I pray I never find myself in the midst of a terrorist attack, but if I did, I’d prefer the attack to be with guns, where I had a chance to hide, flee or fight, than to have my life snuffed out in an instant by a bomb. Maybe it’s just me.
Category Archives: Terrorism
Yesterday, liberals on social media thought they’d come up with the perfect talking point on the Syrian refugee issue. It was a gift from God. Literally. Straight from the Bible.
It was so perfect that it would shut conservatives (especially those hypocritical Christian conservatives) up for good. They would bow down and pay homage to their intellectual superiors on the left. Finally.
It started with @owillis.
This, in many variations, was repeated all day on Twitter.
Now what story could he possible be referencing? Clearly, the story of Mary and Joseph being turned away at the inn in Bethlehem. It’s seasonal. They were turned away from the inn. Perfect, right?
Not really. It actually breaks down pretty quickly on every level for anyone with even a passing familiarity with the story. Mary and Joseph weren’t “seeking refuge,” just a place to stay for the night. They had traveled to Bethlehem in response to a government edict mandating a census be conducted. They planned to return to their home in Nazareth when the census was completed; hence, they were neither homeless nor refugees. The innkeepers in Bethlehem weren’t heartless; there were simply no rooms available.
You’d think that would be the end of that. You would be wrong.
This morning, I was tweeted by someone claiming that what @owillis was tweeting about was really the flight into Egypt. Yeah, that was it. The flight. Into Egypt.
While this is a more apt comparison it couldn’t possibly be the impetus for the original tweet. The easy refutation is that Mary and Joseph weren’t turned away. They entered Egypt and lived there until Joseph received word in a dream that it was safe to return to Nazareth.
The same guy asked, “Are ya really separating Christ’s birth from his exile in Egypt?”
Why, yes. Yes, I am.
The flight into Egypt isn’t a “seasonal” story if you’re thinking of the Christmas season. The fact is, we don’t know exactly when it took place, but it wasn’t from Bethlehem immediately following Jesus’s birth.
- Jesus is born in Bethlehem.
- Sometime after Jesus birth, the Magi arrive in Jerusalem and inquire as to Jesus’s whereabouts. Matthew 2:1-2
- Jesus is circumcised on the eighth day. Luke 2:21
- Jesus is presented at the temple in Jerusalem. This was following Mary’s “days of purification,” which would have been several weeks. Luke 1:22
- Mary, Joseph and Jesus return to Nazareth. Luke 2:39
- The magi find Jesus at a house, presumably Mary and Joseph’s home in Nazareth. Matthew 2:11
- Joseph warned in a dream that Herod sought to kill Jesus. Mary, Joseph and Jesus flee to Egypt. Matthew 2:13-14
- Herod orders that all male children in and around Bethlehem, two years old and under, are to be slain. Matthew 2:16
So you can see from Matthew 2:16 that at the time of the the flight into Egypt, Jesus could have been anywhere from a few months old up to two years old. So, yes, it’s easily separated from the Christmas story.
At any rate, a family of three is a far cry from the many thousands of refugees the Obama administration proposes to accept over the next year, all of whom will arrive with next to nothing and receive benefits courtesy of American taxpayers.
Also noteworthy is that the vast majority of these refugees are single men, not families. Young men. Some might say fighting-age men. And let me point out that the average age of a suicide bomber is early 20s. (Newsweek, Haaretz, Statistics Brain) I think that’s a legitimate cause for concern.
So I’ve covered every point I can think of to refute this ludicrous comparison. Stick a fork in it…it’s done.
Near a shady wall a rose once grew,
Budded and blossomed in God’s free light,
Watered and fed by the morning dew,
Shedding it’s sweetness day and night.
As it grew and blossomed fair and tall,
Slowly rising to loftier height,
It came to a crevice in the wall
Through which there shone a beam of light.
Onward it crept with added strength
With never a thought of fear or pride,
It followed the light through the crevice’s length
And unfolded itself on the other side.
The light, the dew, the broadening view
Were found the same as they were before,
And it lost itself in beauties new,
Breathing it’s fragrance more and more.
Shall claim of death cause us to grieve
And make our courage faint and fall?
Nay! Let us faith and hope receive–
The rose still grows beyond the wall,
Scattering fragrance far and wide
Just as it did in days of yore,
Just as it did on the other side,
Just as it will forever-more.
Oh, wait…it was a TSA agent. Sorry; it’s hard to tell the difference between what happened to Tabitha Hale yesterday at the Houston airport and what Herman Cain’s been accused of.
She started by asking me to take my cardigan off. I said I’d rather not. She seemed put out, but didn’t make me remove it and began the pat down from behind. She made me lift up my cardigan to check my back, went into my sleeves, and touched every inch of my hair.
Then she got to my waist band. I had on black tights under my dress, which I’m certain is not uncommon. She asked me to lift my dress so she could check the waistband of my tights.
I felt my stomach drop. I said “I’m not lifting my dress for you. No way.” She was obviously irritated with me now and said that she would take me to the private screening area if I would like.
I said “No, absolutely not. If you can’t do this in front of everyone, you should not be doing this to me.”
She then called a manager over. The manager approached me and explained what they were going to do and that if I failed to comply, they would escort me from the airport. I told her I saw no reason that they should have to lift my dress to clear me to get on a plane. I would have, however, allowed them to escort me out of the airport before they got me to lift my skirt and stick their hands down my tights. I was bracing myself to spend another night in Texas.
She sensed the rebellion in me, and it was almost like they were punishing me for not just lifting my dress and making their lives easier. She checked every inch of my neckline, sticking her fingers between my breasts because she needed to “clear” the (very slight) ruffle.
