). This is the group that runs "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs in public schools across the country.(Note the link above for the Little Black Book shows extremely gross and disgusting images and text)

This book was given to schoolchildren in a public school and written with public money. On May 17, 2005 then Governor Mitt Romney said; “This is not a state-funded publication. Graphic pornographic material on the gay lifestyle has no place in any school. While I agree that medically accurate information is essential in AIDS prevention efforts, this particular publication is grossly inappropriate and should never find its way into the hands of school-aged children.” But what did he do about it — nothing. This man wants to be President of the United States and he could not bring criminal charges against the GLSEN for distributing obviously pornographic material to children.

There is not much more I can write about this publication that is fit for public consumption. I will let the “book” and the actions of the GLSEN and Governor Romney speak for themselves. However, the one thing I can say is that I would much rather send my children to school in Victoria, Texas than in Massachusetts.

There is one more report I want to add to this blog and concerns Abercrombie & Fitch. CNN Reports that U.S. retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has come under fire for offering a push-up bikini top to young girls.

Its "Ashley" bikini -- described as "padded" and a "push-up" — was posted on the Abercrombie Kids website earlier this week. The company declined to comment Saturday but noted it has since updated the description of its bikini online. The product is now being offered as a padded, "striped triangle." Bottoms are sold separately.

Los Angeles-based psychologist, Dr. Nancy Irwin, said wearing a chest-boosting bikini top at such a young age can pave the way for sexual promiscuity. “Wearing a padded bra at that age when unnecessary is encouraging sexual precociousness, a dangerous muscle to flex for the girl as well as for peers and predators,” she explained.

Human Behavior expert Patrick Wanis PhD concurred that the padded tops are both disturbing and dangerous. "Playing at sexy is an inevitable and important part of growing up. But there's a difference between exploring these ideas on your own and having them sold to you in a children's catalog," she wrote.

Gail Dines, a sociology professor at Wheelock College in Boston, similarly slammed the top, saying it would encourage girls to think about themselves in a sexual way before they are ready.

The first example exemplifies a school teaching traditional values of responsibility, entrepreneurship and financial management while the second two illustrate liberal, progressive motivated decline in our nation, akin to the moral decline that destroyed the once great Roman Empire.

So where does all of this promotion of teen and pre-teen sexuality led us to? It leads to an eleven year old girl being gang raped by one adult and six juveniles near a mall in the Moreno Valley, a community a few minutes away from where my eleven year old granddaughter lives.

A Nation of Greedy Brats

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. — Winston Churchill

Fox News reports: “LONDON — A quarter-million mostly peaceful demonstrators marched through central London on Saturday (March 26, 2011) against the toughest cuts to public spending since World War II, with a small breakaway group smashing its way into a bank, breaking windows and spray painting logos on the walls. Another group of black-clad protesters hurled paint bombs and ammonia-filled light bulbs at police.”

“Organizers of the March for the Alternative said people from across the country were peacefully joining in the demonstration, the biggest protest in London since a series of rallies against the Iraq war in 2003.”

“Commander Bob Broadhurst of the Metropolitan Police confirmed that more than 250,000 people had marched peacefully, but said around 500 had caused trouble in London's main shopping streets. He said nine people had been arrested, for public disorder and criminal damage.”

“Police said one group of a few hundred people broke away from the main march, scuffling with police officers and attempting to smash shop windows on two of London's main shopping streets. Others threw objects at the posh Ritz Hotel in nearby Piccadilly. Members of protest group UK Uncut later broke into the nearby luxury department store Fortnum and Mason and broke some displays.”

Video of thousands in London protest march as paint bombs, flares fly, March 26, 2011

“Britain is facing 80 billion pounds ($130 billion) of public spending cuts from Prime Minister David Cameron's coalition government as it struggles to get the country's large budget deficit under control. The government has already raised sales tax, but Britons are bracing for big cuts to public spending.”

“After the country spent billions bailing out indebted banks, and suffered a squeeze on tax revenue and an increase in welfare bills, Treasury chief George Osborne has staked the coalition government's future on tough economic remedies.”

“As many as half a million public sector jobs will be lost, about £18 billion ($28.5 billion) axed from welfare payments and the pension age raised to 66 by 2020, earlier than previously planned.”

The TUC (Trade Union Congress), the main umbrella body for British unions, says it believes the cuts will threaten the country's economic recovery, and has urged the government to create new taxes for banks and to close loopholes that allow some companies to pay less tax — an argument that chimes with many of the protesters.

"They shouldn't be taking money from public services. What have we done to deserve this?" said Alison Foster, a 53-year-old school teacher. "Yes, they are making vicious cuts. That's why I'm marching, to let them know this is wrong."

“Ed Miliband, leader of the opposition Labour Party, likened the march to the suffragette movement in Britain and the civil rights movement in America. "Our causes may be different but we come together to realize our voice. We stand on the shoulders of those who have marched and have struggled in the past," he told protesters at the rally.”

The Metropolitan police have been criticized for adopting heavy-handed tactics when dealing with demonstrations in the past. In particular, they have been criticized for penning demonstrators up in a small area for several hours without allowing them to leave. Police have said the so-called "kettling" procedure will only be used as a last resort.

“In another incident away from the main march, a group burned a giant model of a Trojan horse made by art students and dragged into central London. The students said the horse was a metaphor for deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat party leader Nick Clegg. Clegg's party had promised not to raise tuition fees during their election campaign but abandoned that pledge when they formed a coalition government with the Conservative party.”

The Telegraph reported: The TUC, which has been organizing the March for The Alternative for months, said it expected a huge turnout of people from communities across the country wanting to show their anger at the Government's ''deep, rapid and unfair'' spending cuts.

“General secretary Brendan Barber said he hoped the Government would take notice of the protest and change its ''damaging'' policies, which have already led to the threat of more than 170,000 job losses in local government, another 50,000 across other areas of the public sector, and cuts and closures of services ranging from libraries to youth clubs.”

He said: ''The thousands of trade union members coming on Saturday from across the country, along with representatives of service users and countless other voluntary and community groups who oppose the cuts, know that the objective of this demonstration is to send a strong message to the Government through our unity and a huge turnout. I want nothing to distract from that. ''I'm confident that our planning and well-trained steward teams mean this is exactly what will happen.''

''Saturday's show of strength is just the beginning and will fire up workers and communities to jack up the pressure and turn the tide on the ConDem cuts.''

“Sara Eades, 54, a midwife from East Anglia, said: ''It is important that we show solidarity with the whole of the NHS and with all of our colleagues. 'I am concerned about the employment prospects for our student midwives. Up until this year, we have been able to employ all of our trainees, but I am not sure if we will be able to do that in future years. 'If we don't hire more midwives, our current level of work will not be sustainable, especially if we receive more cuts. The cuts will dramatically impact the quality of care that we can give to mothers and babies.''

If you read the British papers, watch news programs on the BBC or read material from the London School of Economics you will soon discover that the United Kingdom is and has been since the end of WWII a very socialist nation. Even entertainment programs produced by the BBC are laced with progressive and socialist dialog. This is a mindset deeply embedded in the British psyche. This is a mindset that began toward the close of the 19^th century by the Fabian Society.

The Fabian Society is a British socialist movement, whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary, means. It is best known for its initial ground-breaking work beginning late in the 19th century and continuing up to World War I. They believed that socialism could only come to pass through a continuous and gradual implementation through trade unions, academia and the press. Over the ensuing years by using the school system, the media and government welfare programs Great Britain slowly evolved into a socialist economy and welfare state.

