September 10 – Again

by lewwaters

World Trade CenterThirteen years ago, all seemed well. The world was at relative peace, we thought. We went about our business that Monday, went to work, enjoyed our families, watched our favorite television shows, ate dinner and went to bed, looking forward to another week in our lives.

Tuesday morning changed all of that as we woke up the horrific scene of high jacked aircraft flown into buildings in New York and Washington D.C.

It didn’t take long to realize we were under attack and all air traffic was grounded out of fear of more high jacked aircraft being flown into other buildings in other cities.

The world hasn’t been the same since.

911 037But throughout our fight against terrorists, a steady drone has been heard of how America “overreacted,” attacked the wrong country, the attacks were really a covert operation by dark elements of our own government to cause a war, no aircraft were high jacked, it was actually military missiles and more lunacy.

A Law Professor from the University of Colorado, Paul Campos told us that 9/11 was The most overblown event in U.S. history.

Largely ignored have been the calls of many that America Needs to Wake-up as politicians seized upon the attacks and subsequent fight against terror to score cheap political points.

The focus was placed on one man, Osama bin Laden as he was sought over two administrations with a false belief his death would end terrorism. It didn’t.

As these voices worked diligently to put America back to sleep with this ridiculous allegations, forgotten is that in the weeks leading up to that fateful day, many warnings were given of a potential terrorist attack, but expected overseas, not on our own soil.

Our sleepy attitudes never comprehended such a large scale attack on our own soil as happened.

No one anticipated high jacked aircraft would be flown into occupied buildings as all previous highjacking were hostage situations in foreign countries.

Our slumber has left us completely vulnerable yet again.

Thirteen years out from that fateful day and here we sit, once again on September 10 with more warnings of a potential attack as embassies are placed on alert and news reports mention aircraft once again missing from foreign airports over ran by terrorists.

Here we sit with an increased terrorist presence in the Middle East as one by one; the current administration supported the overthrow of harsh leaders that were keeping a lid on radical Jihadists there, to be replaced by even harsher radical extremists.

Iraq, once moving towards a peaceful country after several years of our presence there, has fallen back far worse that it was under Saddam Hussein as an even more brutal terrorist group, ISIS has moved in, claiming a large portion of it and Syria while our leaders cry they “have no strategy” in combating them.

Once again we see the warnings from ISIS they will soon be here on our soil, many thinking sleeper cells are already here.

Cries to secure our borders before even more come in illegally are ignored as once again, politicians allow illegal aliens free access to our country in hopes of gaining votes from them, even though they are not to be voting, not being citizens.

President Bush warned that this fight would not be a short one and Obama came into office promising to make it one by simply once again, turn around and walk away as we did in Vietnam.

Obama is scheduled to make a speech later this evening where he is expected to announce his plans for fighting the growing threat we once had more under control. I have no idea just yet what he will read from his teleprompter, but I can warn now that air strikes and drones alone will not drive ISIS and others like them back.

Sooner or later, it will require “boots on the ground” to enter and drive them back.

Yes, it is September 10 again and people are going about their lives as if the horrific attacks thirteen years ago didn’t happen. Too many have rolled over and gone back to sleep. Especially our own government that continues to downsize our Military as threats from abroad grows.

I cannot say that we will experience another attack tomorrow and even soon after.

But, all of the warnings that were ignored over several years prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks are once again present, even louder than before.

We now know there is no limit to their brutality as they seek to place the world under their oppressive religious ideology. Muslim, Christian and Jew are being slaughtered for not accepting their brutal ways.

Rolling over and going back to sleep is no longer an option, America.

It is well past time for you all to open your eyes, shake off the slumber and see what is happening. This is not “workplace violence,” it is a war brought to us over three decades of increasing terrorist attacks against our interests and way of life, both at home and abroad.

And for you that worry about “how are we going to pay for it,” ask yourselves, how much is your freedom and that of your children worth to you?