They cleared the waistband of my tights through my dress, then made me put one leg forward at a time so they could get better “definition of my thigh.” She then proceded to pat down every inch of me, all the way up to my crotch. And yes, she used that word. Twice.
You have to wonder about the thought process of the TSA agent. Why did she find the waistband of a pair of tights so problematic? Seriously, what could you conceal under this waistband?
It’s not as though the waistband is bulky; on the contrary, it’s comparable to the waistband on a pair of panty hose and much less so than that of a pair of granny panties. Are TSA agents reaching down inside the pants of elderly women to check those out? I doubt it; I mean, where’s the fun in accosting old people unless you can leave someone soaked in urine?
Moving on from that, did she really expect that Tabitha would lift her dress in public? Have other women done so when requested?
Speaking as the mother of a (dare I say it?) beautiful and shapely young woman who flies across the country several times a year, I find this very disturbing. I fail to see any pressing security concerns centered around the almost non-existant waistband of a pair of tights. TSA refuses to take steps that would actually improve airline safety, such as skipping over toddlers of the WASP persuasion to focus on people who might actually be terrorists.
Instead, U.S. citizens are being systematically desensitized to clear violations of their 4th Amendment rights and told it’s for their own good. Personally, I don’t see what good can come of it.
My favorite part is where he tells the TSA public relations representative, “…Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I’ll spend to find out how to get people more of it.”
Do you think the TSA, under the direction of Janet Napolitano, cares what the American public thinks about grossly invasive and, in my opinion, unconstitutional airport screenings? Think again.
Despite viral objections to new technology and procedures, the Transportation Security Administration PLANS NO RETREAT on airport screening, officials tell [POLITICO] Playbook. But the administration is having conversations with pilots’ unions about their loud objections to the full-body scanners and alternate patdowns, and a resolution is expected this week. As Thanksgiving approaches, look for more 9-11 families and other “security validators” to make the case in the media for rigorous screening. The fire on this story was lit by Drudge, along with CNN and USA Today, and the complaints by pilots were a propellant. Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano scored a front-page headline, story and photo in USA Today on Monday with her call for patience and vigilance by the traveling public.
Apparently the answer to that provocative question is yes if you consider that U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan were prohibited from searching women and children.
A US Army staff sergeant, now serving in Afghanistan, writes about the new enhanced pat-down procedure from the TSA. Summary of his very powerful message: to avoid giving gross offense to the Afghan public, and to prevent the appearance of an uncontrolled security state, the US military forbids use on Afghan civilians of the very practices the TSA is now making routine for civilian travelers at US airports.
Back home in the U.S. though, we have this happening at airports around the country.
I find it astonishing and rather sad that we’ve become such a nation of sheep that we willingly line up to be publicly humiliated by ill-trained, poorly screened and sometimes power-hungry agents of the United States government. If TSA’s new full body scanners and “enhanced” pat-down procedures (and a truly disturbing personal story here) don’t qualify as unreasonable searches, what would? If we don’t have the gumption to stand against egregious over-reaching by the government, who will?
The Other McCain tells us who – apart from ourselves – we have to blame for this sorry state of affairs.
Melissa Clouthier tells a personal story of TSA’s callous incompetence.
Honestly, sometimes one has to wonder. Take the case of Sal Esposito. Sal applied to be excused from jury duty and was denied. Sal’s situation? He’s a cat.
Okay, I’ll give you that Sal’s owners share some responsibility for this situation; they should have just written, “Sal is a cat,” on the original application to be excused. Although you’d think that not speaking English would be enough to disqualify him. Maybe this is a partial explanation for the sad state of our legal system.
Or take the case of Mikey Hicks. He’s the 8-year-old who’s subjected to full pat-down searches each time he flies because he shares a name with someone on a government watch list. Mikey doesn’t like being touched in “certain spots.” Who can blame him?
It’s enough to make you think that IQ testing prior to employment with a government agency might not be a bad idea. Of course, that discounts the theory that these people were once of average intelligence, their brains now turned to jelly through constant exposure to government regulations. I can see how that might happen.
These stories serve as illustrations as to why I don’t want a government bureaucrat anywhere near my health care; I’ll take an insurance company bureaucrat any day. Why? Because when the government flubs a call, you have very little recourse. Take Mikey; he’s been getting special attention at airports since he was two years old! It’s hard to believe that in the ensuing six years, his situation couldn’t have been flagged in a (hopefully) sophisticated database.
Medicare already denies an alarming percentage of cases for, among other things, not being “medically necessary or reasonable.” Even though your doctor, obviously, thought otherwise. Either that or he just views frivolous amputations as a profit center.
Bernie Goldberg asks the eminently sensible question, “And What Exactly is Wrong with Profiling?”
My trip on El Al comes to mind because of what we’ve been hearing recently about the “underwear bomber” who tried to blow up a Northwest flight en route from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas day. By now we all know the story: his father, a prominent banker in Nigeria warned the U.S. State Department in Lagos that his son was becoming a religious fanatic and might be dangerous. His travel history included a trip to Yemen. He bought a one-way ticket. He paid for it in cash.
Did any of this set off alarms? Nope. Too bad he wasn’t wearing a sign that said, “I’m a terrorist and I plan to blow up your airplane.” But frankly, I’m not sure those eagle-eyed authorities would have noticed that, either.
When I look at some of the alternatives to profiling, such as full body scanners, profiling starts looking a lot more attractive. Authorities know who is more likely to commit acts of terror. Patting down five-year-olds is a feel-good measure designed to make us feel as though everything possible is being done to keep us safe, but that actually leaves us more vulnerable because it diverts finite resources away from actual sources of danger.
The United States government owes it to the rest of us to do whatever is within their power to keep us safe. If that includes profiling – and I believe it does – let’s get on with the program.