American Morning
Homegrown Terrorism: We're seeing a new phase in the radicalization of American citizens
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/29/am.intv.emerson.homegrown.terrorism.art.jpg caption="Emerson says if an individual is constantly fed a diet that the U.S. Government is an enemy he will naturally end up radicalized."]
The feds are searching for an eighth suspect accused of being part of a terrorist cell in North Carolina. Their alleged ring leader is accused of hoarding weapons and visiting terror camps overseas. This is just one in a string of recent reports of alleged terrorists here at home. So how safe is America from home grown terrorism?
Steven Emerson, the executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism spoke with CNN’s Carol Costello Wednesday.
Carol Costello: So it seems like there are a lot of people here in America, alleged home grown terrorists, being indicted for crimes for jihad. How scared should we be?
Steve Emerson: We’re seeing a new phase, Carol, here, in the radicalization of American citizens as well as American-born Muslim. In the past six months alone, there have been more than 40 arrests of either American-born Muslims or of Americans who converted to Islam in trying to carry out plots overseas or in the United States. This is indicative of what has happened in Europe over the last ten years where the environment there and some of the calls by the Islamic groups have radicalized the Muslim populations there. Were seeing it here but more interestingly we’re seeing American citizens who convert to Islam and stage operations from the safety of overseas and carry out jihad.
Costello: I want to talk specifically about Daniel Patrick Boyd, the guy from North Carolina. He just looked like your average Joe. Neighbors said if he was the terrorist, he's the nicest terrorist we know. He just seemed like such a normal guy. Yet he supposedly carried on this secret life. From 1989 to 1992, he traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan. What did he do there, exactly?
Emerson: Well, in 1989 to 1992, he volunteered against the Soviets who had occupied Afghanistan and he volunteered and trained with the Afghan Mujahedin, the holy warriors. But he kept up and he was interviewed in ‘The Washington Post,’ actually, in 1991 where he called the US a ‘kufr’ or an ‘infidel country.’ He kept up his religious animosity to the United States; even indoctrinating his own kids willing to send them on suicide operations in Israel and elsewhere abroad to carry out jihad. So it shows you the extent to which he was radicalized. What's more interesting here is the extent to which there are other cells across the country, Carol, that have been involved in carrying out plots either here in the U.S. and overseas but using the safety of the United States and becoming radicalized here, even though they were originally not radical or not even born Muslim.
Costello: I want to get to some of the psychology of this. Because Daniel Patrick Boyd allegedly plotted these terror missions overseas, not here in the United States. But then again, who knows, right? But how does one who lives in America, grows up in the American culture, become radicalized like this?
Emerson: You’ve raised an excellent question. I think part of the question lies in the fact that once you make the conversion to Islam, and most Muslims are not radical. Once you make a conversion to Islam, sometimes the Islamic groups, the national groups that control the distribution of literature, of the media, of the educational system, teach them jihad and teach them that the United States is the enemy. Just the other day, letters from Congress representing seven Islamic radical groups claimed to be mistreated by the U.S. government and they themselves in statements in the last ten years have been saying the U.S. government is the enemy. If you constantly are fed a diet that the U.S. Government is an enemy, that the U.S. government is part of the conspiracy to suppress Islam; you will naturally end up radicalized, hating the U.S. and even willing to carry out violence to advance that goal.
Two key GOP senators to oppose Sotomayor
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/28/formal.sotomayor.art.jpg caption="Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination is to be put to a vote in the Judiciary Committee today."]
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Two key Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee announced their opposition to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on Friday, a further sign the party's conservative base is uniting against President Obama's first high court pick.
Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the former chairman of the committee, and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, head of the party's Senate campaign committee, announced on the Senate floor their intention to vote against the 55-year-old federal appeals court judge.
Hatch's decision came as something of a surprise. The veteran Republican has voted for every high court nominee in his 32-year Senate career, including President Clinton's two liberal choices, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Hatch had praised Sotomayor's "credentials and experience" and the fact that she would be the first Hispanic justice. But despite the nominee's compelling life story, Hatch said that controversial off-the-bench comments by Sotomayor troubled him.
"I reluctantly, and with a heavy heart, have found that I cannot support her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court," Hatch said in a written statement.
"In truth, I wish President Obama had chosen a Hispanic nominee that all senators could support. I believe it would have done a great deal for our great country. Although Judge Sotomayor has a compelling life story and dedication to public service, her statements and record were too much at odds with the principles about the judiciary in which I deeply believe."
Cornyn candidly admitted that his opposition to Sotomayor could carry political risks in his home state, where one-third of the electorate is Hispanic.
"Voting to confirm a judge - this judge or any judge - despite doubts would certainly be the politically expedient thing to do, but I don't believe it would be the right thing to do," he said on the Senate floor.
Schwarzenegger wields knife, talks budget cuts in video
(CNN) - California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ruffled feathers this week by posting a video on Twitter, in which he brandishes a large knife while talking about the state's recent budget cuts.
Schwarzenegger announced a major plan Monday to eliminate California's $26 billion deficit, with state agencies looking at billions of dollars in cuts as part of the plan.
On Tuesday, the Hollywood actor turned governor posted a video, in which he handles a 2-foot-long knife before thanking Californians for providing him with creative ideas for slashing the budget.
By Wednesday, critics had emerged, some wondering how Schwarzenegger could post a lighthearted video about a proposed budget plan that could slash services for needy people.
he governor addressed the critics at a news conference, saying that though the budget process was tough he had not lost his sense of humor.