I’m ready to make the needed sacrifices on this September 10.

Are you?

28 Comments to “September 10 – Again”

  1. I’ll never ever forget what happened on 9/11. I was wakened by a phone call from my husband telling me of the planes diving into TWC. I kept my kids home from school that day, we sat and watched the news all day. I felt like I knew then how my parents felt when Pearl Harbor was bombed.
    You are correct Lew when you said ” The world hasn’t been the same since”. I don’t think most of us that remember daily what happened will ever be the same.

    Like

  2. I woke up as usual to my clock radio going off. But, instead of the music I usually heard, it was news of the World Trade Center on fire.

    Turned on CNN to watch and witnessed the planes hitting the buildings.

    All I could think of was “we’re at war.”

    Little did I think some of our politicians would use it to score political points within a couple years.

    Like

  3. It could be that the missing planes are a diversion. Get us looking the wrong way then lay us open with another kind of attack. Are sleeper cells in the country? Probably. Is it possible that there will be a joint attack by terrorists and (covertly) certain nations against the US? Maybe. But it seems to me that Obama has already declared victory against Al-Queda and other terrorist groups, so who is watching?

    What sacrifice? Americans weren’t asked to make any sacrifices following 9/11 – the sacrifice was left to our military men and women to make. I think that was a mistake. One of the major contributors to victory in WWII was that everyone – even the kids – made sacrifices, which meant that everyone had a stake in the outcome. Even though the nation wasn’t on a total war footing – even at the height of the war, there was a common determination to achieve victory. That doesn’t exist today even as some Americans openly welcome an attack on the US, convinced that America is an ‘evil empire’ and must be punished. There was a clarity of leadership in 1941 (with credit to Roosevelt) that doesn’t exist today. That certainly does not exist with this president – and it may be far too late to wait for a new president.

    Like

  4. Yes, the planes very well could be a diversion or have nothing to do with any of it. I believe it would be folly on their part to try it again, but who knows?

    Yes, there was a point where victory over terrorists was our goal, but beginning in 2003, shortly after they voted to go after terror in Iraq, that seemed to change as efforts began to undermine Republicans through the war. And by 2006, it worked. Democrats took control and in 2008, achieved total control and the fight was in their hands.

    In his post 9/11 speech, Bush said,

    “Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.”
    “Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.”
    “We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.”
    “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
    From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we’re not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security.”

    Even Democrats applauded and we were unified then, until Kerry began his run for president by reviving his Vietnam anti-war rhetoric. Most Democrats lined up and it has been the same since.

    I disagreed with Bush that we shouldn’t make sacrifices then and should just go about our daily lives as if nothing happened. He should have put us on more of a war footing, even if it meant higher taxes and rationing like we did during WWII.

    From what I have read, Republicans did not use WWII to try to score points in the 1944 elections against Roosevelt. The party’s worked together and we won that war.

    Obama doesn’t have that ability to bring us together now. All he has done is push us further apart while ISIS grew and Al Qaeda regained strength.

    Whether we want war or not, we have had one for a very long time. Doesn’t matter what we say, they wage war on us and have no plans to a cease fire.

    Like

  5. Craig Sayre that is such a great and profound statement. Thank you and thanks so much Lew for the blog post. Life is really been like living with two different worlds around me since 9/11 occurred. The one where I cannot possibly re-enter of peace and lackadaisical daily living and the one of political extremes tugging from both ends. One side screaming that it isn’t fiscally smart to fight and the other side claiming it is a false fight in the first place. Those of us in the center are left working even harder and like a ship with no rudder struggling to steer forward to freedom’s shores. It isn’t too late. It is never too late to change course and repair the system to properly propel forward in the direction necessary. Will we have lost ground? Have we lost precious lives? Have we spent money? Heck yeah. Does that matter? For certain it does. Should we then decide that it wasn’t worth it? Should we decide that political gamesmanship is more valuable than freedom? I ask who would ever consider making that the highest priority, and do we want to continue to follow them into oblivion, slavery, and even death?
    I shake my head in wonder that people can continue to live in their bubble.

