BY FLORIDA BILL
The Attorney General has announced that the federal government has decided to resume executions of individuals who have been sentenced to death in a court of law.
Certainly at the top or near the top of those on death row is Major Nidal Hasan, the army psychiatrist who killed 13 persons, including 12 fellow soldiers, and wounded 32 others in an explosion of Islamic rage on November 6, 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas.
As the massacre was being carried out, Major Hasan, a medical doctor, screamed "Allahu Akbar (Allah is the greatest) as he fired his gun and watched the soldiers and civilians fall like dominoes. After he had fired scores of rounds, he was taken down by gunfire from an American soldier.
Now 49, Hasan, a paraplegic as a result of a bullet which hit his spine, has been incarcerated and cared for in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, since the shooting and his trial and conviction in a military tribunal four years later.
The former army major and doctor who had been trained at government expense, has admitted the killings which he has said in interviews gave him a "good" feeling, and he looks forward to martyrdom as a SoA, (Soldier of Allah). .
Confined to a wheelchair, Hasan has written countless letters. Among his missives was a letter to ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi informing him that it would be "his honor" to join the Islamic caliphate; and another missive to Pope Francis in which he praised Islamic Jihad. He always signed his letters using his SoA acronym.
In an interview with the NYT, he said he did not regret the massacre and that his actions would help atone for the sins of his mother who once operated a small store and sold alcohol in contradiction to the command of Allah.
The government has now lifted the prohibition to the death penalty which had been in effect for several years. The ban on implementing the penalty had been ordered because of the fear that an innocent defendant might be executed in error. With Hasan, there is no doubt that he is a murderer.
The U.S. military has executed 135 persons since 1916. The last was the execution of army Pvt. John Bennett in 1961 for rape and attempted murder.
In Hasan's case, he acknowledges his violence and his Islamic rage; and the screams of "Allahu Akbar" were witnessed and heard by scores of fellow soldiers and civilians. Hasan has earned the penalty of death and there will be no misgivings when it is carried out. The hope of Americans and of the relatives of victims of his rage is that execution of this madman will take place without further delays.
xxx
By Florida Bill
That Democratic-controlled stronghold, otherwise known as the House of Representatives, has voted to condemn as "racist" President Trumps tweets about his female "squad" of detractors. These "women of color," all recently elected to Congress, have become the latest media sweethearts.
There is nothing unusual or unexpected here, since Democrats and this obtuse quartet of congresswomen find "racism" in all aspects of Republican discourse and policies. They have learned well from the Rev. Al Sharpton who has been shouting racism and finding it under every stone for about 40 years. Any critical comment aimed at any bone-headed politician who happens to be African American is per se "racist." These newly elected representatives, making up "the squad," are "women of color," and therefore, any criticism is racially motivated, and the speaker is a bigot, and that is that. Vote to condemn.
Factually, there is nothing "racist" about the President's tweets and his responses to the squad who have denounced his policies as "garbage;" have insulted him with foul language, (to wit "Impeach the Motherfucker;") and called him a racist, a bigot and a white nationalist (like a Nazi) seeking to divide this country and make it white again. Fair minded Americans do not blame President Trump for firing back at this dopey foursome and his tweet is on target, but it is not "racist," despite the contrived emotion of Democrats and the tethered media which has abandoned all journalistic fairness and objectivity..
Trump is not the type that turns his cheek when he is disrespected and accused of inept leadership and of being a "racist." He will fire back at anyone, color irrelevant, who insults him and hurls dishonest charges at him. He will never sit still for that, and Americans, and all fair minded Democrats as well as Republicans, agree. So what did the President say in his response to the representatives which has set off this fictional firestorm:
"So interesting to see progressive Democrat congresswomen who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst and most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world...., now loudly and viciously telling the people of the USA, the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, how our government is to be run.
"Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.