"You sent a governor to Sacramento - not El Stiffo, like some in the past were," Schwarzennegger said. "[I am] someone a little bit more entertaining, and who has a little bit more fun with the whole thing, not have fun making the cuts - they sadden me - but fun with the job itself."
California lawmakers will have to make about $15 billion in cuts in Schwarzenegger's new plan to balance the state budget.
Too much Obama TV?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/23/obama.presser.gi.art.jpg caption="President Barack Obama delivers remarks on health care during a prime-time press conference from the East Room of the White House July 22, 2009, in Washington, DC."]
Stagecraft.
Since the dawn of the mass media era, presidents have used it to remain popular and move the masses.
FDR’s fireside chats soothed and moved a battered nation.
President Reagan and media guru Mike Deaver transformed the White House into a virtual Hollywood set. Camera angles and lighting were key allies in showing Reagan at his best.
President Bush (43) used stagecraft brilliantly—and not so brilliantly. He’ll forever be remembered for speaking into that bullhorn at Ground Zero to focus the country on the mission at hand.
The aircraft carrier backdrop with “Mission Accomplished,” of course, is remembered for other reasons.
What about President Obama?
There was a Jim Carrey movie a few years ago called “The Truman Show.” Carrey played a character whose life, ENTIRE life, was a TV show. Every word, every facial expression, every move was broadcast.
The president hasn’t gone that far, of course. But a lot of people in Washington say by getting so much media exposure, Obama is risking that the public will respond with one giant collective yawn. There are televised news conferences (last night was his 4th already); NCAA bracketology discussions; burgers with the media; an All Star ceremonial first pitch; “exclusive” interviews over and over and over with network anchors; and of course date night.
Comedian Bill Maher, who supports Obama, recently told his HBO audience, “you don’t have to be on television every minute of every day. You’re the president, not a rerun of ‘Law and Order.’”
Hold on, says the Marketplace’s Jonathan Friedman.
“I think he’s keeping people calm,” says Friedman, “and he’s reassuring people that he’s in control.”
Cornell’s Professor Theodore Lowi adds, “it’s ridiculous to talk about being overexposed ... given the choices that he has, he’s better off being exposed 24 hours a day. He has to vary his appeal, but he’s very good at that.”
When Teddy Roosevelt famously used the “bully pulpit” to advance his agenda, most Americans never heard a word of it. Everything went straight to print. Nowadays, of course, nary a day goes by without every citizen having the opportunity to catch every presidential word. Words matter. Now some say, too many words matter too.
Obama: Reform 'central' to economic recovery
WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Obama said Wednesday he was unable to guarantee that health care reform won't change how Americans get medical treatment, but he said any changes would be necessary and positive.
In a nationally televised news conference dominated by the health care issue, Obama delivered lengthy statements in response to Republican attacks on proposals he favors.
He also attempted to ease the concerns of people left confused by the fierce debate in Washington.
He repeatedly emphasized that the spiraling costs of the current system would bankrupt the nation while denying coverage to millions more Americans.
Asked directly if he could guarantee that an overhauled health care system won't change how people receive treatment, Obama said no.
"The whole point of this is to try to encourage what works," Obama said, addressing concerns that reform would take away the ability of people to choose their doctors and treatment.
Watch Obama describe importance of "getting it right" 
What's your reaction to Obama's health care speech? Tell us your thoughts.
Harry & Louise switch sides
15 years after their television debut, actors Harry Johnson and Louise Clark are back, reprising the roles that made them famous – or infamous depending on your political persuasion.
Better known as “Harry and Louise,” the duo sank the Clinton administration’s efforts to pass health care reform in the early 1990s, with a series of TV advertisements that claimed proposed changes would “force” Americans to pick from limited plans designed by “government bureaucrats.”
The ads, paid for by the health insurance industry, were considered controversial with threats such as, “If they choose; we lose.”
The proposed reform dubbed “HillaryCare” never got out of Congress and serious efforts for reform have not been proposed again – until now.
Cue Harry and Louise.
“Well, it looks like we may finally get health care reform,” Harry says in what looks like it might be the same kitchen table set they used 15 years ago. “It’s about time,” Louise responds, adding, “A little more cooperation, a little less politics and we can get the job done.”
That’s right, this time Harry and Louise are using a different script for a new pro-reform ad paid for by Families USA and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
Johnson and Clark were first tapped last year during the height of the 2008 election by the pro-reform groups for a new series of ads depicting the same characters. Ron Pollack, head of Families USA, re-introduced the fictional couple at a press conference last August and joked, “I did not mean any harm by saying they've gotten older; we all have. They actually are better looking and they’re a whole lot wiser.”
Johnson and Clark later explained the role reversal in a behind-the-scenes video of the making of the ‘08 ad. “Things are much more expensive than they used to be,” Harry said. “Both of us know people who are having problems because they don’t have adequate coverage or don’t have any coverage at all,” Louise added. “We both know more people now than 15 years ago.”
While the duo is still a part of the political lexicon, it seems both sides of the aisle are unaware of their political switch, with both President Obama and RNC Chair Michael Steele recently referencing the Harry and Louise of yesterday.
After all, is the sequel ever as good as the original?
About this Show
Welcome to the American Morning blog where you can get daily news updates from American Morning's reporters and producers. Join us for "the most news in the morning," weekdays from 6-9 a.m. ET, only on CNN.
On Twitter
