Category Archives: Common Sense

Inviting Disaster

Posted on by

My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families in the wake of the horrendous terrorist attack in Paris on 11/13/15, a terrorist attack carried out by radical Islamic extremists.

Given what happened in Paris on 11/13/15 I have to wonder why the refugees are still being allowed entrance into the countries of Europe and especially wonder why in God’s name are the refugees from Syria and Iraq being allowed admittance into the U.S. This is especially troubling since some in our own government have openly stated that terrorist are most likely blending in with the refugees.

Is the U.S. government taking, not just taking but accepting the risk that a few radical Islamic extremists may infiltrate the ranks of the refugees? As we saw in Paris on 11/13/15 the actual attack was conducted by just a few radical Islamic extremists. The same as America witnessed on 09/11/01 with the radical Islamist attack, the actual attack was carried out by fewer than twenty. The Paris attack was carried out by fewer that ten. The attack at Ft. Hood was carried out by one. The attack in Chattanooga was carried out by one. How many were involved in the Charlie Hebdo attack, Two? The large-scale and coordinated attacks require planning and logistics with many people operating in the background, the so-called lone wolf attacks do not. The only thing the two have in common is picking the right target. It does not take a lot of radical Islamic extremists to cause great amounts of death and destruction sometimes as few as one is all is that is needed.

My question for the government is what is the acceptable level of risk for your refugee resettlement program? Is the government inviting disaster? Is government willing to risk and accept that 1 out of 100 is a radical Islamic extremist? 1 out of 1000? 1 out of 10,000? Remember what one at Ft. Hood and one in Chattanooga were able to accomplish. When I hear that you will have a “robust vetting process” in place it does little to bolster my confidence. My guess is that you are gambling, playing the odds, with the lives of Americans, hoping for the best. Even one radical Islamic extremist is one too many.

BHO had claimed that ISIL(as he prefers to call them)are contained. Then Paris happened. BHO said that was a minor set-back. BHO may have been correct when he said that ISIL was contained. The policy of “containment” has been a success. ISIL(as BHO prefers to call them), their affiliates and their sympathizers are contained on six out of the seven continents, unless they have an affiliate branch in Antarctica.

For arguments sake, let’s say that by some major miracle the government gets this one right and no radical Islamic extremists arrive with the refugees, the government is still flirting with disaster. The disaster facing America in this case would be a financial disaster. Resettling refugees costs money a lot of money. At present the plan for resettlement is to accept and resettle 10,000, I suspect that many more than 10,000 will be arriving. Since they will be arriving without much in the way of finances or belongings they will be provided with the necessities of life and in many cases the luxuries of life. They will need housing, food and clothing at a minimum. All of that costs money as said a lot of money. The money to pay for the refugee resettlement must come from somewhere. The somewhere is actually somebody, and that somebody is the American taxpayer.

I have to wonder where and when the “robust vetting process” will take place. I suspect that the vetting will be conducted upon arrival in America. My question at this point is this. What would be done when a known radical Islamic extremist is found amongst the refugees? Would he or she be sent back to their home country? Would he or she be tried and imprisoned or simply held in the prison system?

It seems that the terrorists operating outside of the Middle-East and North Africa seem to have a tendency to pick “Soft Targets”. The best definition of a “Soft Target” is one in which the terrorist will face the least resistance, meaning an unarmed civilian population. An area where the only protection comes in the form of government forces, whether it be Law-Enforcement of the Military. France itself is not a “soft target”, but the people are as is most of the civilian population of Europe as well as the places they frequent. Most any place the people of Europe frequent is a “soft target”.

Getting to the question of would or could America face the same kind of attack experienced by Paris for a moment, and the answer of it is not a matter of if but when. This is my feeling on that issue. The same thing that was credited with keeping the Japanese from invading may be the same thing keeping the radical Islamic extremists at bay. And that is a citizenry with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Whether or not the right is exercised it does place a feeling of doubt in the mind of criminals as well as terrorists. Make no mistake the radical Islamic extremists are here, waiting, and more may be arriving with each batch of refugees and they too may wait. But waiting for what. Could they be waiting for sufficient numbers to wage a large-scale operation? I already pointed out that very few or even one can cause large-scale death and/or destruction. Could they be waiting until the gun control groups finally achieve their goal of a totally disarmed civilian population? I think the latter, just waiting for a “soft target”. At this point America itself is not a “soft target” and neither is the population. Just imagine, if the gun control groups and the politicians got their way and somehow managed to disarm the civilian population, what would happen. First off America is a large land mass, if the population was disarmed either voluntarily or by force there is no way that the federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies could patrol the entire country and provide safety for the population. Even if the military was included it would not be enough. Government, Law-enforcement and the Military would be occupied just protecting large cities and critical infrastructure and would barely be able to do that, those of us in the rural areas would be on our own and at the mercy of the terrorists. The rural areas would be given up as most would migrate to the large cities just for some protection. The cities would not be capable of supporting the entire population of this country. America would be a “soft target” from coast to coast.

If the situation were reversed and America found itself in the same position as the middle-east where could the Americans flee too? It is highly unlikely that the countries of the middle-east would accept American refugees. There would be no refugee activists waiting with open arms to welcome anybody. It would be best and even considered wise to close the borders. America must consider America first and stop taking un-necessary risks. There is nothing wrong with helping others but you must take care of yourself. No one has ever been helped by the helpless.