"W hen will the Radical Left Congresswomen apologize to our Country, the people of Israel and even to the Office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said. So many people are angry at them and their horrible and disgusting actions"
The four congresswomen,elected last November, are American citizens, but their comments suggest that they are really anti-American. They are Alexandria Occasio Cortez of New York; Ilhan Omar of Minnesota; Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. They have been called "The Squad" by Speaker Pelosi, who appears not to like them, yet praises them for their aggressive and progressive posture in attacking the nation's 45th President.
The four use the "F" word regularly to make their points. They call themselves socialists and apparently believe that vulgarities strengthen their rhetoric for their life saving plan, the Green New Deal, which, unless quickly implemented, will allow the planet to be destroyed in 12 short years. The New Deal will provide for the elimination of all air travel and airplanes; and possible construction of roads to Hawaii and Europe; and for the rebuilding of 99% of all structures in the country. And along with this, there will be free college tuition and medical care for everyone. Reparations are a must, apparently with checks of several thousand dollars for each and everyone of color--although details on reparations for the slave era have not yet been disclosed by the squad. The bottom line cost will be in the tens of trillions, or more, but then,who's counting.
The squad's Green New Deal is nutty and impossible, yet it has been endorsed by virtually every Democrat candidate running for president to replace Trump.
Democrats say that they know a racist remark 'when they hear one." President Trump says that he is not a racist and never has been one. But he says he knows anti American rhetoric when he hears it, and he has heard plenty of it from the "squad" and other Democrats.
xxx
I
T
BY FLORIDA BILL
Ex-CIA director John Owen Brennan was and is perhaps President Trump's fiercest accuser. In recent years he has sashayed from news station to news station, and to interviews, excoriating the nation's 45th President as paranoid, a charlatan and a traitor who is in "Putin's pocket."
After all, he had a top security clearance and the phony journalists at CNN, MSNBC and NBC and of course, Morning Joe, were always ebullient and obsequious when he would grace their mikes and rip into the nation's 45th President.
But now the jury is in and Special Counsel Mueller reports that President Trump never conspired or colluded with Russians for help in winning the 2016 election.
Brennan is still around and about, but he has toned down his rhetoric a bit telling Morning Joe that "I suspected that there was more than there actually was" concerning Trump's behavior. Despite Brennan's lying and irresponsible conduct, he isn't particularly red faced or about to apologize for his statements, and will likely be continuing to express his public disdain for the President .
President Trump has now stripped the 63-year-old Brennan of his elite security clearance for lying amid reports that Brennan is being targeted by the Attorney General in his investigation into dishonest FBI and government intelligence officials who promoted the bogus charges of "collusion" against Trump following his unexpected win over Hillary Clinton.
With Brennan, one might wonder how he ever rose to become the head of the nation's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in view of his background and strong support of Communism during the cold war years and in view of charges by an FBI agent that he was untrustworthy because of his unabashed support of Muslims.
In 1976, Brennan, fresh out of college, endorsed and voted for Gus Hall, Communist candidate for President, over Democrat Jimmy Carter, and the incumbent Republican Gerald Ford. Incredibly, four years later, despite his call for a radical change of government in the USA, he applied for and was accepted for a position in the (CIA.
He was a member of that spy circle for 25-plus years. He worked in the Middle East, near east and in south Asia, and as an analyst and a station chief in Saudi Arabia. and became fluent in the Arabic language. Also, he served as director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center. He was an assistant to President Obama for Homeland Security from 2009 to January, 2013, when Obama selected him to be CIA chief in January, 2013.
Some members of the FBI balked strongly at his appointment as CIA boss. James Guandolo who was an FBI agent and a terrorist analyst in the Middle East from 1996 to 2008 lobbied against his appointment as head of the CIA, complaining that Brennan simply could not be trusted.
Guandolo said that Brennan, with whom he had worked, had become fluent in the Arabic language and had converted to Islam in 2008. The fact that Brennan was a "closet" Muslim was not really the issue; the concern was one of trust and his allegiance to the USA, he said. Brennan kept urging President Obama to appoint members of the Muslim brotherhood to top positions in his administration, he charged.