Their loss of colonies after WWII brought two disastrous conditions. One was the loss of captive markets for their manufactured goods and the second being the massive immigration into their once homogeneous society from India, Pakistan, Kenya, and the Caribbean. The British people were lectured to practice tolerance for these immigrants and were anxious to dole out all of the benefits from the government. Many of these immigrants never truly assimilated into traditional British society and with their higher birth rate have posed a greater drain on the national and local treasuries.

Over the years the British government has constructed thousands of public housing units called “council housing”. These housing units are doled out, at little or no cost to the occupants, and have become ghettos for immigrants, ghettos with high unemployment, low education and crime. Over the years some of these council housing units have been destroyed due to their deplorable condition and habitats for gangs and criminals.

Now that the money for all of these public programs with administered by thousands of public sector employees the citizens of the UK are undergoing severe withdrawal symptoms. The National Health Service is falling apart with due to the increased immigration into the nation by people who pay little or no taxes. The college-age students are angry because they are being requested to pay for at least a part of their tuition. The trade unions back the employees of a bloated public service sector even though the membership in their private sector unions is declining due to a decrease of manufacturing in private sector.

The nation is bound to a bureaucratic and dictatorial European Union where contributions from the UK far exceeded the benefits they accrue. Regulations have hampered the way business can operate and the manner in which people can live their lives. In other words Great Britain has become a “nanny state” with cradle-to-grave security and diminishing freedom. From the looks of the demonstrations and protests over this past weekend the Brits want more government guaranteed economic security than they want freedom.

In a previous post “Man’s Quest for a Perfect World” I cited an example from an old WWII British film I saw. In my example I told of “two British Tommies sitting in a foxhole envisioning the world once the war was over and Hitler defeated. They were talking about a world with no more war, no more poverty, equal rights, and jobs for everyone.” Well this world came to the United Kingdom in the form of a socialistic nanny state and now the piper has to be paid and the public coffers empty.

While watching the included video keep in mind that you have seen similar scenes for Madison, Wisconsin and will no doubt see more in this country as we try to get our fiscal house in order.

As Margaret Thatcher once declared, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Why NATO Will Never Take Full Command of the Libyan Operation

“Effective leadership is not about making speeches or being liked; leadership is defined by results not attributes.” — Peter Drucker

“Today Fox News reported: NATO will assume command of all aerial operations — including ground attacks — in Libya from the U.S.-led force that has been conducting air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi's forces, officials said Sunday.”

“The North Atlantic Council — the alliance's top body — approved a plan to expand the previously agreed mission to enforce the U.N. arms embargo and no-fly zone by agreeing to protect civilians from attack.”

"NATO Allies have decided to take on the whole military operation in Libya under the U.N. Security Council resolution," Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in a statement.”

"NATO will implement all aspects of the U.N. resolution. Nothing more, nothing less," he said.”

NATO expects to start enforcing the U.N.-authorized no-fly zone on Sunday or Monday, as well as coordinating naval patrols in the Mediterranean to enforce the arms embargo.

A Canadian three-star general, Charles Bouchard, will be in charge of both operations. He will report to an American admiral, Samuel Locklear, commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples.

There is an absolutely brutal essay by Phillip Stephens in the Financial Times. Mr. Stephens points out why European militaries are so unprepared to get the "hand off" from President Obama for responsibility in Libya:

Mr. Stephens writes; ”Americans are grappling with an unfamiliar role. They are accustomed to running things – especially when those things involve going to war. Not this time. As the west’s fighter jets patrol the skies over Libya, President Barack Obama has told his generals and diplomats to stand back. We have been shown the new geopolitical landscape.”

“Europeans – or at least the French and the British – find this territory equally strange. Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron put themselves in the vanguard of diplomacy to stop Libya’s Muammer Gaddafi. When Mr Obama eventually consented, he attached a condition: you want it, you can own it.”

“It is more than half a century since Paris and London embarked on a military adventure together in this part of the world. Then, they were out to prove they were still great powers. Dwight Eisenhower soon put a stop to that. Now Washington is wishing its allies well. Unhappily, the Libyan mission, like Suez, could yet have an uncomfortable ending.”

“I am told that US diplomats are finding it a struggle to adjust to the new disposition of responsibilities. They are used to driving off in their chosen direction as others clamber aboard. It’s the natural order: Americans do things; Europeans talk about them. Washington does not wait on Paris and London.”

“Taking a back seat must be particularly hard for US military chiefs. True, Mr. Obama’s commanders were not enthusiasts for this operation. But for all the fanfare about it being an Anglo-French (Franco-British, if you happen to be in Paris) mission, the US initially has provided most of the hardware – the fighter jets, missiles and, crucially, electronic intelligence and command and control. American aircraft are still flying most of the sorties over Libya.”

“Mr. Obama, though, is clear about the next stage. If US punch was needed to establish the no-fly zone, France, Britain, Spain, Italy and the rest of the coalition must now run it. America, he said this week, cannot solve every problem in the world.”

“This is as it should be. The Maghreb, after all, is Europe’s long-neglected backyard. The US has a smaller strategic interest; and it has its hands pretty full in Afghanistan. Anyway, haven’t Europeans spent the best part of the past decade complaining that Americans do not properly understand the Arab world?” [Source: Financial Times, March 24, 2011]

The French have a serious point in arguing that political oversight of this mission should reach beyond the western nations represented in NATO. But theological objections to vesting military command and control in NATO have shown the childish side of French diplomacy.

Above all, however, the Libyan venture has betrayed the inadequacy of Europe's military capability. Britain has sent a dozen or so fighter aircraft, a couple of frigates and a submarine, and its military chiefs say that is about as much as it can do. It has nothing left if some new crisis were to emerge in, say, the Gulf. Everything is committed elsewhere, mostly to Afghanistan.

France has assembled a more impressive force — it still has an aircraft carrier — but it too is looking overstretched. Both countries have been cutting their defense budgets.

The uncomfortable facts were set out by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary-general, at last month's Munich security conference. “A decade ago”, Mr. Rasmussen said, “The US accounted for about half of the defense spending of all NATO countries. That share is now closer to 75 per cent. During the past two years, spending by the European members of the alliance had shrunk by $45 billion, equivalent to the entire German defense budget.

The Europeans, in other words, have been pretending that history did indeed end in 1989. The Arab uprisings have reminded them otherwise. The lesson of the Suez debacle was that Britain and France could not defy American power; the message of the Libyan campaign is that they cannot take it for granted.

The domestic politics in the U.S. speak for themselves. Barack Obama did not win the presidency on a promise to start a third war of choice in the Middle East. Now he has a second term to secure and he wants to focus on getting the domestic economy right. As much as Col. Gaddafi is reviled, there is not much appetite among voters to commit U.S. forces.

The mistake for America’s allies would be to see this more selective, almost diffident, posture as an aberration – a response to a unique set of political circumstances and regional sensitivities. Much more likely, it marks the structural shift in the geopolitical balance.

The U.S. remains the world’s indispensable power, but it is becoming a more reticent one. The Obama administration has understood that to be indispensable is not necessarily to be sufficient. The president and Hillary Clinton were saying long before Libya that the U.S. can best exercise influence through alliances, networks, coalitions and multilateral institutions. The flip side of the analysis is that it expects more from its partners.

It would be nice to report that Europe has risen seamlessly to the challenge. That would be to ignore the inconvenient fact that Germany abstained in the UN Security Council vote to impose the no-fly zone. The bad blood between Paris and Berlin has since been visible for all to see.