    Like

  6. If there’s ever a draft again, and I hope there isn’t, it needs to be across-the-board; no college deferments. And, as I see KJ Hinton has stated on his own blog site; a draft needs to include women. With equal rights come equal responsibilities. This is not your father’s Oldsmobile.

    Like

  7. You’re right, kndalai. When you demand equal treatment, don’t be surprised when you receive it.

    I’m of the old school where men where expected to protect the women, not hide behind them, but as you say, it isn’t your father’s Oldsmobile any longer.

    Besides, as the Kurds are showing, female warriors terrify ISIS

    Female fighters of the PKK may be the Islamic State’s worst nightmare

    Like

  8. Incidentally, many of the draftees we had in Vietnam were among the best soldiers we had. Most just wanted to get their time in and go home, so they soldiered as good as any enlistee.

    Like

  9. I remember hearing a very brief interview w/ Tom Clancy the morning of 9/11. Of course, he had described the exact scenario of a fully-gassed 747 flying into a building (in this case, Congress during the State of the Union) seven years earlier in his book _Debt of Honor_, but for some strange reason the media didn’t want to go there, and Clancy didn’t push the point (despite what Wikipedia says).

    However, one would have expected the Pentagon to understand the threat (given his book was 7 years old at the time).

    On the other hand, I read a very interesting account of Jimmy Carter testing the military’s response to a nuclear threat on the very first day of his presidency, and them failing miserably, so perhaps the Pentagon had no plans for Clancy’s scenario.

    Looking at the immediate US reaction to 9/11, it was extremely considerate of the Bush presidency to allow the Saudis to fly their airplanes when no one else could. I look forward to the complete 9/11 commission report…

    You neglect to point out that Osama basically won. Ben Franklin would be dismayed to see we have given liberty up for security. No longer can one anonymously board a flight (and enjoy cheaper airline tickets via a secondary market). Americans from the 40’s would be horrified to see that we have morphed into the Soviets. “Papers please” used to be a joke. Now there is no “please” at all, instead we have Officer F* you , police departments requisitioning silencers, secret courts, NSA activity that makes the Stasi jealous, and a US President ordering assassinations on American citizens with no oversight.

    Like

  10. I don’t know just how much more complete the 9/11 report is expected to be.

    As for Ol’ Ben Franklin, he might not be as dismayed as you seem to expect, given that his security quote was actually addressing those that refused to take up arms to defend the frontier of the time, choosing instead to appease or make deals with marauders and the like.

    “Those Who Would Give Up A Little Liberty To Gain A Little Security”

    Let’s not forget too than during WWII, civilians gave up a lot, what with rationing and Japanese citizens, even American born were rounded up and sent to confinement camps.

    As for bin Laden’s family being flown out while others were grounded, not true: Media Fund Twists the Truth More Than Michael Moore

    Claims like that exactly what I meant by how the left politicized what happened for political gain

    Like

  11. “I don’t know just how much more complete the 9/11 report is expected to be.”
    My obvious response: Did Saudi Arabia enjoy more freedom in US airspace than US citizens

    “As for bin Laden’s family being flown out while others were grounded, not true”
    My response: http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_now_verifies_flig.shtml indicates the Saudis were flying on 9/13 or 9/14.

    “Let’s not forget too than during WWII, civilians gave up a lot, what with rationing and Japanese citizens, even American born were rounded up and sent to confinement camps”
    Which was found illegal by the Supreme Court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States – do you find unconstitutional actions acceptable? If so, what did your oath mean?

    Where’s your defense of the secret courts, assassinations, etc.? Very strange that you have no problem w/ the Executive Branch ordering assasinations…. Do you have any respect for the Constitution?