The possibility of even on radical Islamic extremist making it to America is not worth the risk of taking in refugees. The government must stop inviting disaster. As I mentioned America and the American people are not soft targets but there are many soft targets in America.

A Little Common Sense Would be In Order Part 3 The United Nations and World Opinion

Posted on by

Perhaps it would help if the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians) were to stop by the Library of Congress and do a little reading. Some suggestions would be The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, The Declaration of Arms, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The Writings and Opinions of the Founding Fathers, the Articles of Confederation, also I might suggest Common Sense and The American Crisis by Thomas Paine. The previous list is only a partial list, but it would be a good start. One would think with all of the great literature available in the Library of Congress some of the “distinguished” elected representatives(politicians)would spend some time there, apparently that is not the case.

Common Sense is a term thrown about by the politicians, but politicians demonstrate at every opportunity that they truly lack any idea as to what Common Sense means or how to use it. They go against the very notion of using “common sense” in their statements and actions.
This post applies to our “distinguished” elected representatives(past and present), their merry band of minions(past and present), the liberals, the progressives, those masquerading as conservatives(past and present)and the MSM.

First and foremost America, itself, is not responsible for, nor can America itself be blamed for the drama, chaos and crises around the globe. The problems, turmoil and crises around the world are caused by world leaders, more correctly national leaders who view themselves as world leaders. The United Nations shares in the responsibility and blame for world problems, turmoil and crises, as does it’s predecessor The League of Nations. Why, you ask? The answer is really quite simple with the advent of these two world bodies the nations, sovereign nations, began to adjust policy, domestic as well as foreign. Some nations, America in particular, began a policy of caving into or adjusting to meet world opinion. Suddenly it became necessary for the world to view America in a “favorable light”. Conforming to world opinion became more important to the politicians than doing what was and is right for America and the legal lawful citizens.

The League of Nations came into existence after WWI and went “dormant” at the outbreak of WWII. The United Nations came into existence after WWII and lasts to this day. One thing both of these “world bodies’ have in common is that they were both dreams of the Liberals. Was it world opinion that caused America to enter WWII? No, it was brought about by an attack on Pearl Harbor. During WWII, America built alliances with nations to defeat the Axis Powers world opinion did not matter defeating the enemy is what mattered. If world opinion had mattered America would probably have never sided with or given aid to Stalin or Russia. Could this be the reason The U.S. and Russia who have a common enemy ISIL/ISIS/IS do not join together to fight the terrorists as a team? Both countries have a common enemy, but world opinion gets in the way. Russia is assisting one whom the world looks at unfavorably, Assad in Syria, while America wants a favorable world opinion. It seems that keeping a favorable world opinion is more important than defeating ISIL/ISIS/IS. America no longer builds alliances, instead America forms “coalitions”. It seems that only a “coalition” will satisfy the need to have a favorable “world opinion”. There was a time when America cared more about doing what was right and less about world opinion. There was a time when and where America went off to war to right a wrong, or help a nation that was under attack, now America goes off to war based on world opinion and takes sides based on the same world opinion. I ask you this which is better, a coalition acting on world opinion, or allies joining forces to do what is right?

“Common Sense” and logic would say that it is far past the time to disband the United Nations, and let it go down as yet another failed liberal attempt at what ever it was they envisioned. The money being wasted on that “distinguished” world body could be better used here in America. The giving of money to foreign entities such as the Palestinian Authority is based on what? Is it the right thing to do? Or is it to influence world opinion? The same goes for the billions upon billions of dollars to foreign nations. Here are some fitting questions. How much of the over 18 trillion dollars of the debt of the United States of America is because of the monies given to foreign governments? Does The American government borrow money to give away? Why is it that The government of the United States of America gives to money to governments who only wish to do America harm and seek to destroy America? Is this an attempt to buy a favorable world opinion? How much of the annual budget of the United Nations comes straight from The U.S.A.? Tomorrow is United Nations Day, there will most likely be some sort of gala or event to commemorate this “notable” event, how much will that cost?

Think on this, The U.S.A. as well as many other “advanced” nations around the world pour countless billions into the money pit that is the U.N. each and every year, this is done for what reason? Is it for the U.N. to promote “peace, well-being, harmony and equality” around the world? If this is the reason and the case, then I have some bad news for them, the U.N. has failed in all four areas. Equality could quite possibly be achieved one day, but it will not be the equality they envisioned.

Is it really all that important to conform to “world opinion” and become a part of the “world community” if in the process of conforming to the world that a sovereign nation looses its national identity to the point that the nation no longer places itself and its citizens first? To truly help another you must first take care of yourself. It really is time for the United Nations to go the way of The League of Nations and just cease to exist, go away quietly without even a whimper.

With that being said, there is nothing wrong with helping those who are in need, really in need. But it should be up to the nations of the world to choose who or what they will or will not help. It should be based on what is right and not based on world opinion. There was a time when American national leaders knew what was right, regardless of world opinion. For example is it right to support those who are determined to destroy another? Through the U.N., America supports those who would destroy our friends and also those who would destroy the U.S.A., that makes no sense common or otherwise.