What Embassies are Closed?

Out of curiosity, I did a search to see which embassies across the Middle East and Africa were closed in light of a "major" insurrection by Al-Qaeda. My search yielded that perhaps there isn't a clear answer. Google couldn't give me a straight answer (I almost fainted), so I decided to go to the one place that should have an available list for the public to purview: the United States Department of State.

On the State Department's website, the individual conducting the press interview about the situation indicated that he didn't have a list in front of him. I guess he didn't think the question would arise. I find this strangely odd, considering I was led to believe that Al-Qaeda was a thing of the past. (Does anyone remember 9/11 and the War on Terror?)

For now, I'm stuck with the line I found on CNN.com: major threats are in the "Middle East, Africa and beyond..."

Should that level of vagueness make me feel safe? I suppose this is another example of the government knows best.

Libya

After revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, Libya has turned out to be a much more bloody revolt against the government of Colonel Muammar Ghadaffi, who has held power for 42 years.

This northern African country, that was once a colony of Italy, has been in upheaval for almost two weeks. With the fall of Benghazi, Libya's second largest city, to anti-Ghadaffi forces, the future of Ghadaffi and his hold on the some of Africa's largest oil reserves, seems rather precarious. Rebel forces are waging an assault on Tripoli, which is Libya's capital. Ghadaffi is stating that the revolution is the result of al-Qaeda and other international forces. He has called in armed mercenaries to help maintain his hold on the government.

Many of Ghadaffi's major political supporters have defected and now support the revolution. In addition, military forces are also reversing their support of Ghaddafi and supporting the rebels.

Some see civil war on the horizon, as the United Nations imposes financial sanctions against Ghadaffi's regime.

Muammar Ghadaffi's days are numbered.

Birthers

Birthers say that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Personally, I believe he was born in Hawaii, on August 4, 1961, which is clearly after the state's statehood of 1959.

Even though it isn't anything new, there are those who say he wasn't born in the United States. I have heard everything from Indonesia, where he did live for a short time as a young boy; Kenya, where his father was born. I've even heard Iraq.

Let me say, I am not a "birther." I do not buy into the whole conspiracy theory that Barack Obama is an Islamic fundamentalist, who has been planted into the highest echelon of our nation's government to destroy us from within; however, I do not see any reason why a presidential candidate would not produce his/her birth certificate for public scrutiny. It is a constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of the United States, after all. It should be on file, for every candidate, with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

If running for president, would I show you my birth certificate? Yes, without reservation. It shows that I was born in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which was admitted into statehood in 1792, as the 15th state. (I've got facts.) I do not see the problem with showing the document to quash any question about my constitutional qualifications.

It may not dispel all rumors and innuendo, but it would prove to the intelligent among the electorate that I am who I say I am. The same holds true for Barack Obama.

John McCain, Welcome to America!

United States Senator John McCain (AZ), who we all know is a Republican, blah, blah, thinks President Obama made a mistake by not classifying Santa bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, as a military combatant, so he would be tried in a military court, instead of a civil court.

With all due respect, Senator, but isn't that whole point of terrorism? I mean, isn't it the very notion that terrorists want to destroy American institutions by instilling fear into our minds and causing us to throw off our day-to-day lives to conform to them? If we put Abdulmutallab on trial before a military tribunal for an act that occurred on American soil, then the terrorists are defying American justice, and we are complacent. 

The Constitution applies here, Senator McCain.

I sincerely hope that the terrorists--whomever they are--see that in America we live by a set of equitable laws and a solid code of justice that cannot be defied by their bombs, kamikaze-wanna-bes, or rhetoric. If you commit a crime in the United States, then you will be tried in an American civil court of justice, protected by liberties guaranteed by our nation's constitution, defended by an attorney, set before a jury of peers. If appropriate, the guilty will be punished according to our laws.

The Constitution cannot simply be railroaded when you feel compelled, Senator McCain. This is not Nazi Germany. And the age of George W. Bush is in the past. We do not have secret courts, where civil rights and liberties can be ignored, when a few desire it. From the lowest to the highest criminal, each stands before the same framework of justice. 

That is our America!

Terror in Detroit

What's going on in Schiphol? 

A U.S. bound plane from Amsterdam to Detroit is the focus of an attempted terrorist's act. If it hadn't been for the quick action of some passengers the scenario may have played out quite differently. 

To answer my own question, though, why would a world class facility, such as Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, allow someone with an incendiary device through its security? Let me paint a picture for you using a personal experience.

While returning home from one of my trips to Paris, I encountered a lapse in security at Charles de Gaulle International Airport. Now, you'd imagine that Charles de Gaulle, or as the French call it, Roissy, being one of the top airports in Europe, would have impeccable security. Well, it does, if you use it consistently. 

I was boarding a trans-Atlantic flight from Paris to Cincinnati. International airports serving airports in the U.S. are required by the TSA to conduct the same security protocols as implemented in the United States for domestic and international flights.  In the United States, they do everything but Roto-Rooter your ass (and even then some people get that privilege). 

But back to Roissy. 

As we approached the metal detectors, a sign clearly stated--in French and English--we had to remove our shoes and place them in a plastic bin for extra screening; however, most people were not removing their shoes. Security officers simply allowed those people who had kept their shoes on to pass quietly through security, my party included! (Let's face it, taking your shoes off in public is not a very appealing thing to do.)

Am I saying that x-raying our shoes would have stopped a terrorist attack? No. But I am saying that basic security protocols were not enforced; therefore, who can say if all the basic security protocols in Schiphol were enforced? Europe is a lot less anal about these sorts of things. They think Americans have a stick up their ass for being so hard-nosed about invading people's privacy.

Come to think of it, they might be right!