A "Brownshirt Police Force" with Stethoscopes and Scalpels?

Here's a "Frequently Emailed theme" that my father has recently sent in the form of a video.

Essentially, this viral theme boils down to the accusation that, in the recent health care bills that have passed Congress, President Obama has somehow sneaked in provisions allowing him to have a domestic police force that will allow him to enforce the law as he sees fit.

Okay... considering that Congressional leaders actually wrote the law and sent it to the president for his signature, it seems a little unlikely that the President "secretly" did anything.  But if you want to look at my father's video, you can see it here on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htw7shWR3oU.

To the videographer's credit:  This is slightly less hysterical than most right-wing viral nonsense.  This vlogger acknowledges that the new health care bill doesn't actually create a new "civilian army".  He acknowledges that this is an expansion of an already existing agency - the United States Public Health Service.  And he acknowledges that this expansion is set aside for "reserve officers" that will serve in times of national emergency.

And after that... he goes into a long-winded fantasy about how these "reserve officers", under President Obama, will be used to enforce left-wing political orthodoxy.  With guns and police powers, if the need arises.

Well, let's get our facts straight here.  The United States Public Health Service was created in 1798, under our second president, John Adams.  Over 200 years ago.

And for over 200 years, no president has attempted to use this force for anything other than providing health care.  So there's no clear reason to believe that such an "expansion" of the Health Service's mission (published here) would start now.

They only recruit health care professionals, veterinarians, engineers capable of working on public health projects, and information technology specialists.  Making this service very poorly suited for the recruitment of "political police" officers.  And much less suitable for the task than any current military service, intelligence agency, or law enforcement agency.

And the idea that people would want to create a "reserve force" for "national emergencies" seems very reasonable - considering that part of their mission is to "Provide urgently needed public health and clinical expertise in response to large-scale local, regional, and national public health emergencies and disasters".  As they've recently done in recent hurricanes, earthquakes, and other man-made disasters.

So, overall, a request for a "reserve force" for such emergencies sounds very reasonable.

Okay, I suppose a skeptical reader might ask, "How do we know that the Public Health Service might be transformed into a civilian police force some time in the future?"

Okay, I suppose that the leader of this service is called the "Surgeon General", just like the Post Office used the title "Postmaster General" a few years back.  But, in order to be a police force, this service will either need to:

• Start hiring police, intelligence, and/or military officers.
• Start training it's cadre of physicians, nurses, scientists, and health care statisticians in law enforcement.

None of these things can happen invisibly.  People need to be hired.  Training manuals need to be written.  Training centers need to be established.

If anyone finds any evidence that any of these things are happening - I'll admit I was wrong.

Until then... there's no reason to call this "conspiracy theory" anything other than baseless hysteria.

Read My Lips: There's No Tax Here.

Whenever a Democrat runs for political office, it seems like there's an automatic reaction:  "If you elect him, he'll raise your taxes!"


Well, here's one viral email that's told us how it already happened.  Even when it didn't.

Subject: FW: HR4646...read this!!!



Snopes says it is true, http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/debtfree.asp
HR4646...read this!!!
On January 1st 2012, the government is requiring everyone to have direct deposit for SS checks. 

WONDER WHY? - A 1% tax on all bank transactions HR 4646
Watch for this AFTER November elections; remember this BEFORE you VOTE in case you think Obama's looking out for your best interest. 

FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!
ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP. 

Checked this on Snopes; it's true! Check out HR 4646. 

President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the radar. 

This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution - banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc. Any deposit you make, or even a transfer within your account, will have a 1% tax charged. ~If your paycheck or your social security or whatever is direct deposit, it will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction. 

~If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay Obama $10 just for the privilege of depositing your paycheck in your bank. Even if you hand carry your paycheck or any check into your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be charged. 

~You receive a $5,000 stock dividend from your broker, Obama takes $50 just to allow you to deposit that check in the bank. 

~If you take $1,000 cash to deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged.
Mind you, this is from the man who promised that, if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy's under-the-table moves to increase the number of ways you are taxed. 