    I see open borders on Mexico, while at the same time “others” (I will refrain from a label) are pushing for “war” against ISIS/Syria/Russia. Why not secure the border and prevent the ISIS threat?

    Like

  12. Being as though bin Laden’s family member were not allowed to leave on a charter flight until one week after the restrictions on flight were lifted, no they did not enjoy more freedom.

    As for your Tampa Bay article, please note it claims, “Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation’s air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left.”

    Two days after would have been September 13, the day all flight restrictions were lifted.

    According to the findings of the 9/11 commission, the out of country flight took place nearly a week later.

    AS for WWII, illegal or not, it was done, as was rationing on nearly everything citizens used.

    Who said anything about assassinations?

    I have been adamant on securing our borders for more years than you have been aware of this blog. You are dead wrong if you think that alone will stop ISIS or any other terrorist group.

    It is not a matter of “pushing for war,” it is the fact that there is a war being brought top us. Pulling the covers back up over our heads will not make it go away. And, since Hawaii wasn’t a state in 1941, I suppose we should have just pulled back to California to wait for the Japanese to get here?

    How many times should we roll over nd go back to sleep after a terrorist attack before doing something about it?

    And no, I don’t like that Obama is in charge, his speech tonight was hollow and meaningless. It isn’t me saying ISIS is coming to America, it is ISIS.

    I will warn you now, one of the quickest ways to lose any favor with me is to question my oath. That is a slur I will only tolerate this one time!

    Like

  13. “I will warn you now, one of the quickest ways to lose any favor with me is to question my oath. That is a slur I will only tolerate this one time!”

    To save us both time, was Korematsu a legal action in accord with the Consitution? I’m honestly asking the question, because it sounds like you think the WW2 Japanese internment was OK.

    “AS for WWII, illegal or not, it was done, as was rationing on nearly everything citizens used.” So, you have no respect for the rule of law? If so, we can end this discussion right now.

    “Who said anything about assassinations?”
    I did – we have a President who is happy assassinating US citizens with no oversight. Do you think that is OK?

    Like

  14. “As for Ol’ Ben Franklin”

    I quote from your link:
    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,”

    This is not rocket science.

    US Citizens can no longer travel freely. Instead, we have to provide papers. Why would anyone dispute this fact?

    Like

  15. Did I say the internment was okay or just acknowledge that it happened to show citizens did make sacrifices in WWII?

    It is not about any “rule of law,” but a historical fact that it happened.

    And sorry, but as far as I am concerned, any American that voluntarily leaves the country to join a force with the intent of overthrowing the country and kill Americans is no longer a citizen. They are a traitor and if killed, nothing more than another battle field casualty. And according our laws, aiding and abetting the enemy is treason and punishable by death during wartime.

    If you disagree, that’s you, but that is how I see it.

    I do not see such battlefield deaths as an “assassination,” regardless of who is in office.

    Like

  16. “any American that voluntarily leaves the country to join a force with the intent of overthrowing the country and kill Americans is no longer a citizen.”

    I agree!!! But I need to see this encapsulated in a law approved by Congress. I’m astonished how this has been such a difficult concept. The schools (and media, to be fair) have completely lost the separation of powers concept.

    Right now we have a situation where the Executive Branch can assassinate US citizens at will with no blowback. Does no one object to this???

    Like

  17. Apparently, you did not read Ben’s letter in full.

    You’re not allowed to take his words out of context to suit your whims.

    As for “providing papers,” what do think a drivers license, asked for every time you get pulled over or stopped and questioned is?

    Do you think they just began asking for ID when questioning you since 9/11?

    Like

  18. “Did I say the internment was okay or just acknowledge that it happened to show citizens did make sacrifices in WWII?”

    I argue “citizens making sacrifices” is very different from “illegal government actions”

    Like

  19. 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 – TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

    I stand corrected on the death penalty. That seems to have been repealed in 1990.

