Tag Archives: 9/11

Travel ban now in effect: Do you feel safe now?

Donald J. Trump’s travel ban is back in force now, thanks to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court struck down previous lower-court rulings that set aside the ban, giving the president a limited victory in his campaign against Muslims around the world.

The president hails it as a way to make Americans safe from international terrorists. The ban affects those seeking to come to the United States from six Muslim-majority nations. If they do come here from any of those six nations, they must have some tangible, identifiable connection to this country: a relative, enrollment at a U.S. college or university.

He has vowed to protect us from those who seek to do us harm. The president asserted during the 2016 campaign that potential terrorists were “pouring into” our country and that, by golly, he intended to stop it.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe I’ll feel one bit safer down the road when the travel ban becomes fully implemented.

This ban doesn’t account for the home-grown terrorists who have brought misery to fellow Americans. It doesn’t deal at all with the terrorists, or terror groups, opening fire in crowded movie theaters, in nightclubs, at a U.S. Army post, in a Charleston, S.C., church.

We all remember 9/11. We recall the hideous nature of that dastardly act. We scorned the terrorists as cowardly bastards. We have gone to war against them.

Have we been hit by terrorists in an attack even remotely similar since that terrible day? No. Our national security apparatus, though, has stopped many attempts during the past 16 years.

It’s the so-called “lone wolf” terrorist who is so very difficult to detect in advance of their act.

In my view, a travel ban cannot stop someone from sneaking into this country from, say, Sweden or France, or Brazil or Russia who then would commit an act of terror.

Still cannot connect two words directly to each other

I am in the midst of a deepening dilemma.

Donald J. Trump has been president of the United States for 150-plus days and I still cannot connect the words “President” and “Trump” consecutively when I refer to this individual.

It troubles me a little bit. A part of me wants to do it. A bigger part of me refuses to allow it.

I’ve written already that I accept that Trump won the 2016 presidential election. He pulled in the requisite number of Electoral College votes to defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who won just a shade less than 3 million more popular votes than the guy who beat her.

The electoral disparity isn’t what keeps me from total recognition of Trump as president. Heck, if that had been the driver, then I wouldn’t have referred to George W. Bush as “President Bush” during his two terms in the White House. The difference is that President Bush stepped into the role to which he was elected. The 9/11 attacks barely nine months into his presidency defined him and he rose to the challenge.

Trump is different. Trump continues to demonstrate — through all sorts of actions and utterances — that he remains unfit for the office. His Twitter tirades provide more than ample evidence of his unfitness.

I’ve been scolded by critics of this blog for declining to attach the president’s title directly to his name. They’re entitled to their view. I am entitled to mine.

With that, I’ll continue to resist giving the president his full measure of respect until he can demonstrate — to my satisfaction — that he has earned it.

Why give Alex Jones a platform?

People such as Alex Jones give me heartburn.

I happen to be a First Amendment purist. I believe in the amendment’s guarantee of free speech and I do not want it watered down.

Then along comes people like Jones, the radio talk show blowhard who’s been thrust into the news yet again. Broadcast journalist Megyn Kelly has booked him on her NBC News show and snippets of her interview with Jones have enraged some survivors of one of the nation’s worst tragedies.

Jones has spoken infamously about how the 9/11 attacks against the United States were an “inside job” and then — and this goes way beyond anything resembling human decency — he has alleged that the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut was staged; he says the children who were slain were “actors.”

Kelly is giving this guy’s moronic views a platform.

Should he be allowed to spout that trash? Should he be given air time on a major broadcast network? That pesky First Amendment says “yes.” Tenets of good judgment and basic humanity suggest that this guy shouldn’t be given a platform to spout the filth that pours out of his pie hole.

Kelly deserves the criticism she is getting from at least one of the Sandy Hook parents who lost a child in that hideous act of cruelty.

And that damn heartburn continues to churn in my gut.

Here’s why war against terror is so damn difficult

Just how difficult is it to win this global war against terror?

Tonight we witnessed another example of that difficulty. British police believe a suicide bomber detonated a device at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England. Nineteen people reportedly died, dozens more were injured.

Is this an act of terror? Well, yes, if the police early analysis is correct. Is it of the type of terror we’ve all seen since 9/11 — the kind perpetrated by Islamist perverts? That hasn’t been revealed just yet.

Police reportedly have identified the monster who blew himself up at the concert.

My point, though, is that the war on terror — no matter the type, the motivation of the terrorists — presents the kind of dilemma that law enforcement faces every single day around the world. Indeed, these threats existed long before 9/11. It took that act nearly 16 years ago to heighten our alert levels to the threats that have lurked among us likely for far longer than any of us would care to acknowledge.

Politicians throughout the world vow to “wipe out” the bad guys. They vow to eradicate terrorist organizations. They claim to be all-knowing about how to fight these bastards.