In Berlin, Sarkozy’s bid for international leadership has been seen as a characteristic act of self-promotion ahead of next year’s French presidential election. In Paris, Angela Merkel is accused of turning Germany into greater Switzerland as she forever runs scared of voters.

More unkindly, some European diplomats have pointed out that by standing with China, Russia, India and Brazil, Ms. Merkel has guarded four of Germany’s big export markets. In truth, European interests would be better served if Sarkozy was a little less impetuous and Merkel a little more willing to spend rather than hoard political capital.

It would be nice to report that Europe has risen seamlessly to the challenge. That would be to ignore the inconvenient fact that Germany abstained in the UN Security Council vote to impose the no-fly zone. The bad blood between Paris and Berlin has since been visible for all to see.

Do you think someone mentioned the paucity of NATO assets to the president before he decided to hand off command to the Europeans? As many analysts have been saying since this adventure started, the only way it is going to succeed is if America, as always, does most of the heavy lifting. We have the quantitative and qualitative military assets to make the operation work. But Obama wants to pull American assets out of the fight and have us in a "support" role.

According to recent polls the American public remains indignantly aware that they have been bullied into participation in a speculative adventure, for which they are obliged to do the heavy lifting, because the British and French cheerleaders lack the firepower. For instance, of 112 cruise missiles fired at Libya last Sunday night when the offensive began, just three were British, and one of those got stuck in its launch tube. For the American taxpayer this represented a cost $112 million dollars.

French behavior is viewed as frankly frivolous. President Nicolas Sarkozy’s aircraft have engaged in unilateral activities that seem designed to promote his own political interests rather than the common allied cause. The Americans, for both domestic and global political reasons, want to withdraw to the back row as swiftly as possible. But the allies are stuck with the fact that only the US, albeit wearing a NATO hat, has the resources to control complex multilayered air operations.

Even if Gaddafi goes, deep doubts persist about what follows him. British ministers scold skeptics who press this issue arguing that the fall of the tyrant will be achievement enough: thereafter, we can become benign spectators while the Libyan people decide their own destinies. This is a dangerous and typical European outlook.

Early in the Libyan crisis, Secretary of State Clinton raised the specter that Libya might become a giant Somalia. A long and inconclusive tribal conflict would be in nobody’s interests. Yet in a situation in which intelligence is very poor, nobody has a coherent notion of who might run a post-Gaddafi Libya or how the country is to be stabilized.

As of this witting we are seeing numerous reports from Libya, all focusing on the combat operations. We see or hear little of the politics, theology or DNA of the “rebels.” Are they true democrats or just another group of tribesmen who want to take power from Gaddafi? Will they eventually be infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood as Egypt seems to be going?

This seems fanciful, and is perceived as such by military chiefs on both sides of the Atlantic. They have never doubted that, once the west launched an armed intervention in Libya, it accepted a responsibility for the country that will be hard to fulfill – especially without a ground force commitment, which no sensible westerner wants.

This is not going to work and I'm sure the Europeans, at some point, will let the president know this. In the end, we will probably have American combat aircraft and other assets under the command of NATO and no one will believe that it isn't an American operation.

The Europeans, in other words, have been pretending that history did indeed end in 1989. The Arab uprisings have reminded them otherwise. The lesson of the Suez debacle was that Britain and France could not defy American power; the message of the Libyan campaign is that they cannot take it for granted.

Remembering Pan Am 103

“Seeking to forget makes exile all the longer; the secret of redemption lies in remembrance.” — Richard von Weizsaecker

Tomorrow night the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, will as dress the people of this republic on why we are carrying out military action in Libya against Muammar Gaddafi. I don’t know what he will say, but I am sure, due his track record, it will be a weak speech filled platitudes to his brilliance and compassion as was his speech at the Tucson memorial.

No doubt he will give us a lot of gobbledygook about international coalitions, acting in concert with our partners and our responsibility to the UN. He will attempt to play on our heart strings as he talks about our humanitarian mission. I will guarantee there will be two words you will not hear — retribution and justice.

When I watch his address I will be thinking Jerry Don Avritt. Who may you ask is Jerry Don Avritt? Jerry was my neighbor while I lived in a modest middle class neighborhood on Westminster, California. Jerry was also the 46 year-old flight engineer on Pan Am flight 103, a Boeing 747 that was blown out of the sky on the night of December 20, 1998 over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland.

I did not really know Jerry, but he was still my neighbor and a member of my community. He lived in house similar to mine and his kids attended the same schools mine did. His wife shopped at the same grocery stores and they no doubt spent time Christmas shopping at our community mall, the Westminster Mall.

On that 20^th of December the Westminster Mall was all decked out for Christmas replete with colored lights, Christmas wreaths and a Santa Claus for the children. I don’t know if Jerry got to see the mall with his wife and kids. You see he was busy flying back and forth to Europe for Pan American Airlines.

Jerry had 8,068 hours of flight hours and was on his way to becoming a second officer (co-pilot), something he never had the chance to realize. Twenty years ago, on 20th December 1988 at 7.03pm, flight Pan Am 103 named Clipper Maid of the Seas, exploded and pieces of the plane fell onto the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 243 passengers, 16 crew and 11 residents of Lockerbie. A total of 270 people, aged from 2 months to 82 years old, from 21 nations died that terrible night. The Pan Am Flight 103 was 38 minutes into its journey when it was blown up at 31,000 feet.

It took thirteen years and much investigation to finally bring the bomber to justice in a Scottish court. On January 31, 2001, after 86 days of testimony and motions, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was convicted by unanimous verdict of the bombing. His co-defendant, Lamin Khalifa Fhima, was acquitted. Al Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment, but was released on compassionate grounds after serving 8 years of his sentence. Upon his return to Libya he was greeted by Muammar Gaddafi and cheering crowds. Today he resides in a villa in Tripoli and his health is reported to be just fine.

There have many conspiracy theories out forth about the bombing of Pan Am 103, theories ranging from complicity by the U.S. Government in drug smuggling to a US/UK cabal with Libya for oil. Recently, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, Libya’s former justice minister, has claimed, “The orders were given by Gaddafi himself.” Jalil, Gaddafi’s sworn enemy and head of a provisional government, has courted Western sympathy, in competition with his former boss, using this claim as his trump card. If you spend some time searching the Internet you will find numerous sites and blogs asserting numerous theories behind the bombing. Just as in the case of the assignation of John Kennedy these theories will not doubt go on and on throughout the years even if Gaddafi is ousted and we find documents to prove he was responsible. Sometimes, in the principle of Occam's Razor, that principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions is the correct one.

Michael Isikoff writes for NBC News that A former top CIA official who helped oversee the agency’s investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, tells NBC News there is "no doubt" that Moammar Gadhafi personally approved the bombing.

"There are two things that you can take to the bank," said Frank Anderson, who served as the agency's Near East affairs chief between 1991 and his retirement in 1995. "The first one is, Pan Am 103 was perpetrated by agents of the Libyan government. And the second thing is, that could not have happened without Moammar Gadhafi's knowledge and consent.”

“The statement by Anderson — and other comments to NBC by a top FBI agent on the case — could give fresh momentum for a reopening of the Lockerbie investigation. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week that she intended to push for such a probe in light of new claims by Libya's ex-justice minister, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, that he had "proof" that Gadhafi ordered the bombing, which killed 270 people, including 190 Americans.” I hope, no matter the outcome of out kinetic military action in Libya, we can finally get the bottom of this case and silence the kooks and nuts that populate the Internet. Or maybe we should ask Julian Assange?

