This is the second in a two-part series on growing threats and strategies in the Internet age. CyberSecurity at Risk Part 1: Growing Threats demonstrates the rising impact of CyberCrime on business and that CyberWarfare is a key military strategy our enemies are quickly grasping. CyberSecurity at Risk Part 2: Changing the Rules Again shows the national security strategies needed to protect our vital interests.

In the fast-changing CyberSecurity world, staying one step ahead of attackers has never been more challenging.

Recently, a virus that infected 30,000 computer workstations attacked the Saudi Arabian oil company Aramco. Aramco took their main website off the Internet for several days. Credit for the attack came from a group called the Cutting Sword of Justice.[1]

During 2009 and 2010, U.S. and Israel released the Stuxnet virus to secretly disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment progress.[2]  Because Stuxnet is old CyberSecurity news – and as attackers catch up – we must change the rules of the game again.

Maintaining security in the Cyber world starts with the basics. However, stealing secrets is always easier if the front door is unlocked with nobody watching.

In February 2012, the hacker group Anonymous published 78 email addresses and passwords from the Syrian government: 33 of the 78 passwords were either “12345” or “123456.” On the same day, Anonymous leaked a series of emails from inside the Syrian government.[3]

Are we doing any better than Syria securing our vital national secrets? In 2011, Gmail experienced a phishing attack from China that targeted personal email accounts of White House staff. A phishing scam seeks to get people to reveal IDs, passwords, and account numbers. The attackers’ aim was likely to uncover official White House business or national security secrets being discussed in private email or on home computers.[4]  Due to the common practice of using the same passwords at home and work, did the Chinese actually find much more?

Failed CyberSecurity Strategies

How well has the Obama administration done defending our cyber borders and protecting business and trade?

In the last legislative year, the House and Senate voted on differing national CyberSecurity bills. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, passed in the House, was co-sponsored by the Democrat and Republican senior representatives on the Intelligence Committee. Obama, however, threatened to veto this measure that encourages companies to share cybersecurity information. The CyberSecurity Act of 2012, openly supported by the Obama White House, was defeated in the Senate when the Senate split over mandating cybersecurity standards for private businesses.[5]

Despite this loss in the Senate, the Obama administration is pushing a Presidential executive order with key provisions from the failed Senate bill.[6]  Why would the White House deliberately go around the legislative process?

Rather than strengthening our defenses, the failed CyberSecurity Act of 2012 and likely Presidential executive order impose government oversight and interference, and add the following risks to businesses:

No protection from lawsuits – Information sharing is key to handling a Cyber attack. Leaked drafts of the proposed executive order do not include limits on companies being sued for sharing information about a cyber attack with the government. If companies need to frequently check with their lawyers on potential exposure to lawsuits, the timely flow of information will stop.[7]

Even by adding protection against lawsuits in the CyberSecurity legislation, businesses may still hesitate to share vital information with government and each other. Food safety may be one of the few examples where the government and business have established the practices to quickly share information.

Government mandated standards – The Administration’s executive order seeks to impose “voluntary” CyberSecurity standards on critical industries.[8]  Would businesses be slapped with lawsuits from customers or shareholders for failing to meet “voluntary” security standards?

CyberSecurity Leadership Agenda

So challenging is the Cyber threat that at the recent DefCon hacker conference, National Security Agency General Keith Alexander asked hackers to help make the Internet secure and defend privacy.[9]  While this might lead to interesting relationships with the hacker community, a strong CyberSecurity leadership agenda must instead be created.

We can no longer be satisfied being one step ahead of the other side as we were with Stuxnet. All it takes is one talented and motivated individual to penetrate our cyber defenses that cost billions of dollars to build and maintain.

Here are a few key issues we must address in a rapidly changing technical world:

Create a partnership between government and business –The need to build readiness extends to businesses such as banks, power companies, communications, and other utilities in partnership with government. We cannot wait until an attack to ensure communication lines are in place between business, government and military.

Cut through or eliminate the layers of bureaucracy – Due to privacy concerns, many government agencies can’t share information with each other. Sharing Cyber intelligence between agencies is critical to ensuring our nuclear program, military forces, and intelligence agencies can meet an attack with proper force. Furthermore, eliminating needless CyberSecurity mandates and regulations minimizes government overreach.