Oh, and by the way, if you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you have it direct deposited or you walk in to deposit that check, you guessed it. You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank. Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from, you will pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank. 

Some will say, oh well, it's just 1%. Are you kidding me? It's a 1% tax increase across the board. Remember, once the tax is there, they can also raise it at will. And if anyone protests, they will just say, "Oh, that's not really a tax, it's a user fee"! Think this is no big deal? Go back and look at the transactions you made from on year's banking statements. Then add the total of all those transactions and deduct 1%. Still think it's no big deal? 

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." - Barry Goldwater

Okay, Snopes did say that this is a "mixture of true and false information".

Here's the list of what's true about this email:

• HR4646 existed.
• And that's about it.

HR4646 is not a law.  It was a bill before congress, introduced by Representative Fattah.  It was referred to House Ways and Means committee, where the chairman never brought the bill up for consideration.

Nor was HR4646 new legislation.  He's introduced the same bill as HR1601, HR2130, and HR1703.  And this year, he's submitted it as HR1125.


So far, he's never found a single congressman to cosponsor this bill.  And no other national politician has has  endorsed any version of this bill.  Including President Obama.  Or anyone in the Obama administration.


So, it's not a law.  And that means that you won't be hit by this proposed tax.


But even if hell froze over and HR1125 passed, this bill wouldn't be a tax increase - this tax would replace the Federal Income Tax.


Overall, the email attention that this bill has obtained seems almost comical.


That is - until you realize that people will write and call congressional staffers to overturn this law - even when it never passed.  This takes up a lot of congressional manpower, time, and energy.


Congressional staffers don't work for free.  How much do you think you're paying in order for them to respond to these silly viral emails?

The Communists Took Over in 1934. Too Bad You Missed It.

Right wing emails have a tendency to be overdramatic.  Usually, any idea that doesn't fit within extreme right-wing dogma is decried as a step toward socialism.

This email took it a step further.

Obama must have seen this and is taking it literally.
FYI THIS IS ALSO VERY SCARY!!! Sound familiar??!!
Cartoon from 1934       
 
This cartoon was in the Chicago Tribune in 1934. Look carefully at the 'Plan of Action' in the lower left corner.

"Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it."

The date on the lower right corner is probably from a reprint.  But, yes, during the days of the new deal, many folks were declaring that government spending and new social programs would end life in the United States as we know it.

Let's see how accurate these predictions were.

Money spent on recovery - check.  Plenty of "make work" programs were created.

Government bankrupted - Nope.  Still had money to fight World War II, which was even more expensive than any "recovery" spending.

Constitution junked - Nope.  It's still there, and still the law of the land.

Dictatorship declared - Nope.  As of this writing, the government is still arguing about the debt ceiling.  There is definitely no dictator in charge.

We've joined the Soviet Republic - Oh, wait.  They aren't even around anymore.

Seems to me that if you're going to be a "chicken little", you wouldn't want to point out how wrong you've been before.

Are we reading the same Koran?

Here we go again...

Yes, people throughout history have justified horrible things in the name of the gods they worship.

When people do these things, they should be punished.

But when evil arises, we need to fight the people committing evil.  And not the ones that don't.

But, hey.  Here's a viral emailer who may disagree with that.

The Joys of Being A Muslim Wife

This was written by a woman born in Egypt as a Muslim.  This is not hearsay, and it will scare  you.

Viral email is, by definition, hearsay.  It may be true - but sources need to be checked.

As to the claim that this was "written by a woman born in Egypt as a Muslim" - we'll get to that later.

Joys of Muslim Women

by Nonie Darwish

According to Snopes, this was not written by Nonie Darwish.  It's a highly editorialized restatement of some of the things she's said, and taken out of context.  She's never endorsed this viral email, as far as I can tell.

In her public appearances, however, she's very clear.  This is about a subset of people who are following traditions not espoused in the Koran.

In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child, consummating the marriage by 9.  The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.

If we're going to say something is "in the Muslim faith", I consider the Koran to be the ultimate arbiter.

Now, I'm not a Muslim.  I can't claim to understand the religion as well as a practitioner.  And I certainly can't read the Koran in it's original Arabic.

But I can provide quotes from an English text.  And I have a free copy of "Interpretation of the Meaning of The Glorious Qur'an", by Prof. (Dr.) Syed Vickar Ahmed.  So I'll go ahead and try to use it.

Now, let's get down to the "marrying a one year old" thing.  Quran 4.19 clearly states, "You are forbidden to inherit women against their will."  I don't know of anyone who would consider a one-year-old bride to be "willing".

Even though a woman is abused, she can not obtain a divorce.

Quran 4.35:  If you fear a break up between the two of them [ed: Husband and Wife], appoint (two) individuals (to settle their differences), one from his family, and the other from her's (her family); If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation"

And if they don't wish for peace?  Nothing else is said, except for the husband's duties to ensure support and fair division of property.

To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.

Let's get to the Quranic source.  4.15-17: "And if any of your women are guilty of being illicit in (sexual) conduct, take the evidence of four witnesses from your (own) people against them; and if they testify, confine them to the house until they die or Allah decides some (other) way for them.  And the two persons among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both; and if they repent and improve, leave them alone; Surely, Allah Forgives and Accepts repentance (Tawwab), Most Merciful (Raheem)."

It's hard to say that a rape victim is "being illicit".  Even so, the four male witnesses are a protection for her, and not for a rapist.  Even if a claim of sexual impropriety is made against a woman, if one of four witnesses disagree, or if four witnesses can't be found, the woman can't be punished for the impropriety.  And this case, punishment is imprisonment in the home until they repent.

Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry.  

Quran 4.19 comes closest to this, but still refutes it: "that you may take away part of the dowry you have given to them - except where they have been guilty of open illicit sexual deeds (lustfulness);"

Again, I don't see how this would apply to a woman being raped.

The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family.

It seems to me that Quran 4.92 is quite clear on the topic of "honor killing" - "And a believer should never kill a believer."

 Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and the man does not have to say why he has beaten her.

Quran 4.34: "As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, caution (and warn) them (against the specific faults, at first), refuse to share their beds (next), beat them (lightly, at the very last);"

Well, ancient religious texts tend to go for corporal punishments not condoned in modern societies.  But this text would hardly excuse a man from civil penalties for beating his wife.  After all, alternatives (including divorce mediation) are provided in the context of the Koran.  And, of course, Quran 4.19 commands it's believers that husbands need to "live with them [ed: their wives] on a basis of kindness and justice."

So, even in ancient societies, "at will" wife-beating is clearly banned.

The husband is permitted to have 4 wives and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.

The text of the Quran allows for multiple wives.  However, it's quite a responsibility, and one that should not be undertaken if he's unable.  4.3: "If you fear that you shall not be able to act justly with the orphan (girls), then marry (other) women of your choice, two, or three, or four; But if you fear that you will not be able to deal justly (with them), then marry one"

At the time the Quran was written, marrying multiple women made sense - men died in war.  A lot.  The practice was probably helpful for a lot of war-widows.

But, again, when civil laws prevent one from marrying more than one wife, and I'm sure most modem Muslims would recognize that it's unjust to ask someone to break the law by becoming a second wife.  And multiple marriages are far from being a religious obligation.

As far as "temporary marriages" go?  Please.  2.226-233 clearly state that, for a divorce to take place, there's a waiting period of months - in order to insure the woman's welfare, and that of a potential unborn child.

The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

Again, this is totalitarianism in the name of Islam.  But it's not the Muslim faith.

We should treat it with disgust, and do what we can to end the injustice.  Unfortunately, in foreign countries, our options are pretty limited.

In the Western World ( America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. 

If you want to argue for something that fits in your personal perversion of Islam, you're more than welcome to petition the government - It's one of our freedoms.  

However, American law treats divorce as a civil affair.  It has a tradition of adjudicating divorce even when religious authorities don't recognize divorce at all (such as some Catholics) , or the terms of the divorce (for example, an orthodox Jewish woman seeking a divorce without the man's agreement).

So, no.  I just don't see how they'll get it in American society.

 It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.

Sorry, American divorce law trumps religious divorce law.

By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

Ripping the West in Two. Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.

Again, this is a defining property of totalitarianism.  Not of Islam.

 She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.

Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza    before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on  Israel .  He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .

When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.

Uhhhmmmm.... not quite right. 

But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing.  She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.

The article above confirms she converted to Christianity.  I can't confirm or refute the rest in my half-assed google searches.

In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.

For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual.  Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.

Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.

While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.

While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.

Again, this is the nature of totalitarianism.  And, under freedom of speech, we can't punish them for saying it.  But it doesn't mean that it's going to happen in America.  And our laws protect us against it quite nicely.

It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.

While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.

Again, our options in foreign countries are pretty limited.  And our viral email author offers no solutions.

In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President by themselves! 

Interesting statement.  I'm sure that the "proof" of this statement is just as... interesting.

Rest assured they will do so... You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA .. Dearborn Mich. is one... and there are others...

I'm Jewish.  I've been to Dearborn.  I've lived to tell the tale.  And I know plenty of Jewish-Owned businesses who are also doing just fine down there.

Sure, there are Muslims there.  But there's no enforcement of Sharia law that I can see.

I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

Yeah.  Because the ACLU is all about silencing our freedom of speech. Riiight.

It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful.. some may be but they have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam.. the peaceful support the warriors with their finances and own kind of patriotism to their religion. While America is getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America ..

So, we should dismantle the separation of church and state for Christianity.  But not for Islam.

Nothing hypocritical or inconsistent about that.  No-sir-ree Bob.

This is your chance to make a difference...! Pass it on to your e-mail list or at least those you think will listen..

Or those who want to confirm that you're an idiot.

A Gas Station Serenity Prayer

Not all of my dad's email forwards have to do with politics.

Here's another recent piece of nonsense:

New way to get swindled. I will clear from now on.

Using the "clear" button
Using credit/debit card?
Read this note very carefully.

I did not know about the clear button, but I will be pushing the clear button before I swipe my gas or debit card and after just to be safe.

People are getting really desperate due to the constantly rising gas prices.

A friend just told me about something that happened to one of his coworkers.
She used her credit/debit card to purchase gas at the pump (like most of us do). She received her receipt like normal. 

However, when she checked her statement, there were 2 $50.00 charges added in addition to her purchase. Upon investigation, she found out that because she did not press the 'clear' button on the pump, the employee inside the store was able to use her card to purchase his/her own gas! 

To keep this from happening, after you get your receipt, you must press the 'CLEAR' button or your information will be stored until the next customer inserts their card.
Be sure to tell all your friends/family so that this doesn't happen to them. I had never noticed the clear button but I got gas the other day and sure enough it is there. I shall be using it from now on.

Well, needless pressing of a "clear" button probably isn't going to hurt anyone.  Is it?

Well, keypads do wear out over time.  I'd imagine this would send a few to early retirement.

And, of course, there are your random nutbags who will forget to hit the "clear" button, rush back to the gas station, and accost the staff out of fear that their identities might be stolen.

I suppose, if these things become prevalent, it will cost the gas stations money.  And of course, you know where that money is going to come from - increased prices at the pump.  So, yes.  Hysteria like this can cause harm for the rest of us.

"But", you may ask, "is there any credence to the idea that failing to 'clear' the pump of data might allow a gas station employee to use someone's credit card number?"

Absolutely not.  Once collected and immediately transmitted, credit card numbers are usually not stored at the retail site.  Most companies prefer not to take the risk of being sued for data breaches.  And even the ones that do want to keep credit card data (for some weird reason) are obliged to keep the data encrypted.  And a gas station attendant isn't going to have access to it.

Now some folks might say, "Well, if that's true, how did this original poster get stuck with a couple of $50 charges?"

Well, they could have made it up.  It seems a little bit strange for an identity thief to stop after collecting $100.

But, if they weren't, I'd lay odds on the gas pump being modified with a skimmer.  If a pump were illegally modified, then, yes, it could store or transmit data to a thief.

But the "clear" button won't help you to defeat a skimmer.

Thankfully, they're still rare.  And if they were more common, credit card companies would be devising countermeasures.

But if you're worried - check the benefits on your credit card.  They usually have good protections against identity theft.

And that will help you a lot more than worrying about if you hit a "clear" button.

The Suicide Bombings of 2005: Too Bad You Missed 'Em.

Oh, great.  Another "The Terrorists are Coming" message.

Let me sum this one up for you beforehand.

• Snopes identifies this email as arising in 2005.  And, yet, somehow, this author's predictions of multiple simultaneous suicide bomb strikes on US and English soil haven't come to pass.  Despite his dire warnings that this would happen in "the next few months".
• Some journalists have pointed out that there's no evidence that this source has served in Mossad, or any other Israeli intelligence service.  It's also noted that he failed basic commando training.
• Snopes did check Fox News footage during the week before the London bombing.  They didn't see Mr. Juval on at all, much less predicting the bombing.
• I've found no records of any testimony to congress or the president before the 9/11 attacks.  Nor have others who've looked.

Bottom line?  I don't give this "expert" any more credence than any other chicken little.

But, if you still want to read?  Here you go.  But, personally, I think another viewing of "Outbreak" will teach you just as much.

And "Outbreak" was an awful movie.

A LITTLE LONG BUT BE WARNED IT WILL BE DIFFERENT

                Next Terrorist Attack will be different.....


 
Israel is realistic and US is foolish!
 
   
Advice from an Israeli Agent
 

 Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ' Munich ' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard, and she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.

 In a lecture in New York City he shared information that EVERY American needs to know -- but that our government has not yet shared with us.

 He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O'Reilly laughed, and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. Unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.
 
Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East ) to the Bush Administration about 9/11, a month before it occurred. His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. Congress has since hired him as a security consultant.
 
Now for his future predictions. He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. Will occur within the next few months.
 
Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again.. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke -- that we have been reactionary rather than proactive in developing strategies that are truly effective.

 For example:

 1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.

 2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can't bring liquids on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked!
 Every strategy we have is reactionary.

 3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates.

 Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved. InIsrael , security checks bags BEFORE people can even ENTER the airport.
 
Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (I.e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities ( New York , San Francisco , Chicago , etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as, rural America this time.. The interlands
 ( Wyoming , Montana , etc.).

 The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas.

 Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.
 
Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S.. Government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts. The world is quickly going to become 'a different place', and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.

 On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don't have to be concerned about being nuked. Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroyAmerica will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny'.
 
He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America  should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad.  But will be, instead, 'homegrown', having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U.S. He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the   Middle East . These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them.

 Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terrorist threats we will inevitably face.  America still has only a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact SOON.
 
So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel 's, Ireland 's and England 's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to pay attention to, and trust 'aware' citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies'. Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.

 Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out.. In fact, in Chicago , someone tried to steal the briefcase!
 
In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well 'trained' that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, 'Unattended Bag!' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves.
 
Unfortunately, America  hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.

Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about our schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City , this was days, in some cases!)

He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, of how to respond in the event of a terrorist emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools too, develop plans of actions, just as they do in Israel .

 Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.

 Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan, that in the event of another terrorist attack, EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., will immediately be cut-off, as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated.

 How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak to each other? You need to have a plan.

If you understand, and believe what you have just read, then you must feel compelled to send this to every concerned parent, guardian, grandparents, uncles, aunts, whomever. Don't stop there. In addition to sharing this via e-mail, contact and discuss this information with whomever it makes sense to. Make contingency plans with those you care about. Better that you have plans in place, and never have to use them, then to have no plans in place, and find you needed them.

If you choose not to share this, or not to have a plan in place, and nothing ever occurs -- good for you! However, in the event  something does happen, and even more so, if it directly affects your loved ones, then this e-mail will haunt you forever.

Telling yourself after the fact, "I should have sent this to so and so, but deleted it as so much trash from old Bill Ralph, plus, I just didn't believe it", will not change anything. You were alerted, had the chance to do something, and instead of erring on the side of caution, you chose to disregard, if nothing else, a sensible, valuable warning.