Brennan, the agent said, had been persuaded by the Saudi King to convert to Islam and he did so while assigned in the Middle East. He subsequently fulfilled his Islamic duty by making the pilgrimage to Mecca which is a requirement and a privilege to be exercised only by pious Muslims.
In February, 2013, the Senate, by a vote of 63 to 34, confirmed Brennan as CIA chief. But, skepticism over his character and loyalty inside the intelligence agency did not end with confirmation. In fact, it intensified when he declined to be sworn into office by placing his hand on the Bible. Instead, Brennan insisted on using an 1787 version of the Constitution which did not contain the entire Bill of Rights on which to pledge his loyalty. The complete Constitution, used today, was approved in 1791, and replaced the 1787 draft.
The abbreviated version selected by Brennan did not contain Amendments 1,4,5 and 6 and in effect technically debunked his obligation to "protect and defend" those civil rights guaranteed in the amendments. Those amendments guarantee to citizens rights of free speech, religion and press; and provide protections against government arrest and prosecution.
No one really knows the core values of John Brennan, and of his fealty to the United States; but they are suspect. When an appointee to a high office declines taking his oath with a hand on the bible; and when an FBI agent and former Marine officer who worked closely with Brennan in Saudi and in other parts of the Middle East says that he cannot be trusted, it should be taken seriously.
XXX
BY FLORIDA BILL
During the recent Democratic debates, Bernie Sanders asserted that women have a "constitutional right to an abortion." Sanders who has declared himself a candidate for President, knows, or should know, that he is factually wrong, and is as much of a "liar" as he accuses President Trump of being.
The fact is that a woman has a "right to choose" pursuant to a finding in the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. The court did not find that the Constitution provided a woman a right to an abortion; it ruled that a woman had a right of privacy from which flows her right to choose with regard to her own body. The right of privacy is not stated outright in the constitution but exists, justices said, in the arching penumbra of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution.
Roe v Wade is considered by legal scholars to be a poorly reasoned decision. That being the case, critics of the decision and pro-life conservatives are pushing the high court to revisit that decision and to overrule it, or determine what rights the developing fetus is entitled to.
The right to choose by a woman to terminate her pregnancy ignores any rights to be accorded the fetus, no matter how far along the baby has been alive in the mother's womb. The fetus is not a "person" under the U.S. Constitution, and only a "person" is entitled to protection as is set forth in the 14th amendment.
The Supreme Court has in the past declined to made a determination as to when a fetus becomes a person. Is it at the moment of conception or when there is a heartbeat detected? Is it when that fetus can survive and live outside the womb, at, say, four, five or six months? Currently. a fetus becomes a person with constitutional protection upon birth, and correspondingly a woman's right to choose allows for destruction of the fetus at any time prior to birth.
In recent months there has been discussion of terminating a baby's life, even after birth, if that is the mother's desire in consultation with her doctor. Such acts would constitute infanticide and would certainly subject the doctor and the mother, or perhaps both, to prosecution for murder. Nevertheless, some liberal Democrats have said that such actions should be the subject of conversation.
If the court decides that a fetus is a "person" at some point during the gestational period, that fetus, at that moment, will receive constitutional protection, and subsequent abortion of that "person" will be prohibited. The prohibition however, would very likely be subject to exceptions such as the need to protect the life of the mother.
xxx
By Florida Bill
The Cairn terrier's world is an exclusive place to be. Friends are welcomed, but interlopers must beware. These fur heads are members of a special breed which came to prominence centuries ago on the Isle of Skye in Scotland and distinguished themselves for their abilities to hunt and rid farms of unwanted critters.
Cairns do not hand out friendships; they are something which must be earned. And that applies to their four legged brothers as well as other intruders into their territory.
The cairns are considered small in the canine world, but don't let that fool you. In their minds, they are giants, and any stranger on the other side of the door might agree. That bark can drive away much bigger dogs and any stranger who dares to knock. But for affection and loyalty and unconditional love--tip your hat to the peerless Cairn.
