Welfare for Terrorists

By Grant Davies

About a week ago I threatened to write about two different things that were pissing me off. I said I would do so in a day or so. But it's not my fault that I didn't deliver, it's yours. That's right, it's yours.

As my old friend "JO" used to say, "You screwed up, you trusted me." (Okay, he didn't say screwed, he used a different word, but then again he's not like me, a famous writer who has a reputation to protect.)

Truth be told, I was too busy to be both pissed off and also write about it. So here I am, a week later, and guess what? I'm still pissed off about those things, so here goes.

The first item was a slam dunk for any thinking person to be indignant about. It was the news that one of the Boston bombers was collecting welfare transfer payments from the government while he was plotting to kill and maim innocent people at a public event. That's bad enough because this imbecile and his nitwit brother were killers, but odd as it seems, that wasn't the worst part.

Heck, a huge number of the criminals in this country are getting some form of government transfer payment.  I'd say (without actually knowing) that the vast majority of gang-bangers in any larger city are getting some "free" money while they go about their business of killing, robbing, dope dealing, and impregnating multiple women. And that's just one criminal class. So, it's nothing novel, that's for certain.

The problem is that he was getting any government money at all. Not because he was a murderous scum bag, but because he isn't a citizen of this country. He's here as a guest. He came here voluntarily. We allowed him to talk us into letting him into this country. And it's a fair bet that if it turns out that there are more people involved in the Boston Marathon murders they will be getting some form of government handout as well.

We don't owe the rest of the people in the world a check just because they breathe. If we did, we could save ourselves a lot of trouble by just sending them a check where ever they live. They could stay home and save the transportation costs and it would have the added benefit for us that it's hard to throw a pressure cooker bomb across the ocean.

Most people just know instinctively that when you allow someone to come into the country as a guest, they are expected to provide themselves with their own food and pay for their own lodging and clothing. Or perhaps they have a sponsor to provide it for them. If they run out of any of those things, or their sponsor no longer is able or willing to provide them, it's time to go home. Simple, right? Apparently nothing is simple in an upside down Utopia like the current USA.

Therefore I propose a new law. It's something I seldom, if ever, do. The law would be simple. "No person residing in, or visiting the US, shall be the beneficiary of any government program or payment of any kind unless they are a citizen."

So there is my rant about the first issue. I'll write about the second one soon. But if I don't, just remember, it's your fault for trusting me.

Did the Capital Punishment Debate Just Take a Strange Twist? Thoughts on Criminal Justice

For as long as I can remember, a debate has raged in America about whether the state should be about the task of executing people who have committed heinous crimes. On this issue, frequently studied in criminal justice degree courses, people from varied political and religious backgrounds have found themselves aligned with other people with whom they normally have little or nothing else to agree upon. Conversely, they have found their position opposed by others who usually agree with them.

People who are aligned with so called liberals on most issues can be found defending the death penalty in large numbers even though liberals are the group usually thought to be opposed to it most adamantly. And conservatives are usually depicted as bloodthirsty knuckle draggers by elitist lefties at tony cocktail parties because they are perceived to be universally in favor of quick and sure execution of certain criminals. Personally, I know large numbers of anti-death penalty people who are usually identified as on the political right.

It's a touchy and emotional issue with political and moral ramifications. Many people avoid the issue altogether when discussing things with their friends. I don't blame them. Rational arguments can made by both sides.

There is fairly universal agreement on an important point however, so let's look at a few different scenarios to see what it is and what seems to have changed in the last few days.

Imagine the most heinous criminal you can think of. One who the authorities and the general public are truly convinced has committed a capital punishment crime. Before he is even formally accused, and before an arrest is made, much less a trial held or other due process pursued, an order is given to assassinate him. And the order is carried out. Let's further assume for the purposes of this scenario that it's a sure thing that the thug is guilty and that people are overwhelmingly joyous (or at least relieved) that he is dead.

In the America where I grew up, this situation would be unacceptable, even given that most people feel that justice has been served. In that time, and hopefully now, people knew that this was not the way we want things done in our country. The missing ingredient is due process, as guaranteed by our constitution.