Then we see the kind of attack that occurred today in England. It appears to be the act of a “lone wolf.” A monstrous killer who snuck into a large crowd of cheering music fans. He found what’s called a “soft target,” which are everywhere in contemporary society.

Just how do law enforcement agencies protect every single venue against these kinds of heinous acts?

We are left to pray for those who were killed or injured, for the law enforcement officials who are looking for answers.

As if we needed any reminders, we have learned yet again just how difficult it always will be to eradicate this kind of monstrosity.

Good vs. evil ‘has nothing to do with religion’

Great day in the morning! Could it be that the Trump administration finally is awakening to the reality of what this “global war on terrorism” is all about?

Donald J. Trump stood before a large room full of Muslim heads of state, potentates, kings and crown princes and spoke for 35 minutes without uttering the words “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Instead, he framed the fight against international terror in much the same language used by his two immediate predecessors — Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack H. Obama — as a war of “good vs. evil.”

Then up stepped Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to say that the conflict between our side and the other side “has nothing to do with religion.”

Really! He said that. He echoed the long-awaited and much-belated message the president delivered.

I hope hell hasn’t frozen over. I hope Earth will continue to spin on its axis. I trust the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning — and beyond.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/334474-tillerson-in-saudi-arabia-this-is-a-fight-of-good-against-evil

“And I think the context of all of this where the President begins his journey here at the home of the Muslim faith under the leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosque – this great faith, the Muslims – then to travel to the home of Judaism and then to the great leader of Christianity, that the President is clearly indicating that this fight of good against evil has nothing to do with religion,” Tillerson said in a press conference after the president’s speech.

Trump and his team have sounded alarmingly bellicose ever since the billionaire business mogul entered politics by running for the presidency. He once pledged to ban “all Muslims” from entering the United States. While running for office, Trump said “Islam hates America.” Once elected, he sought to impose a travel ban on refugees fleeing certain Muslim countries; that effort is tied up in the federal court system that has ruled it unconstitutional.

Today, the president sounded quite different as it regards this war against terror.

The religious perversion that has overcome the monsters who purport to be Muslim too often gets lost in the United States. Too many Americans have taken the bait that “Islam” is the enemy. It is no such thing. The enemy are those who commit these heinous acts around the world — mostly against Muslims — in the name of a great religion.

President Bush made that point immediately after 9/11. President Obama continued to recite that mantra, often to criticism that he was a “Muslim terrorist sympathizer.”

I doubt we’ll hear any such fecal matter coming from those who continue to support Donald John Trump. Nor should we ever have heard it.

On the hunt for millions of illegal votes? Good luck with that

Donald John Trump has made a number of scurrilous accusations since entering political life.

One of them involves an allegation that “millions of illegal aliens” cast votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016, which gave her the 3 million popular vote “victory” over the president.

What has the president done to bolster that accusation? He has appointed a voter-fraud conspiracy theorist to lead an investigation.

Welcome to center stage, Kris Kobach.

The Kansas secretary of state has been one of the leaders in this movement that impugns the integrity of the nation’s electoral system. He has contended there are incidents of massive voter fraud, with non-citizens casting ballots in races in Kansas and Missouri. Now he gets to prove it’s all true in a national level.

What utter crap!

This has the earmarks of a witch hunt and is the kind of thing that in the end only will further erode the credibility of a president who’s prone to fabricate conspiracies and “fake news.”

Record is full of fabrications

Trump has done so repeatedly since he rode down that escalator to announce his presidential candidacy in the summer of 2015. Barack Obama wasn’t qualified to run for president because he wasn’t a “natural born U.S. citizen”? Thousands of Muslims cheering the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11? Ted Cruz’s father’s alleged complicity in President Kennedy’s murder? Those millions of illegal votes cast for Hillary in 2016? President Barack Obama wiretapping the Trump campaign office?

Now he has selected a fellow conspiracy nut to get to the bottom of a problem that does not exist.

Give me a break.

French fight back against fear

Is there a lesson to be learned from the French presidential election?

Oui!

It is that terror need not sway an informed electorate.

Moderate centrist Emmanuel Macron today became the youngest person ever elected president of France, defeating far-right extremist Marine Le Pen. It was Le Pen who sought to parlay certain elements of fright into an electoral victory. The source of that fear and loathing was the spasm of terrorist violence that has befallen France since 9/11.

France answers the call

Macron sought a different course for France. He wants to keep his country involved with the rest of Europe and the world, unlike Le Pen, who sought to retreat into a “France-first” dogma that mirrors much of what helped propel Donald J. Trump to victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Trump called for a ban on Muslims seeking to enter the United States; he wants to build that wall along our southern border; he is seeking to restrict travel of refugees fleeing several majority-Muslim countries. Why? Because he wants Americans to live in fear of further terrorist attacks.

The French know all about the horror of radical Islamic terrorism. Yet they rejected Le Pen’s platform of retreat.