So it was no small thing when my wife, Chris, and I sought to introduce our Cairns, Sammi, 11, and Sam's trusted housemate, Wendy, 9, to the 85 pound, brown-haired Lab mix named Gertrude. Sammi and Wendy, both females, each weigh in at about 15 pounds.
Sammi is a wheaten-colored warrior who loves her family, has a big vocabulary, and comes when she is called (most of the time), but stops short when it comes to welcoming or tolerating other dogs. Men, women and children--they are okay, but canines rub her the wrong way and she will let them know it. Wendy is a coal black Cairn who recognizes Sam as the boss in our house, but who is even more bullish when it comes to other canines, and is not all that enthused about unfamiliar humans until a little time passes.
Our daughter, Mary, and her husband, Bob, are the owners of Gertrude, a hefty female Lab and Irish setter mix whom they rescued a few years ago. However, Gertrude had never met Sam and Wendy. Your scrivener and his wife, and Sam and Wendy, had until last year been living in Florida. Upon our return to Illinois, we looked upon the introduction of a big dog to our little tough girls as just one more hassle involved in the move, and put it off.
Gertrude, known affectionately as Gertie, is brown haired and a bit of a Gentle Ben. Gertie seems to like almost everyone, dogs included, and and as Mary says, "doesn't have a mean bone in her." Her business is eating and love and sleeping on a favorite leather chair. Walks with Bob are frequent, generally in the forest preserves sans leash. The plan was to introduce our Cairns to the gentle Gertrude so that in the future she could accompany her parents on visits to our home in Kane county west of Chicago. Mary and Bob reside in a home in northwest Chicago.
The problem was our feisty pair have never experienced another dog in their house. Just seeing another dog during a walk brings out the beast in them and they immediately begin growling, barking and lunging in an effort to escape their leashes and attack. At times, they have gotten so worked up they have turned on each other. The size of their target doesn't seem to matter, although they seem to save their most vicious outbursts for big dogs. Once, back in Florida, we were even asked to leave a dog park--we insisted another dog was to blame for starting the fracas, but we quickly departed anyway.
Laying the groundwork for the meet, we consulted books by Caesar Milan, the dog whisperer, and chatted with Dr. Bob Andrysco, a Chicago area dog and cat behavior specialist we met at our veterinarian's open house. Their advice dovetailed nicely with what we had read online.
First, this grand event needed to take place in a neutral area that would not trigger anybody's sense of dominance. We chose a nearby path that wound around a small lake. The idea was to walk them together in a pack. Each of the dogs were tethered to a leash and the initial encounter came as we walked one way and encountered Mary and Bob and the leashed Gertie walking into us.
There was an immediate explosion by Sammi and Wendy, growling and barking and straining at the leashes in an effort to break away and attack the calm and peace loving Gertrude, whose big frame dwarfed our little Cairns, and who seemed oblivious to their carrying on.
So, as prescribed by Caesar and Dr. Bob, we all began walking in a single file. First was Sam, followed by Gertie; with Wendy bringing up the rear. We walked and talked for some time, as everybody--meaning all the cairns--calmed down. We alternated positions in the single file and we kept walking and after about a half hour, some sniffing of rear ends began, with Sammi choosing to collect the most data: Gertie was uninterested, and Wendy still a little agitated.
Amazingly, as time went on, and perhaps as they began to tire a little, Sammi and Wendy began to relax and their body language suggested that they might actually be considering allowing this big girl to become a member of their pack. As tension continued to abate, we got back into our separate cars with the dogs and and drove to the small fenced-in backyard of our home.
Sammi and Wendy were not happy about walking out the back door to find Gertie on the other side of the fence, and more barking ensued. After all, they are terriers. Finally, we let all three dogs inside the enclosure, with leashes dragging behind them, available for quick action if hostilities flared.