On August 24, 2010 the Christian Science Monitor ran a story addressing the rekindling of these conspiracy theories. “The fact that the former Libyan intelligence agent has now lived nine months longer than doctors predicted has rekindled conspiracy theories of Magahi’s innocence. The thinking goes that "compassion" for Megrahi was merely a pretext to release a man secretly known to be innocent without having to make embarrassing admissions of error.”

“But to Richard Marquise, the lead FBI investigator into the bombing, the public doubts expressed about Megrahi, who was convicted by a tribunal of three Scottish judges in 2001, are puzzling and frustrating. In his 31 years at the FBI, Mr. Marquise said he's rarely seen a "stronger circumstantial case" than the one against Megrahi, who was also caught repeatedly lying to investigators and reporters. "There's nobody else that I'm aware of anywhere in the world that has such evidence pointing to their guilt," he says.”

“Another Libyan agent tried along with Megrahi was acquitted. Megrahi was found guilty of planting the explosive device in a suitcase that was placed on an Air Malta flight originating in that country and tagged for transfer to the Pan Am flight. Investigators believe it was on the orders of Libyan intelligence.”

“Marquise says that "there were other people that we strongly believed were involved in terms of the planning process and ordering process.... Megrahi was the guy who was assigned to get it done. We think at least six were probably involved if you only had to make an intelligence case, but in terms of making a criminal case, we didn't have strong enough evidence."

On March 10, 2011 the parents of Mark Zwynenburg spoke out and asked questions about exactly who today’s Libyan rebels are … and if they’re the same people who cheered the return of the Lockerbie bomber to the middle eastern country. George Williams, 80, said Tuesday he never believed al-Megrahi acted alone in the bombing that killed his son, Geordie Williams, 24. Geordie Williams was a decorated Army officer who was flying home to spend Christmas with his parents when he was killed.

"We didn't suspect it, we knew it," George Williams said of Gaddafi. "He murdered his own people — imprisonment, terrorism, he tortured his own people."

Williams said his conviction that Gaddafi was involved in the Lockerbie bombing grew stronger in 2009 after the Libyan leader sent his private plane to bring al-Megrahi back to Libya after a cancer diagnosis prompted his release from a Scottish prison. Williams said he is looking forward to the U.S. government's actions toward Gaddafi, and hopes he gets to see justice served in his lifetime.

There are many more similar stories from the families of the victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing. And like George Williams they are hoping not only to get justice, but also the truth.

It is now up to Obama to put final closure on this story. For the sake of the family of Jerry Avritt he can do it.

The following videos tell the story of Pan Am 103.

Another Black Hawk Down

Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster. — William Tecumseh Sherman

President Obama and his minions in the White House and Pentagon have said over and over again we are engaged in Libya for humanitarian reasons. There has been no war in history that has been fought for humanitarian reasons, let alone won. The purpose of war is to defeat your adversary and institute the political objective of the war.

I remember another war or as we now say “kinetic military action” (KMA) we were engaged in back in 1993. It was a war we fought in Somalia for “humanitarian reasons.” For the left-wingers and academics like Caroline Heldman, who have memories shorter than a flea I need to begin at the beginning so there can be no mistake in the reason for the KMA.

the KMA actually began in January 1991 when the President of Somalia, Mohammed Siad Barre, was overthrown by a coalition of opposing clans called the United Somali Congress. After this revolution, the coalition divided into two groups. One was led by Ali Mahdi Muhammad, who became president, while the other was led by Mohammed Farah Aidid. In total, there were four opposing groups--the United Somali Congress (USC), Somali Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF), Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM), and Somali Democratic Movement (SDM)--that continued to fight over the domination of Somalia. In June 1991, a ceasefire was agreed to, but failed to hold. A fifth group, the Somali National Movement (SNM), had already seceded from the northwest portion of Somalia in June. The SNM renamed it the Somaliland Republic, with its leader Abdel-Rahman Ahmed Ali as president.

In September 1991, severe fighting broke out in Mogadishu, which continued in the following months and spread throughout the country, with over 20,000 people killed or injured by the end of the year. These wars led to the destruction of the agriculture of Somalia, which in turn led to starvation in large parts of the country. The international community began to send food supplies to halt the starvation, but vast amounts of food were hijacked and brought to local clan leaders, who routinely exchanged it with other countries for weapons. An estimated 80 percent of this food was stolen. These factors led to even more starvation, from which an estimated 300,000 people died and another 1.5 million people suffered between 1991 and 1992. In July 1992, after a ceasefire between the opposing clan factions, the United Nations (UN) sent 50 military observers to watch the distribution of the food.

I can still recall the close up images on our nightly TV news of little black Somalian children looking malnourished with flies buzzing around their faces. For most humanitarians these images were a terrible sight to behold and people in the United States and Europe wanted to do something to help these people. CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC gave us a nightly does of these images, but rarely had the time to delve into the reasons for the starvation and pestilence that was raking Somalia.

Operation Provide Relief began in August 1992, when the U.S. President George H.W. Bush announced that U.S. military transports would support the multinational UN relief effort in Somalia. Ten C-130s and 400 people were deployed to Mombasa, Kenya during Operation Provide Relief, airlifting aid to remote areas in Somalia and reducing reliance on truck convoys. One member of the 86th Supply Squadron, United States Air Force’s only contribution to the operation, was deployed with the ground support contingent. The Air Force C-130s delivered 48,000 tons of food and medical supplies in six months to international humanitarian organizations trying to help the over three million starving people in the country.

When this proved inadequate to stop the massive death and displacement of the Somali people (500,000 dead and 1.5 million refugees or displaced), the U.S launched a major coalition operation to assist and protect humanitarian activities in December 1992. This operation, called Operation Restore Hope, saw the United States assuming the unified command in accordance with he United Nations Resolution 794 (1992). The U.S. Marine Corps landed with the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Mogadishu and, with elements of 1st Battalion, 7th Marines and 3rd Battalion, 11th Marines, secured nearly one-third of the city, the port, and airport facilities within two weeks, with the intent to facilitate airlifted humanitarian supplies. Elements of the 2nd Battalion; HMLA-369 [Helicopter Marine Light Assault-369 of Marine Aircraft Group-39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Camp Pendleton]; 9th Marines; and 1st Battalion, 7th Marines quickly secured routes to Baidoa, Balidogle and Kismayo, then were reinforced by the 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion and the US Army's 10th Mountain Division.

When the first units of U.S. Marines landed on the beaches outside of Mogadishu they were meet with CNN camera crews and cheering Somalians. The TV crews made sure to get close up shots the helmeted Marines coming ashore in full combat gear ready to protect the food convoys.

In December, 1992, President George H.W. Bush was in the waning days of his term, having lost the previous month to Bill Clinton. But under the auspices of United Nations Resolution 794, the U.S. joined international forces "to use all necessary means to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief in Somalia."

U.S. troops entered Somalia on December 8, 1992 to help secure the Mogadishu airport so humanitarian relief flights and could deliver supplies to the ravaged country. In conjunction with the War Powers Resolution, President Bush met with a number of key members of Congress on December 10 to brief them on the Somalia mission. Mr. Bush indicated that American forces would only remain long enough to secure the country for relief efforts. U.S. troops would then turn over peacekeeping operations to the United Nations — sound familiar.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution asks the president to notify Congress within two days of committing troops abroad. Unless Congress declares war, the War Powers Resolution limits the deployment of forces to two months, followed by a 30 day withdrawal period.

But U.S. troops remained in Somalia into January when Bill Clinton assumed office. And then into the late spring of 1993 as hostilities intensified and U.N. peacekeepers were slaughtered.

