Tag Archives: Terrorism

Where The Syrian Refugee

Syrian Refugee

Much discussion, emotion and hand wringing is due the issue of the refugee fleeing  home due to the war in that nation.

The question is – “What do we do with these people?”

There is only one answer – “Let them in.”

There can only be one answer that America can offer when the world is confused and is searching for the way forward.  When people everywhere don’t know what to do, when they doubt themselves and others and are in a desperate search for the noble, the honorable and the compassion – they always, whether they like it or not, look to America as the beacon that shows them the way.  That shines through the storm clouds and leads them to safe harbor?

And why is this the case, always the case?

Because it is who we are.


It is normal and easy to be afraid; the desire to close the gate and lock the door is common, understandable.  But we are UNcommon.  Ours is not the easy way – our way has always been fraught with peril and dangers.  And we have always, ALWAYS demonstrated the strength of our will and our way.  It is why people who are afraid come here – it is why the world immigrates to America and not the other way around.

Now, can we take steps to be more safe than less?  Sure.  Should states have rights in who they let in?  I think so.  Are there methods that we can employ to make this easier?  Absolutely.

If we are afraid of the militant – we can require that any refugee be part of an intact family.  We can accept mother, father and children.  It could be said that the most at risk Syrians are the widows and the orphans – the families who have lost their men due to the conflict.  Certainly the widow and her orphaned children can be accommodated?

Further – we know that we can’t take ALL the refugees fleeing Syria.  There are very real concerns that an immigrant population may grow to a size that makes assimilation next to impossible.  It has been forever a unique American experience that anyone can become American.  The corollary to this phenomenon is that there is an implicit expectation that the immigrant make every effort to hustle that process along as fast as she can.  So we take those that we are able and pray for those remaining outside our door.

But we take those that we can.  Because, to fail in this regard is to walk away from the very thing that makes us great.

Truly great.

I am reminded of the charge of the gentle craft that brings me comfort monthly:

Remember that, around this alter, you have promised to befriend and relieve every brother who shall need your assistance.  You have promised, in the most friendly manner, to remind him of his errors and aid a reformation.  These generous principles are to extend further.  Every human being has claim upon your kind offices.

Do good unto all.

Bombing Suspect: The Hopes of the Left


A day after the tragedy in Boston, David Sirota summed up the collective hopes and prayers of the left:

Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American

In a way and manner, I guess I’m glad he’s honest enough to admit what the collective is feeling.  However, why does he think this?

Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.

This is utter bullshit.

The reason that the United States treats different groups who engage in terrorism differently is not because of where the person comes from or what religion they are, it’s because of how that society deals with the terrorist.  Here in America we kill them.  In other nations, they harbor them and give them asylum.  THAT is the difference.

And if you’re not convinced of that, consider how the United States has treated these two guys:

Timothy McVeigh

And then this guy:

Hassan Nadal

In one case, the guy is executed.  In the other, the guys isn’t even accused of terrorism.

Bush And Obama: Killing vs. Torture

I was listening to my 2nd favorite talk show host, Jason Lewis, on the way to Charlotte last night.  During his show, he mentioned the news concerning the killing of Al Qaeda’s #2 guy.  I’ll get to Mr. Lewis’ main point in a second, it has to do with the double standard in the war on terror.  But first, I wanna more fully clarify my stance on “enhanced interrogation techniques”, oftentimes known as “torture.”

As I type this it strikes me as possible that people hear “enhanced interrogation techniques” in the same way that I hear “kinetic military action.”

Continue reading

Profile: Who's In and Who's Out

We are spending a lot of time talking about profiling.  Who should be profiled and who shouldn’t.  There’s even talk about NOT profiling at all.

I have to wonder why.  Why would we NOT use all the information we have?

For example, without even talking about nationality, race, religion or sex we could profile on:

  1. One way ticket purchases bought day of.
  2. One way ticket purchases bought with cash.
  3. Passengers boarding without either checked or carry on luggage.
  4. People who are on ANY watch list.
  5. Passengers who board International flights WITHOUT passports.
  6. If the age of the passenger is between 17 and 40, bump up suspicion quotient.
  7. If the passenger is boarding without family, bump up suspicion quotient.

Then, after building a list of who we SHOULD profile, we could build a list of people we could rule OUT:

  1. Anyone aged 65 or more.
  2. Anyone aged 18 or less.
  3. Women traveling with children.

There is a LOT more that we can do.  There is more we SHOULD do.

War on Terror

Brad and Britt opened the New Year with an interesting question this morning:

Is President Obama serious about the War on Terror?

Good question.

My take and short answer?

I don’t think that he thinks this is a War.  I think that he views this as a criminal matter.  As such, he feels that the method or path to resolution is diplomacy first and foremost with any type of military action secondary; if even secondary.

My reasoning for this?  The fact that he prohibits the term “War on Terror”.  He won’t even call it war.

Further, I think that Obama is more of a Social ills kinda guy.  I think the things that keep him awake at night, and hold his interest, are things like reducing homeless, fighting poverty and extending rights to all people regardless of color, race, religion……

I don’t think that international diplomacy, national defense and terrorism are in his natural DNA.

Is this bad?  I dunno.  Is it good?  Again, I dunno.

All I DO know is that Obama doesn’t think that we are at war and he doesn’t think this is as important as I wish he would.

Rookie of the Year

Gawd.  Obama continues to make the Rookie of the Year race close.  This gem is in response to critics of his Administration’s decision to try the 9/11 masterminds in NYC.

“(What) I think we have to break is this fearful notion that somehow our justice system can’t handle these guys,” Obama said in an interview with NBC News.

Asked if he understood why some people were offended by trying the men in U.S. courts, he replied: “I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”

So, the President, trying to showcase the US Judicial system, declares that the defendants are guilty and, AND, he has passed judgment too!

Not that I don’t agree.  Of course I think they are guilty and should die for their crimes.  But I am not the President of the United States.

I just wish that Obama would remember that he IS a little more often.