    However, it changes nothing in my view of a battlefield death while engaged in war against the U.S.

    Like

  20. Try looking at other claims instead of thinking just one wins your point.

    Incidentally, I had an aunt spent time in those camps and recently found out her family originated from Hiroshima, all family records and grandparents were lost in the bombing.

    She didn’t ever hate America.

    Like

  21. “Apparently, you did not read Ben’s letter in full. You’re not allowed to take his words out of context to suit your whims.”

    Lew – you are old enough to remember travlelling via air in the 90’s and earlier. No identification was required.

    What exactly am I quoting out of context? I quoted Ben Franklin as “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” and I see a ton of liberty (including anonymity) given up for security. Where, exactly, do you think I’m quoting out of context?

    Like

  22. In my estimation, TSA is a joke. Still, even on Military flights overseas, I had to show who I was to pick up a ticket and also on civilian flights.

    I remember in the late 80’s, I caught a flight out of Portland back to Reno and underwent a search of my bags since I had an empty thermos.

    As for Ben’s letter, the paragraph that quote is taken from says: “In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, “if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs,” seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them.”

    You an read the entire letter at: http://www.franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&page=238a

    The “essential liberty” he was talking about was the right to bear arms to protect the frontier, which Quakers (Freemen) were unwilling to do.

    Like

  23. I appreciate your response, and enjoy our little dialogue. I’d love to hear from more people, but I suspect they’re asleep!

    I’m personally more than happy to take up arms against (domestic) invaders (including ISIS), but I don’t really see that same level of commitment at the Executive Branch, otherwise we’d see a secure border at Mexico (since ISIS exploits “fluid” borders) .

    So for me the Franklin comment doesn’t apply against an ISIS threat, but instead DOES apply against a Federal threat.

    Do you see the distinction?

    Why not push for the elimination of TSA? Take their budget and apply to securing the US/Mexico border….

    Like

  24. Also, I realize people may not understand my comment about anonymous travel.

    Back in the day, I could buy a ticket PDX –> LHR with no details about my name. If I had to, I could sell the ticket to someone and they would be able to use it. Obviously this led to some good deals.

    Astonislhing enough, after 9/11 the airlines were able to close this window, and require that a ticket be linked to a partiuclar person. If the person was unable to use the flight they were screwed. Prior to 9/11 they would be able to resell the ticket, but in the post 9/11 world capitalism was evil… It was extra special that the airlines got all these bonuses without accepting any liability whatsoever for the actual (you know) breaches in security. Secure doors were implemented with no acknowledgement that that should have happened decades ago.

    Fast forward 10 years (2011+) – one cannot board a plane without goverment ID, and the compulsary search is now considered de rigeur. Those who object are ridiculed: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/05/federal_court_in_portland_spen.html

    The 4th amendment can be used as toilet paper.

    Like

  25. Was the rioting and beating of Japanese American citizens that preceded their internment Okay too, Josef? I don’t think in a national and international crisis that all people think very clearly, and some are clearly incapable of rational thought at all.

    The Japanese Americans who, like Korematsu, lost liberty and property due to a clearly not well thought out policy, and the US Supreme Court stacked with eight Roosevelt Appointees were not granted access to the Naval Intel report that affirmed NO instances of Japanese American’s spying or sending signals to the Japanese Imperial Fleet. So if your point was that the Korematsu decision was found to be legal, your are just off the reservation. If your point is that persons who are known to have declared war against America even if once they were American Citizens, should never be targeted then you are way out in left field. There is a point in life when you have to realize that even American Citizens are capable of doing harm to America and against humanity, and in committing those acts have de facto renounced their Citizenship. The fact that we try, through the Fisa Courts and other measures, to respect their rights as citizens anyway, is a testament to our toleration of the absurd and foolish.

    That Obama continues to use such Courts despite having declared the War on Terror over, is a testament to his lack of clear thinking and a fundamentally flawed view of how American Government works. I pity anyone who had him as a lecturer.