On March 3, 1993, the U.N. Secretary-General submitted to the U.N. Security Council his recommendations for effecting the transition from Unified Task Force (UNITAF) to United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II). He indicated that since the adoption of Council resolution 794 in December 1992, the presence and operations of UNITAF had created a positive impact on the security situation in Somalia and on the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance (UNITAF deployed some 37,000 personnel over forty percent of southern and central Somalia). However, there was still no effective government, police, or national army with the result of serious security threats to U.N. personnel. To that end, the U.N. Security Council authorized UNOSOM II to establish a secure environment throughout Somalia, to achieve national reconciliation so as to create a democratic state.

At the Conference on National Reconciliation in Somalia, held on March 15, 1993, in Addis Ababa, all fifteen Somali parties agreed to the terms set out to restore peace and democracy. Yet, by May it became clear that, although a signatory to the March Agreement, General Mohammed Farrah Aidid's faction would not cooperate in the Agreement's implementation.

UNOSOM II's attempts to implement disarmament led to violence. On June 5, 1993, twenty-four Pakistani troops in the UN force were killed and skinned in heavy fighting in an area of Mogadishu controlled by Aidid. The next day, the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 837, calling for the arrest and trial of those responsible for the ambush.

In June and July, 1993, President Clinton detailed to Congress the actions of a "U.S. Quick Reaction Force" that he dispatched in an effort to bolster the U.N. "Aidid's forces were responsible for the worst attack on U.N. peacekeepers in three decades. We could not let it go unpunished," said Clinton.

Over this timeframe, both the House and Senate approved different resolutions that could better clarify America's role in Somalia. But neither body could come to a unified agreement as to what the U.S. should be doing. So troops remained, and the mission creeped.

You see we really had no clear cut goal for being in Somalia. It all began with our military being used to deliver food, then it escalated to protecting the food convoys and now it was to be engaged as “peacekeepers” with the charge of arresting the war lords responsible for the famine, fighting and killing of the UN soldiers.

Former Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), then the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, declared that August 4 could be viewed as the day the War Powers Resolution died. Gilman noted that fighting heated up in early June 1993 and two months later, U.S. troops didn't have a clear mandate to stay since Congress had not declared war. Finally in September, both the House and Senate approved a measure that mandated President Clinton report to Congress by October 15 what the mission was in Somalia. Lawmakers also required the president to ask for Congressional approval for the military operation by mid-November.

But Clinton did not have time to report to Congress because on October 3, 1993 all hell broke loose in Mogadishu. October 3 became, an iconic day in the history of U.S. military commitments overseas. It's a day which ultimately revealed the Constitutional breach between the legislative and executive branches over who is responsible for sending troops abroad. It is said you can't be "a little bit pregnant." But October 3, 1993 revealed that a country could be "a little bit at war." (Take note Mr. Obama and remember the words of General Sherman)

On October 3, 1993, Task Force Ranger, U.S. Special Operations Forces composed mainly of Bravo Company 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (better known as “Delta Force”) operators, and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) (“The Night Stalkers”), attempted to capture Aidid's foreign minister Omar Salad Elmi and his top political advisor, Mohamed Hassan Awale.

The following is excerpted from Mark Bowden’s book “Black Hawk Down.” The plan was that Delta Force operators would assault the target building (using MH-6 Little Bird helicopters) and secure the targets inside the building while four Ranger chalks (under the command of Capt. Michael D. Steele) would fast rope down from hovering MH-60K Black Hawk helicopters. The Rangers would then create a four-corner defensive perimeter around the target building while a column of nine Humvees and three five-ton trucks (under the command of Lt. Col. Danny McKnight) would arrive at the target building to take the entire assault team and their prisoners back to base. The entire operation was estimated to take no longer than 30 minutes.

The ground-extraction convoy was supposed to reach the captive targets a few minutes after the beginning of the operation. However, it ran into delays. Somali citizens and khat induced local militia formed barricades along the streets of Mogadishu with rocks and burning tires, blocking the convoy from reaching the Rangers and their captives. All the while there were Aidid’s militiamen with megaphones shouting, "Kasoobaxa guryaha oo iska celsa cadowga!" ("Come out and defend your homes!").

During the first moments of the operation, PFC Todd Blackburn fell while fast-roping from his Black Hawk while it was hovering 70 feet (21 m) above the streets. The cause of him falling from the chopper was never really known. The most logical theory was that he simply slipped when the helicopter was forced to take evasive maneuvers to avoid an incoming RPG fired from a nearby rooftop, although, according to Bowden, video does not show the helicopter moving. Blackburn suffered an injury to his head and back of his neck. Minutes later, one of the Black Hawk helicopters, call sign Super 6-1 piloted by CW3 Cliff "Elvis" Wolcott, was shot down by a rocket propelled grenade. Both pilots of Super 6-1 were killed, and two of the crew chiefs were severely wounded. SSG Daniel Busch (a Delta Force sniper) survived the crash and managed to hold off the militia until he was evacuated by an MH-6 Little Bird helicopter, call sign Star 4-1. While he was defending the downed helicopter, however, he was shot 4 times and later died of his wounds.

A Combat Search and Rescue team, led by TSgt Scott Fales of the Air Force PJs, were able to fast rope down to the crash site of Super 6-1 despite an RPG hit that crippled their helicopter, Super 6-8. This helicopter did make it back to base, despite the damage. Fales and his team found both the pilots dead and two wounded inside the crashed helicopter. Under intense fire, the team moved the wounded men to a nearby collection point, where they built a make-shift shelter using Kevlar armor plates salvaged from the wreckage of Super 6-1.

There was confusion between the ground convoy and the assault team. The assault team and the ground convoy waited for twenty minutes to receive their orders to move out. Both units were under the mistaken impression that they were to be first contacted by the other. During the wait, a second Black Hawk helicopter, call sign Super 6-4 and piloted by CW3 Michael Durant, was also shot down by an RPG.

Most of the assault team went to the first crash site for a rescue operation. Upon reaching the site, about 90 Rangers and Delta Force operators found themselves under siege from heavy militia fire. Despite air support, the assault team was effectively trapped for the night. With a growing number of wounded needing shelter, they occupied several nearby houses and confined the occupants for the duration of the battle. Outside, a stiff breeze stirred up blinding, brown clouds of dust.

At the second crash site, two 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (Delta Force) snipers, SFC Randy Shughart and MSG Gary Gordon, were inserted by the Black Hawk Super 6-2. Their first two requests to be inserted were turned down by Command, but they were finally granted permission upon their third request, protecting the crash site from the approaching mob and inflicting heavy casualties on the Somalis. When Gary Gordon was eventually killed, Randy Shughart then picked up Gordon's CAR-15 and gave it to Michael Durant. Shugart went back around the nose of the chopper and held off the mob for about ten more minutes, before he was killed. The Somali mob then overran the crash site and killed all but one of the helicopter crew: pilot CW3 Michael Durant. He was nearly beaten to death but was saved when members of Aidid's militia came to take him prisoner.

For requesting to help defend their comrades in the face of overwhelming odds, SFC Shughart and MSG Gordon were posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

Repeated attempts by the Somalis to mass forces and overrun the American positions in a series of firefights near the first crash site were neutralized by aggressive small arms fire and by strafing runs and rocket attacks from AH-6J Little Bird helicopter gunships of the Nightstalkers, the only air unit equipped for and trained for night fighting. The Somali National Alliance militia casualties were reported as 700 killed and about 1,000 wounded. Other Somali leaders put their losses at 312 killed and 814 wounded.