Sammi surprised us with her laisez-faire attitude, but Wendy remained true to her high strung nature, and periodically lunged toward the lounging Gertie. Bob managed to distract her with calming words, pats, treats, and a few little tugs to keep her off Gertie's back.
Once we approached near calmness, we headed inside. This was the major testing ground. The cairns didn't have that much invested in the back yard, which had only been fenced for about 8 months, and was primarily just a place to do their business. Because of a field nearby that was home to coyotes, they never got any extended time alone in the yard.
Once we got inside our walk-out basement, we were surprised that the barking did not resume. We let the dogs settled next to their families, spread out on the couches, while we chatted as if nothing was out of the ordinary.
Wendy maintained a constant stare in Gertie's direction, but time passed and no new doggie comments were made. Bob, Mary, Chris and I provided high praise and treats for the combatants and for the peaceful Gertrude. Gertie was then allowed to go upstairs and wander around the house a little, with no objections, except for a few wary glances.
Certainly the first step has been made and it was a success. We look forward to many visits from Gertrude and her parents, and will probably continue to start them with a short group walk on our street.
A great movie once ended with the line: "I think that this is the beginning of beautiful friendship." We hope so too. Or at the least, a canine truce.
XXX
By Bill Juneau
Deputy Sheriff Scot Peterson, the veteran Parkland school officer, has become a poster boy for cowardice. But for him shirking his duty to protect and to confront a 19-year-old assassin, his accusers say, some of the 17 victims of the shooting might not have been killed.
It appears that the 56-year-old sheriff's deputy, a veteran officer with more than 30 years on the job, ran and hid when gunfire was heard. There is no way to excuse that. He was a policeman with a special job to protect children, and according to all accounts,he failed miserably. He might even wind up in jail like a common criminal.
Reflect on what you might have done. in those seconds and minutes after gunfire rang out. The arm chair analysts say that Peterson should have charged into the fray with his gun blazing and taken out the assassin. It is hard to know what to do in those situations, having never walked in those same shoes.
But aside from the alleged sins of Officer Peterson, how does his performance stack up against the FBI's egregious mishandling of information concerning Nicholas Cruz as a potential school shooter. Former Florida Gov. Rick Scott, now a US. senator, was so enraged over the fumbling performance of the FBI that he called for the resignation of the FBI Director Christopher Wray for ignoring tips that Nicholas Cruz contemplated a school shooting.
Cruz, 19, was well known for years in the Parkland community as a serious disciplinary problem. He was a resident of that upscale city and had been expelled from the Stoneman Douglas High school for disciplinary reasons. Broward county sheriff's policemen were well aware of his penchant for causing and getting into trouble. In fact the sheriff's office had answered more than 30 calls and complaints involving Cruz over the previous four years. Last January, some 11 months after the shootings, Florida governor Ron DeSantis ordered the removal from office of Broward county Sheriff Scott Israel for incompetence.
On September 25, 2017, several months before the February 14 school shooting, the FBI was notified of a comment on You Tube in which the commenter, identifying himself as a "nikolas cruz" posted, "I'm going to be a professional school shooter." That information wound up in a waste basket and agents subsequently have explained that they simply were unable to identify and locate the "nikolas cruz" who made the comment.
On January 5, just five weeks before Cruz opened fire in the school and killed 17 and wounded others with his assault rifle, the FBI received a telephone message from a person who said he was a person "close" to Nicholas Cruz and that Cruz had a "desire to kill people" and the caller said that he was worried about the "potential of him conducting a school shooting."
After the shooting and the capture of Cruz, the FBI back tracked and acknowledged receiving the message about Nicholas Cruz. "Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life.......and the tip should have been forwarded to the Miami field office......we clearly should have done more, explained FBI Deputy Director David Bodich.
As blame is being meted out, and the media is whipping Officer Peterson's for his "cowardice," the FBI needs to be reminded of its failure to take serious tips of this nature. The FBI is still the most skilled and professional police agency in the world, but in this episode, it could have and should have done a better job.
xxx
By Florida Bill
Strip away the emotion and the political bad blood. No more crocodile tears from senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer. The so-called DACA controversy (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and impasse can and should be resolved without any more delay.
The solution is easy. It calls on Democrats in Congress to bend and allow construction of a wall along the Mexican border. A secure border is in every one's best interest, and border security was favored by 12 presidents before President Trump. In return and as a demonstration of good faith and concern for children, characterized as "dreamers" brought to the USA by their undocumented parents, the President is promising to provide legal status and even a path to citizenship for 1.8 million children.
Resisting that agreement makes no sense, and is contrary to the wishes of Americans, including the 63 million who voted for Trump and strongly endorsed his call for a wall along the Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California border with Mexico.
Promise of a wall was the principle promise declared by candidate Trump in the run-up to the 2016 election. He currently vows that he will deliver on that promise. He predicted that he would persuade Mexico to pay for the wall, but the jury is out on that one.
A great deal for the USA and a good deal for the DACA children. The wall will end illegal entry by foreigners, and the dreamers will assimilate completely into American life and culture, receive all of the benefits of legal residents, and be free from the threat of deportation. Everyone wins!!!!
Unfortunately, the push by President Trump and Republicans for construction of the wall has gotten hung up by a political hook wielded by Democrats who have disdain for the new president. Expenditure of money for the wall would require a 60 per cent majority of senators in the upper house of Congress, and Republicans need some Democrats to approve the legislation. Financing is not a problem, although Democrats contend that it will simply cost too much, and sort of break the bank. The argument is pleasing to Trump haters, but deceptive on its face.
The border along Mexico extends for some 1,900 miles, but the President has said that the actual wall would be necessary on about 700 to 900 miles of the total length. Much of the 1,900 miles is inside rocky and watery terrains which are in themselves virtually uncrossable. Cost estimates vary, but the President believes that the construction can be completed for some $15 billion dollars. Lots of money, yes, but the expenditure would amount to less than one per cent of the country's annual multi trillion dollar plus budget.
The United States spends 35 to 50 billion dollars annually for aid to other nations, so why not carve off a slice for payment for the wall? America's foreign aid to 142 countries actually touches 76 per cent of the globe. Some 10 billion dollars is gifted to countries in the Middle East.
Senator Rand Paul and other fiscally conservative congressmen have questioned why billions are earmarked for nations so vociferous in their hate of Old Glory. "America should not give another dime to countries which denounce America and stomp and burn its flag," he has said. DACA children came to the United States with their parents, who had entered the country illegally. In 2012, with the threat of deportation hanging over the heads of these youngsters who have known only America as their home, President Obama signed an executive order allowing these children to reside in America without fear of deportation. In signing, the President cautioned that his order must be viewed as a temporary one until Congress can pass legislation to fix the problem and to permanently protect the Dreamers. He urged legislators to get on with that job.
Dreamers are different from children who are classified as "anchor" or "drop" babies. These babies are born on American soil to undocumented aliens, sometimes visitors. Congress has interpreted the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution finding that children born inside the continental limits of the USA under any conditions are citizens. Citizenship is automatic even though a parent is in America very briefly and for the planned purpose of delivering the baby on American soil.
Currently, it is estimated that some 350,000 to 400,000 anchor babies are born each years in the USA and automatically become citizens entitled to support and public education through high school. Anchor or Drop babies are said to be born in the USA every 93 seconds.
Congress should put aside political opposition to President Trump and do what needs to be done to protect DACA children and at the same time to put an end to illegal entry into the United States so that the same controversy is not repeated in years to come.
The United States, the most powerful and richest country in the world, is about the only nation which allows unchecked entry over its borders. Both Democrats as well as Republicans want America to secure its borders so that visitors for any and all reasons come onto American soil legally and based on "merit," or not at all. Congress has no excuse for not fixing the problem.
XXX