And if you think about it, France’s decision to go with Macron mirrors earlier presidential elections in The Netherlands and Austria, where voters turned back isolationist presidential candidacies in favor of continued engagement.

I wrote in an earlier blog about how the paltry voter turnout in Amarillo shouldn’t be interpreted as a “mandate” for sweeping change at City Hall.

Get a load of this: Seventy-four percent of France’s registered voters turned out to give Macron a 30-percentage-point victory over Le Pen.

I would call that a mandate.

UAL settlement means airline messed up big time

Dr. David Dao has just received a lot of money — reportedly — from a commercial air carrier that treated him quite badly.

Many millions of Americans have seen the video that went viral almost immediately after it was recorded: airport security officers dragged Dao off a United Airlines flight after he declined to give up his seat. Dao suffered facial injuries, he lost some teeth, while passengers shrieked their indignation at what happened.

You know the story. UAL wanted to make room on a fully booked flight for four airline employees who needed to get from Chicago to Louisville. The airline sought passengers to volunteer to surrender their seats; no one answered the call. UAL then selected four names at random and ordered them off the plane; three of them complied. Dr. Dao said “no.” He had patients to see at the other end of the flight.

The airline then called security. Officers wrestled with Dao. They hauled him off the plane.

Well, that ain’t how you treat your paying customers, United Airlines. The airline’s boss, Oscar Munoz, at first defended the officers, then backed off. He now calls it a “system failure” for which he is responsible. “I own it,” he said.

Commercial air travel hasn’t been much fun since 9/11. You know what I mean. Air security has tightened. Passengers are subjected to random searches. Flight attendants get testy when passengers gripe too vigorously.

The settlement today tells me the airline has acknowledged it messed up. United has announced policy changes. It will offer significant amounts of money to passengers who give up their seats on overbooked flights.

This incident tarnishes an entire airline needlessly. Why? Because it employs a lot of folks who do their jobs well and who had nothing to do with the incident in question.

David Dao’s settlement amount is a secret. My sense is that it was for a lot of dough. Fine.

The bigger issue rests with the policy changes that United has enacted. May it not be lost on other air carriers who depend on the public to keep their birds in the air.

Trump keeps taking narcissism to new levels

My trusty American Heritage dictionary defines “narcissism” this way: An excessive love or admiration for oneself.

Do you think Donald J. Trump fits the bill?

Consider what he told The Associated Press in a rambling interview that seems to make zero sense when you read the transcript.

One of the things he mentioned was how the TV news/talk show ratings would zoom upward whenever he appeared on them. He said they were the “best since 9/11.”

Let that sink for a moment or two. The president of the United States somehow sought to equate the soaring ratings he brought to TV news shows to their coverage of one of the worst days in the history of the Republic.

Nearly 3,000 people died when the Twin Towers collapsed in Lower Manhattan, N.Y. More victims died at the Pentagon. Even more perished in that Pennsylvania field after passengers battled valiantly against terrorists aboard a doomed jetliner.

And yet …

The president manages to meld that terrible, horrifying tragedy with his TV ratings?

Trump is redefining narcissism. Indeed, they need to put his picture next to the dictionary definition of the word.

Get to work to ‘destroy’ ISIS, Mr. President

As if we needed any reminders …

A terrorist launched an attack in London the other day. Five people died; several others were injured. Police killed the madman (whose name I will not use, per my recently adopted policy of refusing to ID the names of these goons).

He was a British citizen of Middle East descent.

And, oh yes, the Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack, apparently because the bastard was a member of the terrorist organization.

What does this mean? It means the president of the United States — who is mired in the muck of growing controversy and potential scandal at home — has to get cracking with one of his many top priorities.

Which is to “destroy ISIS.”

Just how difficult is it to do what Donald Trump has pledged to do? We’ve just borne witness to the difficulty. The London attacker was a “lone wolf.” He took his vengeance out on innocent bystanders.

Just how does one stop this kind of attack? How does a government eradicate from the face of the planet every single individual who is capable and willing to commit these acts?

This is precisely the kind of act with which the world has lived since the beginning of time. The 9/11 attack on our country launched an new kind of “world war” that many observers said likely never would end. It becomes a war of attrition, except that with a planet full of 7 billion individuals, it becomes problematic in the extreme to eliminate every single person who is committed to some hideous cause disguised as a religion.

The London attack has revealed — as if we needed reminding — the difficulty that stands before those in power.

That includes the head of state of the world’s most powerful nation. Trump has blustered and bellowed since entering the political world about how he knows “more about ISIS than the generals … believe me.” He has vowed to destroy the terrorist organization that grew out of that terrible day on 9/11. Two previous presidents — one Republican and one Democrat — have overseen the deaths of thousands of terrorists around the world.

Have we gotten them all? Of course not. Are we able to get them all? Probably not.

Thus, the fight goes on.