A relief convoy comprised of elements from the Task Force 2-14 Infantry, 10th Mountain Division, accompanied by Malaysian and Pakistani UN forces, arrived at the first crash site at around 2:00 in the morning. No contingency planning or coordination with UN forces had been arranged prior to the operation; consequently, the recovery of the surrounded U.S. soldiers was significantly complicated and delayed. Determined to protect all members of the rescue convoy, Gen. Garrison made sure that the convoy would roll out in force. When the convoy finally pushed into the city, it consisted of more than 100 vehicles including Malaysian forces' German made Condor APCs, four Pakistani tanks, American Humvees and several five-ton flatbed trucks. This two-mile-long column was supported by several other Black Hawks and Cobra assault helicopters stationed with the 10th Mountain Division. Meanwhile, the "Little Birds" of Task Force Ranger continued their defense of the downed crew and rescuers of Super 6-1. The American assault force sustained heavy casualties, including several killed, and a Malaysian soldier was also killed when an RPG hit his Condor vehicle. Seven Malaysians and two Pakistanis were wounded.

The battle was over by 6:30 AM on Monday, October 4. American forces were finally evacuated to the UN base by the armored convoy. While leaving the crash site, a group of Rangers and Delta Force operators realized that there was no room left in the vehicles for them and were forced to run out of the city on foot. This has been commonly referred to as the “Mogadishu Mile.” U.S. forces suffered no casualties, and successfully evacuated.

In all, 19 U.S. soldiers were killed in action during the battle and another 83 were wounded in action. After the battle, the bodies of several U.S. casualties of the conflict, (crewmembers of the Black Hawk "Super 6-4" and their protectors, Delta Force soldiers SFC Shughart and MSG Gordon) were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by crowds of local civilians and SNA forces.. The Malaysian forces lost one soldier and had seven injured, while the Pakistanis suffered two injured. Casualties on the Somali side were heavy, with estimates on fatalities ranging from 315 to over 2,000 combatants. The Somali casualties were a mixture of militiamen and local civilians. Somali civilians suffered heavy casualties due to the dense urban character of that portion of Mogadishu. Two days later, a mortar round fell on the U.S. compound, killing one U.S. soldier, SFC Matt Rierson, and injuring another twelve. A-team on special mission to Durant's downed Blackhawk helicopter had 2 wounded, Boxerman and James on October 6. [Source: Mark Bowden. You can read the full text of Bowden’s book by clicking here]

There have been allegations that Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda movement was involved in training and funding of Aidid's men. In his 2001 book, Holy War, Inc., CNN reporter Peter Bergen interviewed bin Laden who affirmed these allegations. According to Bergen, bin Laden asserted that fighters affiliated with his group were involved in killing American troops in Somalia in 1993, a claim he had earlier made to the Arabic newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi. The Al-Qaeda fighters in Somalia are rumored to have included the organization's military chief, Mohammed Atef, later killed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

TV cameras captured the images and beamed them live around the globe on CNN. "How could this happen?" President Clinton is reported to have said once he saw the images, according to Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down."

The turning point for the United States in the "Black Hawk Down" incident centers on the ability of non-state actors to unleash non-linear warfare methods in order to bring the world's only Superpower to its knees. The episode ignited a political firestorm in Washington as lawmakers crowed about how the administration never justified the mission. Meantime, Capitol Hill bore just as much of the blame for never fully intervening or halting the funding of U.S. operations in Somalia.

And then there was the media impact. The televised images of a mob cavorting through the dusty streets with the bodies of U.S. service members suddenly made the issue real back home. That spurred lawmakers and the public to ask what the U.S. was doing there.

The late-Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), then chairman of the Appropriations Committee (which controls the federal purse strings), declared it was time for Congress to end what he termed "cops-and-robbers operations." Former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) exclaimed that the U.S. shouldn't risk troops when the objective is murky. "Can we justify more funerals of young Americans based on a policy we cannot define?" asked Gramm at the time.

Army Sgt. Randy Shughart was one of the Americans killed that day in Mogadishu. Later that year, Shughart's father Herbert refused to shake President Clinton's hand when the Pentagon posthumously awarded his son the Medal of Honor. "The blame for my son's death rests with the White House and with you. You are not fit to command," Shughart snarled at the president during the ceremony.

This all contributed to a growing narrative about President Clinton. He won election with less than half of the popular vote. He didn't serve in Vietnam and some viewed him as a draft dodger. Chastened from his experiences with Somalia, many believe the Somalia experience made Clinton timorous when he failed to take action to curb the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

In the fall of 1993, Congress voted to cut off funding for the Somalia operation. It was the first time Congress had nipped money for U.S. military action abroad since it voted to defund the Vietnam War in 1973.

Nearly 18 years later, missteps surrounding the U.S. mission in Somalia serve as the hallmark of a military operation gone awry and why Congress is sweating bullets right now over Libya.

Earlier this week, one senior aide said that lawmakers were skittish. But everyone would be okay, so long as there were no "Scott O'Grady situations." That's a reference to Scott O'Grady. He was an American pilot who was shot down by the Serbs and survived in the wild for about a week in 1995 while helping NATO enforce a no-fly zone over Bosnia.

That same night, a U.S. fighter crashed in Libya. Both crew members survived.

"That's an example of how things can go south really fast," muttered another senior Congressional aide. "Which is why you want Congressional authorization. That way everyone has skin in the game."

Congress is still engaged in a protracted fight over spending bills for the current fiscal year. If expenditures for the Libya operation exceed $1 billion, it's believed that the White House would have to ask Congress for a supplemental spending bill. In other words, as Democrats and Republicans scrap over current spending cuts, imagine how sordid the battle could become if Congress is asked to approve extra money amid the current debate.

"Before we spend any money abroad, I want to know how much it's going to cost us," said Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) in a statement. "It's important that the president give us and all American taxpayers an accurate answer on this issue."

Congress was out of session last week. But the Obama Administration plans to convene a special intelligence briefing for lawmakers when they return this week. Meantime, lawmakers from both parties are demanding why there wasn't adequate consultation.

"I think there's going to be a showdown on this issue next week," said Tom McClintock.

If McClintock is right, it's because lawmakers fear mission creep. They fear an operation in Libya that they don't understand. They fear another Somalia, just like that fateful day in downtown Mogadishu nearly 18 years ago.

It's all because no one is entirely certain what the U.S. is doing in Libya. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is clear that only Congress can "declare war." But what's vexing is which branch has the final say when the nation is "a little bit at war” or engaged in a kinetic military action.

Scenes from the fighting in Mogadishu and from Ridley Scott’s great film Black Hawk Down.

A Little Reported Story

"Let therefore every man, that, appealing to his own heart, feels the least spark of virtue or freedom there, think that it is an honor which he owes himself, and a duty which he owes his country, to bear arms." — British colonial statesman Thomas Pownhall (1722-1805)

This is a story about a Jewish family living in a small community in Israel. It was a family like yours or mine — a mother, a father and five children — Fogel family. The father Udi (36), the mother Ruth (35), along with 3 of their children, Yoav (11), Elad (4) and Hadas (3 months old) were stabbed to death on the night of Friday, March 11, 2011 as they slept peacefully in the modest home.

The Fogel’s eldest child, 12 year old Tamar arrived home Friday night wondering why the door to her home was locked. Then she wondered why she heard the sound of her 2 year old brother Yisha crying, and wondered why her parents weren't calming him down.

She found her 2 year old brother in her parent’s room, her parents lay dead on their beds as he cried and tried to wake them.

The assailants apparently entered the Fogel's home through a living room window. They did not notice a 6-year-old boy sleeping on the couch and continued on to the bedroom, where they slashed the throats of the father and newborn baby sleeping there. At the sight of this horrific scene Tamar ran out of the house screaming.

According to Israeli investigators the mother, Ruth, came out of the bathroom and was stabbed in the doorway. The evidence shows she tried to fight the terrorists. The Palestinians then found 11-year old Yoav reading in bed when they stabbed him to death. They apparently also did not notice a 2-year old asleep in his bed but murdered the 3-year old with two stabs to his heart. After that, the terrorists reportedly locked the door of the house and exited through the window.

Palestinian Media Watch reported March 12 on the rampant incitement to violence in the Palestinian Authority media in the days and weeks before yesterday's attack. Just one day before the assault, Sabri Saidam, adviser to and under-secretary of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, delivered a speech in which he emphasized that weapons must be turned towards the "main enemy [Israel]" and that internal differences of opinion must be set aside.

In the week leading up to the terrorist attack, the PA announced plans for a football tournament named after the first female Palestinian suicide bomber, Wafa Idris, who killed one and reportedly injured more than 150 when she blew herself up in Jerusalem in January 2002.

Earlier, Abbas' representative, Azzam Al-Ahmed, member of the Fatah Central Committee, was the guest of honor at a Palestinian scout ceremony in which buildings representing Jewish residents of the West Bank were blown up.

In December, Abbas granted the relatives of a Palestinian terrorist $2,000 as part of a regular PA campaign that supports so-called "shahids" or "martyrs" who die while attacking Jews.

Palestinian cousins Ahmed Awad, an officer in Abbas' Preventative Security Services in the northern West Bank city of Nablis, and Iyad Awad, an officer in Abbas' General Intelligence services in Ramallah, have been charged with planning the attack. Informed security sources said the two did not personally carry out the murders but assisted in the planning and logistics, including aiding in the escape. The actual killers were sleeper cells from Hamas. These men were armed, trained and funded by the U.S.

Both the Preventative and General Intelligence services of Fatah are armed, trained and funded by the U.S. The duo did not personally carry out the murders, but rather they assisting in the planning and logistics, informed security sources told World Net Daily.

Since the late 1990s, the U.S. has run training bases for PA militias. The U.S. also has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid and weapons to build up the PA militias.

Since 2007, the U.S. has stepped up its efforts at training the PA, including a new, advanced program for Palestinian police to train 500 to 600 cadets at a time at the American bases.

The U.S. currently operates training bases for the PA police and other militias, such as Force 17 and the Preventative Security Services in the West Bank city of Jericho and the Jordanian village of Giftlik.

And what did the Palestinians do when they heard of the killings? They passed out candy as they always do in honor of the killing of Jews. Over the past decade 123 Jewish children targeted and killed by Palestinian terrorists. Click here to see their photos.

The heavens are crying as they see the pictures of the slaughtered Fogel family who were killed like animals by Arab terrorists. Media reports in the BBC, NY Times & CNN tell us about a “settler family” killed by “alleged terrorists.” Not the slaughter of innocent Jews, but settlers & occupiers.

What would the world say if 5 African-Americans were killed by the KKK in the Deep South in this manner, or 5 Democrats killed by Tea Party protesters? Amidst controversy, the government released horrifying visuals of the Fogel family’s blood-drenched corpses. Touching video and pictures are available at CarolineGlick.com. (Viewer discretion is advised)

There was a lot of debate over the publication of these pictures, but the Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein said: “I want journalists and editorial staff to deal with those pictures. Let those who already have a fixed image of the conflict between the countries or the nations who can’t seem to reach an agreement over a piece of land see the pictures of the three month old baby; maybe then they will understand that their image is distorted.”

Mr. Minister: The media is biased. 5 slaughtered family members won’t shock the world. They hate the Jews. The only democratic state in the Middle East has 5 sleeping family members slaughtered, yet remains condemned and oppressed by the world.

Beware of a February Revolution

It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed. — Vladimir Lenin

On February 4, 2011 I posted a blog titled Will Egypt Become an Islamic State? In the text I briefly touched on the fears I had for revolutions that began in the streets, especially in February. In this post I would like to expand on that fear and talk about the spate of popular revolts that are sweeping the Muslin world in the Middle East.

The symbol of all political revolutions is a spinning roulette wheel, with the croupier chanting "round and round the big wheel goes and where it stops, nobody knows." The leaders of a revolution are not necessarily the ones who end up in power. The people who rise up to overthrow one tyranny often end up suffering under another.

The French Revolution in 1789 was fueled by the desire of common citizens for human rights and freedom from oppression by aristocrats and privileged classes. The original goal was a constitutional monarchy, but an extremist faction, the Jacobins, managed to seize control, arrest and execute the royal family, establish a reign of terror, and eliminate all opposition. The Jacobins were in turn overthrown by their rivals, the Girondists, who executed them. The resultant constitutional republic, under the Directory, lasted about four years until Napoleon Bonaparte seized control and became first "consul" and then emperor — which was not at all what the original revolutionists had fought for.

In February 1848, the second French revolution overthrew the Orleans monarchy and established the Second Republic

In December of that year, Louis Napoleon was elected president. Three years later, he suspended the legislature and, by a coup d'état that even Marx admired [1], established the Second Empire.

In February 1917, the people of Russia overthrew the tsarist regime to rid themselves of its oppressive aristocracy and bureaucracy. Kerensky's democratic provisional government tried to work with the radical Bolsheviks and shared power with their network of "soviets." However, in October, the Bolsheviks engineered a revolution of their own and established a socialist tyranny (with its own aristocracy of bureaucrats) which was worse than any tsarist regime had ever been.

The Cuban revolution ended in February 1959, when Batista fled from the country. In this case, the leader, Fidel Castro, remained in power, largely by killing or imprisoning all of his opponents. Soon enough, the people of Cuba realized that they were under a harsher dictatorship than they had endured under Batista. (not on New Year’s Eve as portrayed in Godfather, Part II)

The revolution in Iran attained victory in February 11, 1979 when the royal regime was overwhelmed and the shah went into exile. Although the preceding popular uprisings had been inspired by a variety of secular and religious motives, the most organized components were followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who returned from exile just before the shah's departure [2]. Thereafter, what began as an authentic and anti-dictatorial popular revolution, based on a broad coalition of all anti-Shah forces, was soon transformed into an Islamic fundamentalist power-grab. Ultimately, despite his numerous prior assertions to the contrary, Khomeini became the de facto ruler of a rigid Islamic theocracy.

Aside from noting that February is not an auspicious month for revolutions, we may infer from these examples that:

Only a small percentage of a nation's population may actually participate in a successful revolution. According to one author, "it is almost unheard of for a revolution to involve as much as 1 percent of a country's population. The United States included. Let us not neglect to mention that at the beginning of our revolution against the King of England many colonists were either ambivalent to or opposed the revolt.

As I have described elsewhere, apparently "spontaneous" demonstrations are often carefully organized by a small group whose existence is virtually unknown to the public. This seems to have been the case in Egypt.

These obscure or clandestine organizers may have an ulterior motive and are in a key position to divert a revolution toward their goals.

Let us now consider the current game of Middle East roulette — the apparently successful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the civil war in Libya, the protests in Bahrain and Yemen, and the smoldering-fuse beginnings in virtually every country in the Middle East, including Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.

Obviously, these uprisings have been fueled by secular unrest among poor and oppressed populaces, especially among students and the unemployed. But these spontaneously energized groups have received substantial assistance from several terrorist groups who have reasons of their own for exacerbating unrest in Islamic nations.