It's a given that many times in our past due process has been circumvented, but usually it was with a nod and a wink that the thug was killed while being apprehended or while trying to escape. The John Dillinger case comes to mind, as one example. People will swallow that, mostly because they want to. But I think that an overtly planned and executed operation to kill such a person would be rejected by most after a rational, thoughtful and unemotional analysis.

If the fairly recently executed mass murderer John Mohammad - who shot dozens of innocent citizens with a high powered rifle from the safety of his car trunk in a "terrorist for profit" scheme - had escaped to Europe before being caught and was purposely assassinated by government agents without arrest or trial, I hope that people would have immediately recognized that their own rights were being trod upon and that the act was a political game changer. It would have made history for sure.

So now, the largely extra-constitutional government that has emerged since 9-11, and covers two administrations, has done precisely the same thing to an alleged Al Qaeda leader (but US citizen) Anwar al-Awlaki by killing him, not accidentally as part of another operation, but purposely with forethought.

You will not find me mourning the death of this low life anti-American scum. I dare say I'm glad he is gone. I further add that he certainly did not deserve the rights he owned as an American citizen. And I'm aware that by bringing up the uncomfortable questions about his death I risk the derision of many of my peers. But that  goes with the territory when speaking one's mind in a public forum.

But the questions aren't about the terrorist's rights, they are about ours, and nothing is more fundamental to our way of life than the concept of due process. So did our debate over capital punishment just take a strange twist? You can decide for yourself what you think about the issue, just as long as you do think about it.

While I don't mourn his death, I only pray that I won't be mourning the death of our rights and our republic because we didn't speak up. The debate should continue, whatever your side of it is, but this time even louder, because The inference of silence is assent.

"Americans are Terrorists" - Obama Friend

Everyone has heard the saying about the pot calling the kettle black. And it's true many times. But today I ran across the best example of it I have ever seen.

A "friend" on my facebook list, a person who I don't know, but who "friended" me because of this blog had a posting today featuring a video of an interview of a known terrorist, who happens to be an American, berating America as a "Terrorist Empire.
The terrorist is close Obama (actual) friend BERNARDIN DOHRN. She should know I guess.

Most of you older readers know of her from when she used to declare war on the US, promote communism, and go around blowing up buildings as terrorists did in the 1960's in this country.


Some of you younger readers, particularly those who continue to swoon over Obama, will need to bone up on her history so you can craft rationalizations about why Obama is not really close to her and cannot be connected to her and her terrorist husband William Ayers. That way you can feel good about supporting this leftist boob for another term while America swirls the bowl.

The "friend" whose FB page called attention to this video is a person who has a page called Freedom Crossing. And the title of the post is;

OBAMA'S CLOSE FRIEND BERNARDIN DOHRN: AMERICA IS A TERRORIST EMPIRE
The subtitle is;
This woman’s living room is where the 'President' of the United States launched his political career.

The video is below and you can judge for yourself what it all means and if it's important or not.

I Feel So Much Safer Now

TSA finally addresses the terrorism threat posed by short people.

The Passing of a Hero - Nate Henn 1985-2010

When you hear the news that scores of people are murdered by a terrorist bomb in a faraway place, you shudder. But in that little quiet place in the back of your mind, you dare not even whisper to yourself , "thank goodness that didn't happen here... it's in Uganda this time...it's really far away."

It helps people to cope, it's in our shared human nature. Can you actually get numb to this stuff? Can you hear about it so often it just doesn't register the same way anymore?

Countries don't move, but Uganda just got a lot closer. Too close for comfort. And the blast that took so many lives was felt by thousands upon thousands more. My family felt the shock wave even though we were on the farthest periphery.

You might have read the headlines, which included the phrase, "one American was killed." That one American was Nate Henn. Nate was a hero, and he was loved by someone we love. That's how the blast was felt by us. When someone you love is hurting, you are hurting too.

I have written about heroes here before.You may have read those essays  Most of them were heroes because of something they did. Nate Henn is a different kind of hero. He is not a hero because of the way he died, or why he died. He is a hero because of how he lived.