    So what then is your point Josef? I suspect that like Obama you ultimately have none, but are just twisting the first tail you managed to grab hold of.

    Like

  26. Myth: Islam is “a religion of peace.” Our leaders continuously make this claim. In addition they say, “we are not fighting Islam, but rather we are fighting “extremist, fundamentalist Jihadists.” First of all, under Shira law, followers of Islam are told that it is OK to lie to non-Muslims, but not to lie to Muslims. Shira law also encourages Muslims to convert all non-muslims to Islam (which, in English, means “submission”) either by persuasion or by sword, as necessary. Our leaders have frequently called upon “moderate” Muslims to criticize the “extremists.” But those calls are mostly met with dead silence. Again, Shira law requires Muslims to not criticize other Muslims who are acting in accord with Shira. (And the extremist Jihadists are doing so.) In reality, Islam is a religion of violent conversion. Those who do not convert are either killed, enslaved, and in some cases (“people of the book” — Jews and Christians) may be allowed to live, but must pay onerous taxes and must keep a very low profile — and live as second class citizens in the Islamic society. This is all clearly explained in the Quran. There are many English language books that explain Shira law and the implications it has. Frankly, Shira is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution nor legal tradition of the U.S. and other English-speaking countries.

    Our leaders have also misunderstood what going to war against Jihadists means. The “rules of engagement” were written based on the Western sense of ethics but involved an opponent who clearly did not follow (or comprehend) the motives that these rules of engagement followed. Islamic Jihad is fought to the death with the utter destruction of the opponent (any survivors are put into slavery). Our forces have consistently shown “mercy” to Islamic fighters and “civilians.” George H.W. Bush (#41), in the “Gulf War” ended the ground fighting after 100 hours “for humanitarian reasons.” This was considered weakness on our part. It also left the Iraqi Republican Guard pretty much intact. We should note that ISIS (or ISIL) currently has much of it’s Officer Corps drawn from the Iraqi military that was disbanded after the 2nd Gulf War (under George W. Bush (#43). Of course, our “humanitarian” leadership _should_ have kept the defeated Iraqi military on the payroll while sorting and sifting out the bad apples. Instead, they disbanded it, allowing the potential opposition to fade into the woodwork.

    Our continued altruistic policies have led to the sacrifice of our own military — and given the impression that we are weak and unmotivated. Pre-announcing troop withdrawals has also given the opposition the ability to lie low and just wait for us to pull out.

    Our military policy should have been to kill as many of the enemy as necessary until there was no further will to fight. This is what Islamists expect and has been the case in all previous battles between the West and Muslims in the past. Rules of engagement should have been devised that kept that mission foremost, and not to worry about “civilians” (who mostly support the Jihadists) and other Western niceties. We were (are) fighting an opponent who considers suicidal attack as a means to potential reward in the afterlife. We should certainly accommodate giving as many that chance as we can.

    Our post-conflict goals of “nation building” are ineffective. Islam does not have a tradition of democracy. It has a tradition of leadership by a central authority, with harsh laws that punish or execute those who violate them. It is the height of foolhardiness to pretend that we can turn 1000 years of Islamic tradition around in a few months or years of military occupation.

    Our current President is even more delusional that our past Presidents on dealing with Islam.

    Like

  27. Personally Josef, I would rather fight our enemies elsewhere and not have their blood running down our streets.

    If I were in Congress, which I am not, TSA would be gone or operating more along the lines of how Israel operates airline security.

    And yes, our borders are not secure, all the more reason we better be vigilant about ISIS and others.

    Like

  28. Hyperbole doesn’t help your argument, Josef. A drivers license is a “government ID.”

    Strange how we are demanding proof of citizenship and identification to vote, but then don’t feel we should have to present ID.

    Must just be for the other guy?

    Like

%d bloggers like this: