Justice Prevails for Three Navy Seals

May 7, 2010 | Comments (0)

On December 7th of last year, a date we know historically as “a day of infamy,” I wrote of the disgrace of seeing three of our Navy Seals being court martialed for their alleged aggression in their capture of terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed. Never mind that this terrorist (yes, I said terrorist) is considered the mastermind behind the murder and desecration of four American contractors working in Iraq. Not surprisingly, our current administration remains unconcerned about that aspect of the case. Their concern, their fearless leader included, is that in the process of this capture, these three Seals allegedly gave Abed a fat lip or called him a name or stepped on his toe or some such nonsense.

But such ridiculous (treasonous) foolishness aside, May 6th of this year marks another day of infamy, for on this day, the last of our Seals being forced to face this ultimate betrayal from the nation they have sworn to defend and protect, was found not guilty. In other words, for Matthew McCabe, Julio Huertas and Jonathan Keefe, justice has prevailed. And we may all sleep more peacefully for it.

These heroes followed their sense of honor. The can take comfort tonight, not only in their ongoing knowledge that they did nothing wrong — and indeed they insisted on going to trial when they could have struck a deal and avoided the circus – but also in the fact that the vast majority of Americans are rejoicing in their exoneration. In other words, we the people have all along supported and honored them for bringing to justice a terrorist who wants to destroy us, and our thoughts and prayers stayed with them throughout their ordeal. I, of course, speak here only for “we the people” who, like them, revere our Constitution, not the clowns in this adminstration who desecrate that sacred document – and who made this court martial all possible.

Speaking of the clowns, given the outcome of these court martials, I have a question for we the people. Faced with the threats of those who want to kill us — and who make this desire quite clear every few weeks or so on our own soil and in our own airspace — just who would you like out there on the front lines ensuring that our children and our nation remain safe and secure? The namby-pamby elitist intellectual throwbacks to the 60s now wobbling through the halls of the White House and its environs and reading terrorists their rights? Or the likes of Matthew McCabe, Julio Huertas and Jonathan Keefe? I think you know my answer to this question. And I think I know yours, as well.

Betsy Siino | Comments (0)

Betrayal in Austin

February 18, 2010 | Comments (0)

February 18, 2010 | Comments

This morning our nation fell victim to what appears to be an act of domestic terror, when a disgruntled American, Joseph Andrew Stack, crashed his private plane into a building in Austin, Texas, flashing us all back in a heartbeat to that terrible day in September of 2001.

The attack was preceded by the alleged perpetrator’s online posting of a manifesto outlining his anger at the United States government in a day and age when “taxation without representation” is epidemic. He then lit the home occupied by this wife and daughter on fire, and went on to crash his plane into a building that apparently housed an IRS office. Much is yet to be learned about this event, which occurred just a few hours ago, but we do know that his wife and daughter, and most of those in the office building (thanks to amazing acts of heroism for which Americans are legendary) survived. Stack is counted among the casualties, yet he carried out his mission intending to take as many souls as possible with him.

In the rambling pages of his online rant, we learn that, for whatever reason, life has been difficult for Joseph Stack. Seeking a source to blame, he insists that he lives in “a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie,” chastising the American public, who “buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their ‘freedom.” He speaks of the storm raging in his head, concluding that “violence is the only answer.”

It’s safe to say that anger is indeed prevalent in this nation today in light of what is being done to our country. Not prevalent, thank God, is the Joseph-Stack brand of that anger, which justifies attempts on the lives of one’s own family, attacks on innocent Americans, and the violation of the pure ideology and heroism on which this country was founded. Such actions are the ultimate betrayal committed by a very sick man, who has left us with a collective anger now even more palpable because of what he has done to our people and our country.

Stack’s act of terrorism has undermined the mission of modern-day patriots who share a fury at the federal government and the war declared upon our freedoms. Our shared anger, and thus our energies, are now directed toward this man, who would take our cause and use it to fuel his attack on his fellow Americans. It makes as much sense as the White House declaring this was no act of terrorism, but we Americans know terrorism when we see it, and our founders knew it, too.

The patriots who founded and fought for this nation knew well the anger ignited by oppression and unrepresented taxation. But they did not use this anger to attack and destroy each other, as Joseph Stack did today. In time we will probably seem this man written off as a victim of self-delusion or insanity or circumstance or whatever, but what he has done has damaged our nation and those who take seriously the cause of freedom during a very dangerous and precarious time. Those who oppose us in this mission, those who truly are trying to undermine our freedoms, will find some way to paint patriotic Americans in his same light and use his actions against us. And we do not need that right now. Or ever.

So yes, a sad day for America. Another sad day. May God bless those this man took from us today and the families they leave behind. And may God bless the heroes, about whom we are just starting to hear, whose courageous acts ensured that fewer would be taken.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Betsy Siino | Comments (0)

You Get What You Vote For…

February 7, 2010 | Comments (0)

February 7, 2010 | Comments

A question to all who voted for this President back in November of 2008, to all who voted for a man who made it clear that he would be soft on terror, that he could seduce and pacify all who seek to kill our children and destroy our nation with nothing but his golden words (his “gift,” he calls it). So how about it? How has it worked out for you? Are you feeling all warm and fuzzy now that your kids are safe and secure within the new world this man’s “gift” has given us?

Maybe you are feeling warm and fuzzy, but I have to tell you, I’m not feeling it. One year after this man’s magnanimous coronation, it appears that those who wish to kill our children and destroy our nation have not been so pacified, so seduced. Indeed we have been repeatedly attacked by terrorists on our own soil since this President was sworn in back in January, 2009. As we all know, this hit a crescendo on Christmas Day when the so-called “underwear bomber” made his attempt to bring down a plane over Detroit. Fortunately, his fellow passengers embodied more courage than what we find in our current administration, and they refused physically to permit this man’s success.

Not to be overshadowed or influenced by that courage, the administration stayed its course. The “alleged” terrorist was interrogated for a mere 50 minutes, and then, ostensibly by order of Attorney General, Eric Holder, the suspect was read his rights as though he were an American citizen. (Just a note here: Contrary to what the White House and Holder may claim, no one in this or any administration takes such drastic action without approval from the President, whether we speak of reading a terrorist his rights or trying terrorists in civil court on American soil.)

Whatever the “alleged” terrorist said during those 50 minutes caused the leaders of the United Kingdom to place their country on high alert. What did we do? We made sure the “alleged” terrorist got properly lawyered-up.

This was only the beginning of the terror landscape we face for 2010, for last week, as part of an annual briefing on the threats to our national security, Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), asked Dennis C. Blair, retired Admiral and Director of National Intelligence:

“What is the likelihood of another terrorist-attempted attack on the US homeland in the next three to six months? High or low?”

The Admiral’s response: “An attempted attack, the priority is certain, I would say.”

His four fellow members on the panel, which included CIA Director Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller, agreed.

So no, not feeling the warm fuzziness. Rather, as I’ve said before, elections have consequences, and I see no clearer evidence of this than in the current state of our nation’s security — or lack thereof. For future reference, let’s all remember: Be careful who you vote for. He or she may just get elected. And I think even those swept up in the fervor a year ago are starting to see how devastating the consequences can be.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Betsy Siino | Comments (0)

Empty Rhetoric: Nothing Has Changed

January 28, 2010 | Comments (0)

January 27, 2010 | Comments

The President’s first State of the Union just ended, and all I can say is that it was a disconnected mess. This confused President, rattled, perhaps, by the events of the last several months that culminated last week in Massachusetts, ping-ponged back and forth in his speech like his head ping-pongs back and forth to catch the messages transmitted by his twin teleprompters.

It began with his grand entrance, heralded with applause that was noticeably more muted than the applause that greeted him when last he addressed both Houses to discuss health care. He reached his exalted perch, and for the next hour or so we watched him bob back and forth between his teleprompters that, on my television at least, remained visible for the duration on both sides of the screen.

First, the President blamed George Bush, a tactic, though tired and worn, continued throughout his convoluted diatribe. Next stop: the stories of American doom and gloom always heartily embraced by the democratic party — the doom and gloom that for so many years this President has witnessed in this wasteland we call America. I have watched “the struggles,” he said, that are “the reason I ran for President.” But then he just as suddenly changed gears in a lame attempt to summon the spirit of Ronald Reagan (who, we learned tonight, was apparently a proponent of America’s nuclear disarmament), singing the praises of American optimism and extolling, without a hint of irony, the joys of accountability and transparency.

Sifting through all this ping-ponging was a challenge, punctuated as the speech was by the incessant standing Os (86 in all), Nancy Pelosi’s jack-in-box-like bouncing from her throne, and Joe Biden’s big, goofy, electric smile, reminding me of the current Walmart commercial, where the dad clown impales his foot on a unicorn (or Bozo, take your pick).

But once all was said and done, the message was clear: Nothing has changed. The President is staying the course, disappointing those who predicted so ardently that he would move to the center. As other, more realistic, pundits predicted, he instead double-downed on his agenda, taking no responsibility for our nation’s catastrophic debt, and reaffirming his devotion to cap and tax, the same ol’ health-care agenda, bigger government, the punishment of banks and Wall Street, an increase in government spending, and a vague, touchy-feely approach to national security (avoiding the issue of terrorists and Miranda rights altogether).

Perhaps the greatest shock for me began when he proclaimed, “We cut taxes for 95 percent of working Americans!” How? Really? But tax cuts are “unfair,” right? To the inevitable applause that followed, he smirked, “I thought I’d get some applause on that one.”

This segued into mention of the runaway success of the recovery act – “also known as the Stimulus Bill” – that apparently made all this possible. Really? In bread-line America? And all the stimulus-caused jobs he proceeded to list: Do those include the jobs created in congressional districts and zip codes that don’t exist? How does this dovetail with the unemployment rate? I’m so confused. (Where is Joe Wilson when we need him? Even Bill Clinton at the height of Monicagate was not so brazen).

When the speech ended, I felt kind of sick, kind of empty – as though I had just spent 70 minutes watching a desperate man, having been betrayed by his own self-importance, grasping for the essence of his identity. With squishy rhetoric and a decidedly unpresidential demeanor, a meandering flip-flopping speech, and hollow attempts to summon emotion, the President tried to speak of America’s strength and to praise her military, while at the same time laughing at those who would question the veracity of global warming and blasting the Supreme Court Justices seated before him for daring to rule in support of our Constitutional right to free speech.

But this man’s true essence came through when he spoke of health care, using direct excerpts from the countless speeches he has given on the subject since last summer. Staying the course on this one, he claimed to understand the frustration of the American people who are fed up with all the wheeling and dealing that has gone into the passage of a bill that two-thirds of Americans oppose. He revealed who he is, when he said that this process has “left most Americans saying, ‘but what’s in it for me?’”

And I say, you are wrong, Mr. President. Once again you have severely misread the citizens of this nation. Contrary to the people to whom you apparently try to appeal, we the people did not ask what’s in this bill for us, and we resent you’re implying that’s who we are. As we have made evident in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts in recent months, you and yours have us asking instead, “What are you doing to our country?” And, upon learning your intentions, we have said, “No!”

You don’t understand us, Mr. President. You don’t know who we are, and I fear you never will. As you stated clearly tonight, you are still pledging allegiance to “change we can believe in.” No thanks, Mr. President. We don’t want your brand of change. And we never will.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Betsy Siino | Comments (0)

Traveling Terrorist Skies

December 28, 2009 | Comments (0)

December 27, 2009 | Comments

Tomorrow with my family I board a flight in San Francisco headed for the East Coast. We are seasoned travelers. We do this all the time, traversing the security checkpoints as a well-oiled machine, yet tomorrow we will face a whole new routine.

We will arrive at the airport three hours early. We understand our carry-ons may be checked twice. We understand we may be patted down, x-rayed, photographed, sniffed by dogs, poked, prodded and interrogated as never before. And we will have to stow everything on the flight an hour before the scheduled landing and sit stone still for that hour with nothing in our hands, nothing on our laps. We will comply obediently, of course, because it’s all part of remaining safe in the sky because yet another terrorist has successfully made an attempt on American lives.

So yes, we will comply. And I suppose this is okay, as long as the young man in the line with a certain type of name who paid cash for his ticket and has no luggage and whose father recently turned him in as a terrorist threat will be subjected to the same rigorous procedures, even though he and his brethren — as well as the President of the United States and the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security — may find such scrutiny of the young man to be humiliating and insulting.

Indeed in the wake of the most recent terrorist attack in U.S. airspace, the President took three days finally to announce in his usual scripted and robotic manner that it is “an isolated incident.” Following his lead, his Secretary of Homeland Security first announced that despite said attack (foiled by couragous passengers who jumped on the guy) “the system worked.” Then, a day later, she backtracked, stuttering and channeling the deer in the headlights as she muttered incoherent statements that made it abundantly clear that she has no idea what to do, what to say, or even who she is. Incompetence, thy name is Janet Napolitano (the same woman who believes the real threat to America comes from NRA members, pro-lifers and returning war veterans).

So do you feel safe? I sure don’t. Yet we are expected to  believe that we will be protected by people who close their eyes and hope that all the scary stuff will just go away. Sorry, we the people see the threat for exactly what it is, and we see this President and his administration for exactly what they are, too. Pray for safe travels, America. And for more lucky breaks and courageous passengers. We’re going to need them.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Betsy Siino | Comments (0)

A Day of Infamy

December 7, 2009 | Comments (0)

December 7, 2009 | Comments

On December 7, 1941 – sixty-eight years ago today – Japanese forces launched a surprise attack on the American naval fleet in Pearl Harbor. Then-President Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed that day to be a “day of infamy,” as America was ushered into World War II.

Today we witness another day of infamy, a day when two of our Navy Seals, whose heroic efforts led to the capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed last September, were arraigned in a court martial proceeding in Virginia. This thus becomes not just a day of infamy, but a day of disgrace for our country, and a day of betrayal for our military.

You see, Ahmed Hashim Abed is the alleged mastermind behind the barbaric slaughter of four Blackwater contractors – security guards – in Iraq in March, 2004. The four men were ambushed, brutally murdered, then dragged through the streets of Fallujah, two of them hung over the Euphrates River. I remember the images. You probably do, too.

After years of unsuccessful attempts, three Navy Seals, two of whom – Matthew McCabe and Julio Huertas – were arraigned today (the third will be arraigned later), succeeded in at last capturing the man assumed to be responsible for this brutality committed against American citizens. But it would seem their methods were a little too rough in our new politically correct world. Or at least that is what is being charged. The Seals could have accepted a non-judicial reprimand for being mean to the terrorist, but they chose instead a trial to clear their names – and, perhaps, to set a precedent for their brethren who commit heroic acts in the future.

Not surprisingly, these Seals have garnered a massive outpouring of support from the public. We have, in turn, been urged by government and even military voices to reserve judgment until all the facts have been revealed. But you know what? I think I speak for the great majority of those supporting the Seals, when I say, we don’t care.

We frankly don’t care what facts you may have that you think will change our minds. We don’t care how much force may have been used. Yes, we are Americans, so by definition we are the most compassionate people on earth, but our compassion lies with the victims of these heinous acts who suffered so terribly, with their families they left behind, and with the courageous men and women who work to bring the perpetrators of such acts to justice. Case closed.

So instead of mourning this day of infamy, let us rejoice in the heroism of these young men. Despite what the current government may think of you young heroes, despite even what your own possibly confused military may be thinking under this government’s spell, we the people are behind you. And they won’t be changing our minds.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Betsy Siino | Comments (0)

West Point: Another Photo-Op, Another Show

December 1, 2009 | Comments (0)

December 1, 2009 | Comments

The President no doubt figured that staging his Afghanistan speech at West Point was a brilliant idea. Remember the doctors in the white coats? Remember the fake Parthenon towering behind him during his acceptance speech in Denver? Tonight could be another ideal photo-op, right? Surround myself with the dark gray of West Point cadets, and the message will be “they stand with me.”

But I didn’t see that. I saw stoic expressions on the young faces of these best and brightest. I saw polite applause, but I also saw the recognition of truth on their faces. They know this man regards them as his own private band of toy soldiers, to use at his whim, at his pleasure, particularly as photo-ops and campaign tools. This President — pronouncing words such as “Taliban” and “Pakistan” as though he were a native offering these entities respect — looked so very out of place preaching to those young warriors.

Avoiding words like “evil” and “terror” and “enemy,” the President looked the fool when he forgot he wasn’t speaking this time to a fawning Congress or a newsroom of slobbering reporters. He patted himself on the back, congratulating himself in the presence of the cadets for saluting the fallen warriors at Dover. He spoke of the economy and the expense of war, as though his audience should be both grateful and guilty for their connection to such high costs.

Most jarring was when he spoke of military strategy, as though he knew anything about it, as though he had ever studied it, as though he respects that which these young warriors and the generations who came before them have dedicated their lives. What must they, and all commanders, think when he speaks to them of this subject that for them comes as naturally as breathing?

Thanks to this lack of credibility, the President’s speech tonight was a rambling, defensive creation of people who don’t know how to speak convincingly of patriotism, America’s heritage and greatness, and the men and women who have died to preserve them. The President frankly doesn’t understand these young people. He doesn’t know who they are, and he doesn’t understand why they do what they do.

What he did offer of relevance to the cadets, to America, and to our troops both at home and in harm’s way, is that after months of dithering and dawdling and voting “present” while our people died, he is at last granting General McChrystal’s request for an increase of troops (30,000) in Afghanistan. Much to the delight of those who want to kill us and the troops who protect us, he announced, as well, that he will begin the withdrawal of American troops come summer 2011 (just in time for re-election campaigning).

Imagine Lincoln, Churchill, FDR, Grant, Eisenhower, George W. or Julius Caesar handing a timeline over to their enemies. Not a military commander in history would broadcast battle plans and timelines as this so-called Commander-in-Chief did tonight. And, as is his way, he did it without a shred of emotion or passion, and without a word of victory.

From the moment he declared himself a presidential candidate, this man has made abundantly clear his distaste for the military and his opposition toward any military action in which we have engaged for the protection of our nation in a post-9/11 world. Tonight, like every night, my heart goes out to the military moms and dads and sisters and brothers and daughters and sons and all of us who consider ourselves their families, too, knowing that the fates of our men and women in uniform rest in the hands of a man who has never truly committed himself to the safety of our nation and our people.

Indeed rather than listen to seasoned military advisors who actually attended West Point and Annapolis and the Air Force Academy, he has preferred instead to humiliate them publicly in order to appease the likes of his left-wing base and film-maker Michael Moore, the latter of whom wrote to him on Monday, that “It is not your job to do what all the generals tell you to do . . . we f—g hate these generals!” I’ll take that as the royal “we,” as the President has never shied away from Moore’s support and adulation.

And that is why I have to believe that tonight was tough for the President. With his approval ratings sagging, he defied the far left in favor of the generals, but he did not look all that comfortable standing before that sea of cadets. This man, who by his own admission spent his college years seeking out foreign students and communist professors and now wishes to “transform” America, had to recognize that he had no frame of understanding with the audience he sought to dazzle tonight, an audience devoted to the protection and preservation of America.

What he may or may not recognize, as well, is that the cadets in that audience know a fraud when they see one. And tonight that is exactly what they saw.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Betsy Siino | Comments (0)

Coming to America

November 15, 2009 | Comments (0)

November 15, 2009 | Comments

Less than one year ago, voters in this country elected for their President a man with what amounts to a blank resume and a rather mysterious background to match. In so doing, they entrusted this man with the responsibility of making the most crucial life-and-death decisions for our country, for our families, and for our future. This last Friday, he made one of those decisions, bringing the consequence of that election one year ago into the harsh, mean light of reality. 

His message was conveyed through Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced, as if perpetrating a cruel Friday-the-13th prank, that 9/11 mastermind Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his fellow conspirators are to be transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Manhattan. There they will stand trial, with full protection of the U.S. Constitution and the precious rights reserved for American citizens, rights not typically granted war criminals who attack our families and our home. To add insult to the already mortally injured, the trials will take place just yards away from Ground Zero, the site where our proud towers once stood, a parcel that, along with Pearl Harbor, Normandy Beach, and now Fort Hood, we Americans consider sacred ground.

If this President and his administration were awaiting the ideal moment to reveal their true identities and where they intend to take this country, well, on Friday our fears – and his intentions — were confirmed for us and for the world. It began months ago with apologies to Europe; his abandonment of Poland, the Czech Republic and Israel; his appeasement of Middle Eastern leaders and interests; and, more recently, his dismissal of the shootings at Fort Hood as an act of stress. Now his agenda comes home to roost, as his favorite pastor might say, culminating in an announcement that stands not only to endanger our nation and our people, but also to rip the scab off an 8-year-old wound and that now will never heal.

In response, we hear howls of outrage and accusations of betrayal, even from people who voted for this man but decided at the time to ignore his intentions and his past. Many of us, however, are not at all surprised. We began gathering clues the moment this man threw his hat into the presidential-candidate ring. We took seriously what was written in his autobiographies.  We listened to his speeches and those of the people with whom he surrounded himself. We reviewed his voting records (what there were of them), and we knew that on his watch, should it ever come to be, we knew we would not be safe. Sadly, now that his watch has come to be, we can’t help but believe that this is exactly what he and his administration have planned all along.

How else might we explain the delicate orchestration of his Gitmo announcement? The President made sure he was out of the country, in Asia, so few questions could be asked of him. The announcement came on Friday, to limit both coverage and audience size as we slid into the weekend. Orchestrated as well, by what would seem a cunning collection of sadists, was the decision to hold the trial virtually on the very site of what the terrorists deem their great victory and the portal to those 72 virgins.

This announcement also happens to come only a week after Nidal Malik Hasan, reportedly a disciple of the same doctrine that guided the 9/11 terrorists, took the lives of thirteen people and an unborn baby at Fort Hood. Nevertheless, this administration chose Friday, November 13th, to plunge the knife even deeper into all who have lost loved ones to terrorist aggression, and into every American who suffers with them.

Those among us who tend to read between lines, are also left wondering if, in addition to continuing the appeasement of Islamic jihadists, there might be another agenda at play here, as well. War criminals are typically tried by military tribunals, the seemingly obvious fate of the 9/11 conspirators. But when a defendant has been waterboarded at Gitmo (subsequently divulging plans for further attacks on American citizens), and when an administration’s grandest desire is to see the CIA and the former administration prosecuted for crimes that they consider far more egregious than those committed in the name of Jihad, well, why let a golden opportunity like that pass you by?

Regardless of motive, many who lost family members on that terrible day in September, have wasted no time expressing publicly their disgust, their fury and their pain. They have spoken poignantly about traveling to Gitmo to see the perpetrators or attending terrorist trials. They tell of would-be martyrs using this forum as a stage to taunt their victims and their families and to glory in their anguish. Facing an unspeakable return to that state of anguish, they warn us that the same will happen in New York, as we all relive that day and watch the perpetrators laugh.

Meanwhile, our President and his administration won’t even call what happened on that day or since “terror.” And they warn us not to use the word either. How, then, can these men, these war criminals, be properly prosecuted for what they have done? How can the story be told, intentions and motives revealed in full? They can’t be. And maybe that itself is the most insidious intention hiding here. Are we destined to hear more talk of stress and post-traumatic this and that? Are we going to be asked what we did as a country and as individuals to cause these men to commit this atrocity? Is sensitivity training around the corner for us all?

Already the spin begins. Scrambling yet again to protect this administration (Chris Matthews perhaps pondering how most eloquently to ask where it is deemed illegal to take the lives of Americans with commercial aircraft), the mainstream media has thus far covered the story as though Eric Holder is acting alone, free of presidential input. If that were indeed the case, which we know it is not, wouldn’t that be what we call “going rogue?”

During that desperate week after the planes exploded into the Twin Towers, a field in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon, I spoke every night to a dear friend in Southern California, who was born and raised in New York City and knows it well. She lamented that despite the camaraderie and the desire for justice we seemed to be feeling en masse at that moment, many Americans, New Yorkers among them, would soon forget the morning when war was declared on us during those brief and tragic moments in time.

It pains me now to see my friend’s prediction, in part, come to be – so much so that eight years after we were attacked, we continue to wallow in political correctness that perhaps places us even more at risk than we were on the tenth day of September, 2001. We even went so far as to usher into power an administration and a Congress that seems hellbent on destroying all that has for more than two centuries made our nation, this grand experiment, exceptional.

Pummeled by what has become a constant internal attack on what we love and who we are, we, as battered Americans are struggling through a new form of domestic violence, wondering just how much more of this we can stand. Yet deep down, we know we can get through it. We know we are not alone.

I speak of “we” here, not “I,” for it is in the “we” that we can find strength and sanctuary. It is in the voices we hear raised in unison with love of country and outrage at those who mean us harm. Those voices are the true hope of this country, a hope that will see us through to the day when it will once again be “morning in America.”

Betsy Siino | Comments

Betsy Siino | Comments (0)

While We Were Sleeping

November 10, 2009 | Comments (0)

November 10, 2009 | Comments

On September 11, 2001, we were sleeping. And on September 11, 2001, we were attacked. As never before.

When we emerged from the fog, we entered our new world. We were changed. For a while. Some forever. We spoke of good and evil. We embraced our flag. And we were changed. For a while. Or forever.

But so were we told to relax. To close our eyes. To sleep. Like toddlers at bedtime. It will be okay, they said. We’ll take care of it. We will embrace them. Accept them. Be civilized. And they will forgive us. Just watch.

So we were. Civilized. And our country, she closed her eyes. Civilized. Yes, we were at war. Yes, some meant us harm – 3,000 souls attest to that. But they aren’t all that way, we were told. Still, those that aren’t didn’t speak up. Yet we knew, we were told, they aren’t all that way. So we weren’t to speak up either. Civilized, remember? Tolerant. Be that. Close your eyes. Sleep.

And while we were sleeping, they took hold. Eight years. They knew we were sleeping and they used it. More attacks came. Even more were thwarted. We weren’t told of those, but we found out anyway. And still we heard time and again: lone gunman, no affiliations, no suspicions. We said very little. We remained civilized. Quiet. Sleeping. They aren’t all that way. Close your eyes. Sleep. Many did.

But even more of us didn’t.

Like toddlers at bedtime, we watched, as though spying down the stairs, listening to mom and dad at the kitchen table. We heard a truth we knew already. In our hearts, we knew the truth, which always finds its way.

Some of us spoke of what we knew. What we saw. What we believed. They called us names. But still we would not sleep.

And now it happens again. Eight years later. And our soldiers took the bullet. On our own sacred ground. And again, those who are civilized tell us we are wrong. They tell us to relax. To sleep. Like toddlers at bedtime. It will be okay, they say. They aren’t all that way. And they won’t say the words. They hide behind “stress.” They hide behind “trauma.” They won’t say the words, even when honoring the dead. Again they tell us to tolerate. To sleep. To trust.

But we say no. We will not listen. We have seen our people die. Then.  And now. Many of us said no then. Even more of us say it now.

And again they call us names. But our pledge is to the truth, which always finds its way. And now, this time, even more stand with us. We will not sleep. We will listen to what is true, as it always finds its way. And we will trust those who live with honor, who love our country and our children. Those who took the bullet. And those who will. For us and for our children. Those who will say the words. Those who will not sleep.

They know we do not sleep either. Not this time. For as we have learned, far too much can harm us and our children, far too much can harm our country, while we are sleeping.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Betsy Siino | Comments (0)

Texas Aftermath

November 6, 2009 | Comments (1)

November 6, 2009 | Comments

We know more now than we did yesterday afternoon when it was announced that a number of people had been killed and injured at Fort Hood Army Base in Texas. The original story held that there were presumed to be three, possibly more, shooters. They tell us now it was a lone gunman of Middle Eastern descent, an army psychiatrist, a colonel, and a Muslim, who was soon to be deployed to the Middle East and was allegedly not happy about it. And they tell us that he is still alive.

Within hours, the usual suspects in the media – no doubt responding to the alleged religious affiliation of the shooter – were making valiant efforts to control the damage, informing us that this was an obvious case of post-traumatic stress disorder. Given that the alleged perpetrator had never been deployed, this brilliant media diagnosis quickly became a punchline. I’m sorry, we just don’t have the patience for this anymore. This time, we are not tolerating even a hint of the political correct mindset that – by overlooking the threatening, suspicious comments this shooter has allegedly made about his country, the war and his religious beliefs — probably contributed to this terrible event. So take your amateur psychology to a more receptive elsewhere – to the White House perhaps.

No, the rest of us see this for exactly what it is: a terrorist attack and nothing but a terrorist attack. To refer to it as anything less, to offer the alleged perpetrator an agenda-riddled excuse for his heinous acts, is to insult and degrade the people who have died by his hand, as well as the American heroes who stopped him.

Also disgraceful was the President’s immediate response, which was preceded by his first stroking a crowd of bureaucrats in keeping with his original PR-stop plan that afternoon (as we know, this President has a tough time working off script). His poorly arranged response seemingly, but, not all that surprisingly, devoid of any compassion or pain for the victims and this country did not go unnoticed, especially coming as it did after an election that proved truly disastrous for him and his party only days before. He still has not commented on that election, and it was obvious he would have liked to ignore and evade Fort Hood, too.

But most America’s can’t ignore and evade Fort Hood – nor do we care to. We have been swept back to that terrible morning of September 11, 2001, acknowledging another devastating attack on our America, fearing for our loved ones and the loved ones of others, and looking to our country to show the strength and power for which she is legendary. We did it then. We do it now.

While we pray for the victims and their families, we look to the history and the founding documents of our country as the blueprint for traversing the days ahead. Granted there will be plenty who will try and stand in the way, who will tell us that the true perpetrator is the former President of the United States (which has been done already); who will label this a simple case of post-traumatic stress disorder (again, already done); and who will insist this falls under civil, not military jurisdiction (still waiting for that one). No matter. The revisionists can save their breath. We the people just aren’t listening to that anymore.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Betsy Siino | Comments (1)