Continue investing in CyberWarfare capabilities – General Keith Alexander recently said the Department of Defense will reach full CyberWarfare readiness by 2014.[10] With the public sector in competition for prized talent in the private sector, adding the talent and systems to build readiness requires long-term funding, leadership, and discipline.

Define the rules of engagement – Our forces will only be successful in the case of a Cyber attack if the following questions are understood.[11]

• Who is the attacker?
• What is the immediate response?
• What command structure is in place to make the decision for a greater response?

In the Cyber world, the identity of attackers is easily covered up. Suppose the U.S. retaliated against an attack only to discover the real attacker cleverly pointed the evidence elsewhere?

Cyber attacks have not yet crossed over to the horror and cost of real-life warfare. However, our ability to defend our borders and protect trade is being challenged every day. It takes only one technically savvy attacker to cause serious damage. With our enemies now including rogue states, drug lords and Cyber criminals, we cannot be protected by Cold War strategies of the past.

With new CyberSecurity threats, we must demand that our government act with urgency to protect our vital infrastructure. Maintaining our competitive advantage and national security in a post 9-11 world depends on it.

For more solutions to the problems facing America in a post 9-11 world, go to truecapitalism.org

This is the first in a two-part series on growing threats and strategies in the Internet age. CyberSecurity at Risk Part 1: Growing Threats demonstrates the rising impact of CyberCrime on business and that CyberWarfare is a key military strategy our enemies are quickly grasping. CyberSecurity at Risk Part 2: Changing the Rules Again shows the national security strategies to protect our vital interests.

The digital revolution has turned mainstream. Just 30 years after the first PC, we celebrate progress with each new iPhone and iPad release. Facebook was the highly publicized initial public offering of stock for 2012. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates are household names.

Hazards of the same digital age have also gone mainstream as many of us experience identity theft, online scams, computer viruses, and online predators. With the growth of social media and mobile devices providing new opportunities for criminals to ambush the unsuspecting, the Cyber world is a dangerous place for our citizens and nation.

Cyber threats take on two primary forms:

CyberCrime makes big money from industrial espionage, fraud, spam, viruses, and more. Symantec estimates the cost of CyberCrime is $338 billion globally. Cybercrime is more lucrative than the drug trade.[1] There has been a dramatic rise in attacks on small businesses over the last six months while the attacks on large businesses have declined; 36% of attacks are now on small business.[2]

CyberWarfare has been on the rise more than a decade with the objectives of achieving a battlefield advantage and dominating covert operations. The U.S. and Israel developed the computer virus Stuxnet to secretly disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment process. Stuxnet accidentally “escaped” due to a programming error and was discovered in 2010. In a New York Times article, author David Sanger disclosed strategies used by the White House to deploy Stuxnet.[3] The White House is under investigation by the U.S. Attorney General for classified intelligence leaks.[4]

Those seeking to exploit any weaknesses in our defenses are talented and motivated:

Organized crime syndicates – Russia leads in making a business out of CyberCrime. The breakup of the Soviet Union and their lax government oversight led highly motivated and talented former state-security operatives to join with organized crime. “They’re incredibly persistent. If it takes a year to set up their targets, then they’ll wait the year,” said Jose Granado, Ernst & Young’s information security practice leader.[5]

Rogue nations – A recent Department of Defense report stated, “Sensitive U.S. economic information and technology are targeted by the intelligence services, private sector companies, academic and research institutions, and citizens of dozens of countries. Chinese actors are the world’s most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.” The “actors” – those who steal and disrupt – use a variety of methods to take intellectual property ranging from computer intrusions to more personal methods. Chinese intelligence services exploit people with ties to China to steal trade secrets using insider access to corporate networks.[6]

With Russia and China possessing the capability to push CyberWarfare forward, other nations are making strides. North Korea recently increased its CyberWarfare unit to 3,000 elite staff.[7] In an address to the U.S. House subcommittee overseeing CyberSecurity, General James Clapper was reported as saying Iran’s cyber capabilities “have dramatically increased in recent years in depth and complexity.” [8]

Highly-motivated individuals – It takes only one technically savvy criminal or attacker to cause serious damage.

Some prosecutors are learning to use the Internet to go on the offensive. U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan told a press conference, “People think that cyber criminals cannot be found or apprehended. Today we know that’s not true. You cannot hide in cyberspace. We will find you. We will charge you. We will extradite you and we will prosecute you.” [9]

Our Nation at Risk

Our national infrastructure is susceptible to two types of attack:

• Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attack – Shuts down computer systems by high volume of traffic and superiority of attack. For example, a DDOS attack in September 2012 disrupted at least six large U.S. banks. Security experts stated the Middle East group claiming credit, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters, must have had help. Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, believes the attacks were sponsored by Iran.[10]
• Stuxnet-like attack – Stuxnet succeeded in covertly disrupting critical infrastructure inside Iran. The next Stuxnet may be pointed at the U.S. as a cunning means to disrupt operations or steal secrets.

President Obama recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal Opinion section that his administration made CyberSecurity a priority, since “the cyber threat to our nation is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face.”  He added, “So far, no one has managed to seriously damage or disrupt our critical infrastructure networks. But foreign governments, criminal syndicates and lone individuals are probing our financial, energy and public safety systems every day.” [11]

Have we succeeded in advancing the CyberSecurity priority? Three years ago, Stuxnet dictated new rules in CyberWarfare. Yet Stuxnet is old CyberSecurity news. As attackers become more sophisticated, we must change the rules of the game again.

The next article – CyberSecurity at Risk Part 2: Changing the Rules Again – looks at key CyberSecurity strategies taking us beyond the Cold War and to government’s role in protecting our vital interests.

For more solutions to the problems facing America in a post 9-11 world, go to truecapitalism.org

A Military Officer is jolted to attention as his computer screen comes alive with the warning that 3 heat plumes have just been detected in central China. Quickly, overhead orbiting satellites and other detection equipment comes alive and begins to track the 3 heat plumes that are now arcing away from China to the north. Thirty seconds into their flight, the heat plumes have been identified by the super computers and given names.

Three Chinese DF-31A long-range missiles are now heading for the USA on a flight path that will take them over Russia and Alaska.[1] In three minutes the missiles will be done with the boost phase of their journey and enter into low earth orbit.

Alarms all around the world begin to go off and the USA moves into Defcon 1, our highest alert status. We are at war.

For the next 20 to 25 minutes all the operator can do is watch during the mid-phase of the flight as each missile deploys its deadly cargo of five 250-kiloton nuclear warheads. Our current early warning systems begin to send the tracking information to our land based missile defensive systems. When the warheads enter the 2-minute reentry phase, the computers that are calculating the intercept need to be spot on. The land based system will do its best to knock the incoming warheads out of the sky as they re-enter the atmosphere heading to their targets, but a miss at this stage means some city in the U.S. is going to have a very bad day. It is only during this reentry phase that the incoming warheads can be brought down with current technology.

All of this could have been avoided in orbit if a system like Brilliant Pebbles had been deployed.[2] This defensive system uses a network of 4,000-satellites in low-Earth orbit that will fire high-velocity, watermelon-sized projectiles at incoming ballistic missiles launched from anywhere in the world. The goal is to break up the missile or warheads before they start their reentry into the atmosphere. If successful, however, this would leave hundreds of pieces of space junk in orbit.

The space junk that is created with any system like Brilliant Pebbles could be a problem. Under a plan called The Code of Conduct for Space, supported by the Obama administration, international guidelines restrict any activity that creates space debris.[3] The Code of Conduct’s primary purposes are to affirm norms that limit debris in orbit and establish traffic-management procedures for outer space.[4] This ‘Code’ could be signed into being without any debate by Congress or military leaders, and would be binding for all future space projects. The fact that it is a ‘Code,’ and not a treaty or a law, means the administration can avoid congressional oversight to enact it.[5]

Although there is a need to test any missile intercept system, we would, under the code, not be able to test this system because it would leave space junk after the test.

There are currently 22,000 trackable objects in space.[6] In a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) working paper on cleaning up space junk, space debris is said to be a human-made environmental problem that will need to be managed.[7] No one would argue against a need to clean up space debris, and systems are being developed to do just that. Scientists at the Swiss space centre at EPFL, the federal institute for technology in Lausanne, are working on a way to send a “janitor satellite” into orbit to sweep up and permanently remove orbiting debris.[8]

The European Union and the governments of Japan, Canada, and Australia have already expressed support for an initiative like this Code of Conduct for Space. Russia and China do not support this Code because they believe the code is insufficient.[9]  Obama’s support of this Code could thus hold the U.S. to a standard that our enemies have no plan to uphold.

A DF-31 bomb (a smaller version of the DF-31A) has a blast radius of about 4-5 miles. Everything inside of 1-2 miles is vaporized.[10] The cost of rebuilding, as well as the long-term health effects, is too great to put a price on.

With something on the line as large and complicated as the defense of our cities, we cannot allow our ability to defend ourselves to be signed away without a debate and the space technology experts weighing in on the discussion.

Do not let progressives manage this National Defense issue unopposed. They will tell us that we must avoid turning space into a hazardous junk-filled place, and that the only way to avoid this is to regulate the space environment and stop any new debris from being deposited up there.

As a nation we must ask tough questions of our current elected officials and those who are running for office. If our enemies know that any attempt to launch a missile strike on us will be swiftly and successfully countered, will they be more or less likely to try? The world must understand that the USA means business when it comes to our defense.

Learn the facts. Vote with the facts in 2012.  Get out of your homes to educate and rally your neighborhoods.  Put candidates in office who will turn around the insanity; there is still time to save the nation…

On March 5, 2012, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama. This was their ninth meeting in three years, and the stakes have never been higher. The potential of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is a direct threat to both Israel and the U.S.

Before their meeting, Obama and Netanyahu shed little light on their disagreements over Iran.

In a statement made 24-hours earlier to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama stated, “I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power: a political effort aimed at isolating Iran, a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored, an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”[1]

Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to Obama’s AIPAC speech by saying he was pleased with the president’s remarks. “I very much appreciated the fact that President Obama reiterated his position that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that all options are on the table. Most important of all, I appreciated the fact that he said that Israel must be able to defend itself by itself against any threat.”[2]

Based on their public statements, you would expect that diplomatic efforts and sanctions have had some success in stopping Iran. Not true. Obama wants diplomacy and more time for sanctions against Iran to work, and Netanyahu needs the U.S. to back Israel, as the potential for military action becomes more imminent.

Iran is steadily moving toward atomic weapons, a situation verified by the United Nations. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated in November 2011 that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device” and that their efforts may still be under way.[3]

In June 2011, outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that most intelligence estimates predicted Iran was one to three years away from building a nuclear weapon.[4]

While Iran appears to be nearing the ability to use nuclear weapons (against Israel and elsewhere), the internal political pressure to do this very thing has been ratcheting up inside Iran. With an economy based on oil exports, Iran has been in hardship the last several years. The popular Iranian Green movement is picking up support while the Islamic fundamentalists, led by Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are doing all to maintain power.

To stir up public sentiment in Iran against the U.S. and our allies, Khamenei recently said that “the arrogant powers are bullying us to maintain their prestige.”[5] Whether they call us “arrogant powers”, or the “Great Satan”, the Islamic hardliners inflame the Iranian public to keep themselves in power. The Islamic fundamentalists used the connection of the U.S with the Shah of Iran, to gain power in 1979. Islamic fundamentalists have been in power since the Islamic revolution.

The Shifting Balance of Power

Dramatic shifts in the balance of power are occurring in the Middle East due to Iran’s progress toward atomic arms. If the U.S. hesitates in applying pressure on Iran, and is slow in support of Israel, the balance of power may tilt permanently toward Iran and away from the U.S.

In a statement to an Atlantic reporter, the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States, Yousef al-Otaibaif, said, “There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran. Small, rich, vulnerable countries in the region do not want to be the ones who stick their finger in the big bully’s eye, if nobody’s going to come to their support.”[6]

Arab states will not wait for the U.S. to deal with the nuclear threat imposed by Iran. As Iran quickly becomes the emerging power of the region, and if the U.S. backs away from our role of strategic defense, Arab countries will want to strengthen their own security by aligning with Iran (Iranians are not of Arab heritage, they are Persian).

The United States and Israel cannot afford to watch the dominos fall to Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. World War I exploded as the dominos (countries) in Europe fell one by one, and the major powers doing too little. It will be too late for us to act if the dominos (countries) in the Middle East begin to fall.

By destroying nuclear reactors in Iraq (1981)[7] and Syria (2007)[8], Israel has clearly demonstrated they are not afraid to eliminate weapons that might be used as weapons against them.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is asking for the firm assurances that the U.S. will support Israel when Israel must act militarily to defend itself against the development of nuclear capability by their enemies.

President Obama faces tough questions as he considers the aggressive behavior of Iran and the lack of success of his diplomatic approach and relatively mild sanctions:

With the opposition Green Movement in Iran, why did Obama refuse to support their efforts to stand strong against Islamic fundamentalists?

Can we believe economic sanctions alone will work against a regime already under political pressure at home, is verified as moving toward nuclear arms capability, and is a sworn enemy of Israel and the U.S.?

Why would the U.S. allow the Middle East to swing toward Iran simply because our leaders waited too long to deal with Iran?

President Obama’s immediate choices are the same that President Reagan faced against the Islamic fundamentalists of Iran. The Iranians of the 1980s had no doubt President Reagan would have acted with strength.

The president must have the will to apply stronger sanctions on an immediate basis including stopping Iran’s oil shipments, restricting refined oil shipments to Iran (they have no refining capability), legally seizing assets, and further banking restrictions. Where necessary, the U.S. must act with Israel with the greatest speed to destroy Iran’s nuclear arms capability.

There is no deterrence against the will of our enemies if our own response lacks the will to act. Indecision is the unavoidable path of weak leadership.

American voters must demand that the candidates, including President Obama, stand strong against Islamic fundamentalists who would destroy our country. The voice of our leaders must once again echo the will of the people by supporting our allies, delivering tough sanctions, and following up with tougher military action. We must not back down in the face of threats to our security; our allies and our children depend on it.

A downed spy drone in Iran, Russia, Operation Fast and Furious, Mexico; what do these have in common?  If there were a connection between them, would you at least be curious…if not deathly frightened?  If you are neither, you should be!  Each one raises serious concerns about our country’s policies, but let’s start with Iran.

A top-secret stealth drone goes down in Iran, a sworn enemy of America and of our allies in the Middle East.  Our President had some immediate choices to make; retrieve the drone, find the drone and blow it up, or do nothing.  He did nothing!  This seems to be consistent with having no solid policy on Iran, its aggression, or its support of terrorists.

Here is where Russia enters the picture.  Russia remains one of the world’s super powers with close ties to Iran.  Russia continues to sell weapons and technology to Iran.  In an interview with Fox News on December 11, 2011, former UN Ambassador John Bolton suggested that Russia may have recently provided sophisticated jamming technology to Iran.

Bolton said Congress ought to be concerned if the Iranians are in possession of jamming technology that can bring down missiles, planes and communications and guidance systems “For a whole range of our weapon systems.”[1]

Perhaps the most interesting quote from the article is this:

“We are not the kind of country to allow our enemy to operate freely within our national security and to continue without any response, but regarding the kind of reaction we will show, our enemies will see its effects.”[2]

This quote was not from the White House or the Pentagon speaking on behalf of the President.  This was from General Hossein Salami of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps!

Our President simply said, “We’ve asked for it [the drone] back. We’ll see how the Iranians respond.”

Imagine if our President had made as clear and uncompromising a statement as the Iranian General did.  Would Russia take the risk of selling sophisticated weapons to Iran, or any other enemy of the United States, if we were that strong in our response?  Do you think Iran would risk a confrontation with a strong American President who had a clear policy on this type of act?

Now let’s look at another international arena.  Operation Fast and Furious was a disastrous and deadly operation of the Obama administration.  High powered guns and assault weapons were given to Mexican drug cartels on the flawed assumption that we could track the guns and stop the cartels.  A number of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents were strongly against this dangerous plan.  They were under severe pressure from very senior people in the ATF and potentially the Justice Department, the Attorney General, and even the White House to execute the operation and say nothing.

The failed Fast and Furious operation resulted in the death of an ATF agent in the United States at the hands of cartel members using a gun supplied to them by the operation.  Hearings and review of thousands of documents continue in Congress as they try to unravel this mess. Many guns are still “lost” in Mexico. Where will they surface, and when will they be used against more Americans?  Even worse, Progressive politicians in Congress, like Senator Feinstein (D-California), are using this mission and the death of an ATF agent to limit the Second Amendment to the Constitution by suggesting more gun controls.

Lastly, let’s look at Mexico more closely.  What is happening in Mexico that connects to all of these things?  According to the Heritage Foundation in a report from December 12, 2011, there is some disturbing news linking Iran to Mexico and other Latin American countries.  Specifically, there is evidence that Iran is involved in a plan to launch from Mexico a cyber war on the United States that would cripple U.S. computer systems.

“In Mexico, Univision uncovered covert recordings of the alleged Iranian plan to cripple the computer systems of the White House, the FBI, the CIA and several nuclear power plants.”[3]

Terrorists from Iran’s Special Forces and covert intelligence groups plotted to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States in Washington in October 2011; they globally threaten Israel and our allies, and they ignore bans on nuclear weapons production.  Now Iran may be plotting cyber-attacks on America through Mexico.

If this is not enough to frighten you, consider Obama’s administration seemingly doing nothing to draw a line in the sand.  The government is supposed to act to protect and defend us.  The President can say, Ask Bin Laden if we are tough on terror, but what the President did to Bin Laden was just completing the work of others to find the world’s most wanted man.  Anybody would have agreed to complete the mission and get Bin Laden.

The President’s oath of office is to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.  If the President and politicians in Washington will not protect us here at home and defend our constitution, they must be voted out.

It’s critical that we are all involved in protecting our country and our freedom.  Get your family, friends and neighbors to read stories like this one.  Share the facts, and contribute to candidates who will not compromise our safety and security.  Never has there been a time when so much hangs in the balance than in the 2012 election.  Get the vote out for changing what is wrong in Washington.  If those in Washington can’t secure America, we must bring in people who will!

In a National Security speech made by President Ronald Reagan to the nation and the world on March 23^rd, 1983, he said, “The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace.”[1]  This speech was made during a time when Congress was debating the cost and size of the defense budget, which was smaller than that of the Soviet Union.

The world in 1983 had two super powers, the communist Soviet Union and America.  We had just been through the return of our hostages from Iran in 1982, just hours after President Reagan took office.  Many people believe this happened only because Iran knew Reagan, (through his use of all national security and military assets to free and defend our citizens and way of life), was not as weak as President Carter.

What happened during the Reagan years was amazing due largely to the focus on our national defense and growth of our economy.  The strength of and our commitment to national defense deters bullies from harming us; history proves that.  America’s military strength was shown in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis. When President John F. Kennedy threatened the Soviet Union, the Soviet bully backed down.

In President Reagan’s same national defense speech, he also said, “’Deterrence’ means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.”[2]

Those Reagan years were times of security and economic growth for America.  Aggressive and hostile nations knew there would be a price to pay when a strong leader in the White House had the strength of will to use all means to defend our nation and our allies. With a strong national defense as a deterrent to bullies, nations survive and citizens feel safe.

Times seem to have changed in the last three years. Our President now apologizes to nations that harbor terrorists for America being a strong global leader, and he cuts our national security capabilities all while increasing entitlement and regulatory agency spending.

Today, foreign aggression from Mexican drug cartels threatens and puts American citizens at risk in Arizona. The President’s Constitutional oath states that he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  The Constitution provides for the protection of the country against outside forces. This includes protecting against drug cartels operating in and through Arizona.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer condemned what she called the federal government’s “continued failure to secure our international border,” saying that the lack of security has resulted in important natural recreational areas in her state being declared too dangerous to visit.[3] These Mexican bullies are affecting the safety of Arizona, America, and the economic lifeblood both here and around the world.

Why would our President choose not to defend our citizens with all means available to him in Arizona?  How could any of us feel safe if foreign criminals are allowed to do as they wish in our own cities, towns or neighborhoods?

History proves that bullies and terrorists understand strength and determination; they certainly have both and are not afraid to use force to get what they want.  If a bully meets someone who has greater strength and determination, the bully is not going to pick a fight because they may lose.  Little children understand that when they stand up to defend themselves against bullies they are no longer victims or prey.

If our President and Congress will not act to defend our Constitution, our communities, our jobs and our economy, then the bullies have won. The world’s safety (and ours) depends on your vote for candidates who want a strong national defense without having to make excuses for our strength and our economic freedom.

Do you remember when you heard the awful news about 9-11?  I do. I was listening to the radio on the way to work. I remember my emotions after seeing the news footage of planes burning on the sides of the Twin Towers in New York City.  My brother-in-law – who works in New York – watched in horror out of his office window as the Twin Towers came crashing down.  All of this was the work of terrorists.

The nation mourned and became enraged.

The terrorist acts on September 11, 2001 killed 2977 victims and caused incredible wreckage in the lives of families, friends, and co-workers.  The damage to the US economy was estimated to have cost American workers 1.6 million jobs by 2002.[1]

The events of 9-11 were a wake-up call for America.

We knew that we were at war because America was attacked on our own soil.

After 9-11, the US led the uncompromising attack against Iraq – one of the key countries to sponsor terrorism – and took down their dictator, Saddam Hussein.  The war was then expanded to Afghanistan.  Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden were the prime enemies.

By the end of 2011, the last of the US troops were withdrawn from Iraq by President Obama, keeping one of his campaign promises.  Then the timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan was announced; followed by the death of Osama bin Laden.  We also solemnly commemorated the loss of life during the 10th anniversary of 9-11 at a new memorial on the site of the Twin Towers.

A decade has come and gone since 9-11.  Are we still at war?  Are we safe or safer today?

The 9-11 Commission Report concluded that, “In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.”[2]

Iran continues to this day to threaten the Middle East and the US.

In November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that Iran has received the necessary help from foreign sources and has mastered the critical steps to build a nuclear weapon.[3]

The sanctions in Iran, placed on them by the US and the United Nations, has further ratcheted up the tension.  In December 2011, Iran tested their long-range missiles[4] and conducted 10 days of naval exercises in the Straits of Hormuz – a key passageway for transporting 40 percent of the world’s oil sea-based shipments[5]. Iran has warned that they will blockade the Straits if sanctions are imposed on its oil exports.[6]

In November 1979, Iran seized 79 US hostages under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, while moving their people to riots by calling the US “the Great Satan”.

Despite negotiations, President Carter was not able to secure the release of the hostages.  The hostages were released just minutes after the start of President Reagan’s inaugural address in 1981.

Iran backed down instead of facing a strong response by a strong president.

Iran continues in the present time to be ruled by radical Islamic fundamentalists who believe that the US is “the Great Satan”.

There is a war still under way by the most radical Islamic fundamentalists against America.  The personal and economic freedom – which is provided by the constitution to each of our citizens – is an outrage to the most radical forces of Islam.

Thirty years have gone by since President Reagan forced Iran to back down and release the hostages.  We can continue down the path of Ronald Reagan by strengthening our military and financial muscles – and having strong leadership in place and the good sense of when to use them. We cannot afford the current administration’s impending military cuts if we plan to remain strong with an imminent Iran nuclear threat.

Americans must live by the words of President Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.  It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”[7]

Our leaders must not be afraid to stand strong against Iran by using the toughest sanctions – and even military presence – to stop Iran from becoming armed with nuclear weapons.[8]

Without oil refining capability existing in Iran, why have the White House and the UN held back by not placing sanctions against oil products being sold to Iran?  This action would cripple Iran.

The elections of 2012 are vitally important to our country. The threat of military spending cuts puts our nation’s security – and strength – in danger.

Make your voice heard.  Work in your state caucuses and primaries to ensure that we elect leaders who will strengthen our borders.

Each voting citizen must be armed with the understanding that our enemies hate us and want us to be destroyed.

Do not settle for leaders who demand that the US become isolated in the world.  Identify and work for candidates who will make the tough choices to use the economic and military might when needed to stop our enemies from developing nuclear arms.