These intrigues seem to defy analysis. The Middle East has always been a richly brocaded fabric of interwoven beliefs, traditions, deceptions, plots, and counterplots that are generally unfathomable to western observers. And contemporary Islam, although based on fairly straightforward documents that every one of its sects and factions would swear that they (and they alone) follow faithfully, is extremely complex and ambiguous. Nonetheless, although I only know what I read in the papers or see on TV — i.e. a handful of facts adulterated by propaganda, fabrications, surmises, and misinterpretations — I think I can discern a few major threads in this complex fabric.

Among the Islamic factions that advocate violence against heretics and unbelievers, Al Qaeda is one of several essentially Sunni brotherhoods, Hezbollah and Iranian fascism are Shiite, and the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are considered to be Wahhabi and Sunni. Presumably, all of these organizations hope to utilize current Middle East unrest to expand their own influence and power. It may be significant that all of them have expressed their approval of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.

Despite its professed hatred for Mubarak, Al Qaeda seemed conspicuous by its absence in the Egyptian revolution. Opinion is divided as to whether Al Qaeda will become more or less powerful in post-revolution nations. This might mean that their tactics and intrigues have become more subtle, as evidenced by their supposed presence in Yemen. One wonders what to make of Gaddafi's initial claim that Al Qaeda was behind the insurrection against him and his more recent threat to join them if the west intervened.

A more ominous speculation, inspired by Iran's emphatic approval of the current uprisings, is that they are part of a global scheme for Shiite domination of Islam. Although only 10 to 20 percent of the world's Muslims are Shiites, they constitute 90-95% of the Muslims in Iran, 60-75% in Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain, 45-55% in Lebanon, and 35-40% in Yemen. We tend to forget that Hezbollah, which now controls Lebanon, is a Shiite terrorist organization. The uprising in Bahrain has already been characterized as a Shiite attempt to overthrow their Sunni regime while the protests in Yemen may be, at least in part, a reprise of the five previous Shiite rebellions there in 2004-10. One analyst has gone so far as to infer that Ahmadinejad plans to encircle and conquer Saudi Arabia and thereby to attain Shiite control of the Islamic world. In this context, the recent constitutional referendum in Egypt is disturbingly reminiscent of a similar step in Khomeini's coup d’état in Iran.

And what of the Wahhabi? Although initially conspicuous for violence, the experience of their Hamas faction in Gaza seems to have taught their sister group, the Muslim Brotherhood, the art of the iron fist in the velvet glove — that being unobtrusively helpful leads to influence and power. They seem to have used the same approach during the Egyptian revolution, so much so that even Islamophillic PBS, in a recent Frontline broadcast, wondered what the Muslim Brotherhood is really up to.

Now we are engaged in a “kinetic military action” in Libya, a state where its dictatorial leader Moammar Gaddafi has shown disdain and opposition to radical Islam. Catherine Herridge writes on Fox News.com: “With a potential power vacuum looming in Libya, experts are watching a key Islamic terrorist group in the region for signs that its members will try to fill the void.”

“Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb — Maghreb is the Arabic name for northwest Africa — was designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department in May 2010. A propaganda video, released last year by the group, shows its member doing weapons training.”

“From its base in Algeria, the group's reach now extends to the borders of Mauritania, Niger, Mali and Chad -- and Libya, where Col. Muammar Qaddafi has not only provided the U.S. with intelligence on the terrorists' operations but publicly spoken out against them.”

In a video statement obtained by the Middle East Media Research Institute, Qaddafi slams the members of the group, also known as AQIM, as bad Muslims. “The security forces found a mosque in al-Zawiya,” Qaddafi says. “In a mosque! Weapons, alcohol, and their corpses – all mixed up together.”

”With Qaddafi in hiding and potentially soon be out of the picture, the question is whether southern Libya will become a magnet for jihadist groups.”

“Cully Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense who is now a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation said the Al Qaeda affiliate may turn out to be an adaptive enemy. AQIM has found their niche. They are going to exploit that to the degree they can,” Stimson said.

James Jay Carafano, the Deputy Director, for the Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation writes: “Now that NATO has arrived, as Libyans look to the future, all things are possible. That's the problem-all things are possible. On the up side, NATO has never failed. On the down side, now the alliance has its first opportunity.”

“This isn't like the conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan — the alliance has neither a compelling interest nor an unshakable U.S. commitment backstopping NATO at war. Even then, these examples are hardly reassuring. Case in point: Slobodan Milosevic held out so long in the face of the bombing campaign over Kosovo that many feared the alliance's resolve would give out before the Serbian strongman gave up.”

“Since Obama's election, NATO nations serving in Afghanistan have been looking over their shoulder to make sure the U.S. is still there. Compared to earlier battles, Libya is at the end of the earth of NATO's core interests. So the real question is, what the alliance will do if times get tough? What NATO will leave behind?”

“Even in the best-case scenario, where Qaddafi trips over a tomahawk, Libya will be a largely ungoverned space. In every conflict in the Islamic world since 9/11, Al Qaeda and its affiliates have tried to flood-the-zone, pouring in foreign fighters, turning the conflict into a recruiting poster, a training ground, and a launching pad for trouble elsewhere. Al Qaeda had a pipeline funneling fighters from North Africa to Iraq; surely they will try to turn it the other way round.”

Rather than rush to Tripoli, NATO ought to sort through the opposition and make sure it's not backing the next Taliban. Next, they should focus on building the capacity of a legitimate opposition so that as they expand their influence, the rebels bring security, liberty and safety to the people —rather than chaos, privation and opportunities for a slew of Al Qaeda wannabes.”

Personally, I believe in all of the above. I suspect that all of these factions are maneuvering and trying to manipulate each other. The real question is whether they can work together. Despite past enmities, the answer is probably yes. They all share a common goal, the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate throughout the Middle East, and common objects of hatred — Israel and the United States. We should not ignore the possibility of intrigues involving non-Islamic groups.

The numerous parallels between Islamic and Marxist ideology may inspire intervention by communist cells and nations, although Islam claims to be vehemently anti-communist. I see this opposition to communism along theological lines, not it’s communal of social justice aspects. If you look at Islam it has a long history of herding people into communal cells.

I never liked roulette. But I am forced to stand by and watch this game, with an ever-growing suspicion that the wheel is crooked. The house always wins, but who's running the house?

I do not believe, that with the west’s current push for political correctness to Muslims and Islam we cannot have an intelligent debate of what radical Islam is and what it means to the world. Every time someone opens his mouth to question Islam he is shouted down as an Islamophobe or a racist by the social progressive left. Every time Churchill stood in the House of Commons to decry Hitler’s actions and aims, he too was shouted down — until Hitler invaded Poland and the bombs began dropping. How long will we have to wait?

So, the question we have to ask and get answers to is: is this another popular uprising, but will the aftermath be worse than what Libya has now? In the words of an ancient Chinese philosopher, “be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

Footnotes:

[1] Marx and Engels thought that the 1848 French revolution would trigger a wave of proletarian revolutions all over the world-as some seem to think is happening now. Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, published in 1852, can be construed as a rueful realization that revolutions can be derailed by clever coups d'état.

[2] Khomeini's return to Iran, just before the Shah's downfall, is curiously reminiscent of Lenin's return to Russia's Finland station, in April 1917, to start the Bolshevik October revolution. One might infer that Marx learned from the Bonapartes, Lenin from Marx, Khomeini from Lenin, and the current plotters from Khomeini.