Heroes are among us. Mostly we never notice them. Look around you sometime, you might see one. And none of the real heroes consider themselves as such. Nate was one the day before he left us. Maybe we didn't notice until he was gone.

I never met Nate. I never even heard of him before the horrific crime which killed him was committed. Now I feel as if I knew him because he lived next door. If you watch the video below, I am certain you will feel the same way. Maybe you will feel moved to support The Invisible Children, his mission in this life.

Nate, God bless you for the work you did to make the world a better place. I never met you, but now I will never forget you.

We've Joined the Militia

By Grant Davies

You and I have joined the militia. You might not have even known it. And the Christmas holiday this year marked another victory for that militia.

The militia are those folks who are trying to defend us from some insaniacs who are bent on murdering us for no particular reason.

Okay, I admit that they actually do have a purpose. Sometimes  it's just hard to ascertain what it is, at least from a western perspective. Apparently they want to return civilization to an earlier time (centuries ago, give or take) when all was better with the world, at least in their eyes. It seems we westerners are ruining the regression.

I guess it's human nature, that longing for the "good old days." For them it was when women were chattel and there was no information available to their subjects except what they wanted them to have. I can understand the "good old days" thing myself since I long for a return to a time in this country when the constitution meant what was written in it. A time when people were still free to succeed or fail without the "help" of the elite in government. But back to the point of all this, the militia.

During the founding era of this country, that term was understood to mean the people themselves, at least when they banded together to defend themselves as the need arose. They were armed with whatever weapons they could muster and they asserted their natural right to keep and bear those weapons.

One of the brightest (if not the most well known) of the founders was George Mason. He distilled the definition of that military force down to an understandable concept when he wrote; "what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."

Our current militia is decidedly the not "well regulated" one hoped for by the founders. By Mason's definition, you and I are already enlisted in this militia, so no formal sign-up is necessary. And it is this type of militia that  has had the most success in the local skirmishes of the "Global War on Terror." (At least that's what it used to be called. Some in today's government have taken to calling it an "Overseas Contingency Operation." Apparently, it's a politically correct attempt to portray it as a non-violent war. But I digress.)

When on 9-11 our government failed at it's most fundamental task - that of defending our right to breathe - the militia succeeded. That success was achieved by people like Rick Rescorla at World Trade center, and Todd Beamer and others on Flt 93 over Pennsylvania. It also included scores of other unnamed citizens who saved thousands of lives on that fateful day.

Rescorla saved thousands (about 2700) of innocent lives with his pre-attack planning and unbelievable courage. He also gave his own life during the attack the government failed to detect or prevent. His name is almost unknown today despite an hour-long documentary, "The Man Who Predicted 9-11" on the History Channel.

Somewhat more well known is Todd Beamer (of "Let's Roll" fame) who along with others gave their lives preventing Islamofacists from blowing up the White House with a United Airlines cruise missile. (I challenge anyone to name one of the other heroes he fought along side of without looking it up on the net. I certainly couldn't when I started to write this piece.)

The actions of those people was another militia victory on that day, particularly when compared to the government failure to detect or prevent the plot.

Then, three days ago, on Christmas, it was a passenger on a Detroit bound jet who engaged yet another Islamic fundamentalist soldier as he tried to blow up the plane. Jasper Schuringa, a Dutch filmmaker has been identified in the media as the passenger who subdued the would be terrorist who was attempting to murder over two hundred in his quest for a date with 72 virgins.

Although the idiot martyr-wannabe is reported to have been previously identified as a terrorist threat, and some reports say had no passport to travel here, the government's effort to defend us from him also failed miserably. The reason for the government failure was political correctness, again.

The only thing that saved the day was a poorly designed detonator and our fellow militia member Schuringa. These members of our militia are battlefield heroes as surely as any in our history. They are our fellow soldiers in the never ending war for our freedom.

There is a lesson in all this. It is just this;  It's up to us, the people, the real militia. And the lesson applies equally to the effort to halt the domestic threats to our freedoms as well. If we leave it up to the politicians we can expect similar results.

In my opinion, the domestic threat is even more dangerous than the threat from abroad.