Ginny Welsch is lone Council member to oppose terrorist fighting tools for the Metro Police Department

by Rod Williams, Dec. 28, 2023- At the most recent Metro Council meeting, the Council approved the acceptance of a Homeland Security Grant of $740,450 that will provide the city with new equipment for the Office of Emergency Management and the Metro Police Department. The grant also included training in use of the equipment. The purpose of the grant was to "fund efforts to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events."

Among the equipment funded are atmospheric monitors, handheld spectrometers, pneumatic tools, portable radios and a Boston Dynamics Spot Robot. Usually accepting a grant from the Federal or State government is not controversial. Metro accepts grants almost every meeting. 

The part of this grant that was controversial was "Spot."  The robotic dog has specialized sensors that can detect possible chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats from a safe distance and is capable of investigating suspicious packages and suspected explosives. 

I am pleased to see Metro get this equipment including Spot.  We live in a dangerous world. It has been 21 years since 9-11. I am not going to surprised when we are next hit with a terrorist attack.  With our national borders unsecured and about 2 million unknown people walking into our country every year, I do not expect the next big attack to be airplanes flying into buildings but an attack on a well-attended public gathering by people who walked across the border. Events like Nashville's New Year's Eve bash would make prime targets. 

We do not only have a threat of international terrorism aiming at big targets to be concerned about, but we have the growing threat of home-grown antisemitic terrorist that are making threats against synagogues as well as a growing danger from right-wing anti-government groups. If a mysterious package is found planted in a local synagogue, I would much prefer being able to send in a robotic dog to investigate than a police officer.

Durning the debate on the resolution, Council Member Jordan Huffman explained the importance of the robotic dog for the MNPD’s hazardous device unit: "This will be utilized by the hazardous device unit by MNPD. I stated before that there have been over 300 [individual] bomb threats this year. If one of those is actually a bomb, then what we’re doing here tonight is worth it."

Huffman went on to explain the use for the atmospheric monitors, which he said will be placed in and around large crowds during events in Nashville to detect any harmful substances like anthrax that could potentially be thrown into the air.

Approval of this grant seems like a no-brainer to me. Why the opposition? Opponents apparently fear the robotic dog will be used to attack people and to spy on people. Watch the above video to see the debate. 

Ginny Welsch
cast lone vote against 
bomb-sniffing robot

District 22 Council Member Sheri Winer made a passionate plea for passing the resolution referencing the bomb threat that was made to Congregation Micah synagogue the weekend prior to the council meeting.

“My grandson and I are Jewish, as many of you in the room are,” said Weiner.  “I got a phone call as I’m walking out the door to take [him] to Sunday school, and my son-in-law with a quivering voice says to me, ‘Don’t take him, they’ve closed Sunday school.’ There was a bomb threat.”

Despite the resolution being thoroughly discussed and approved in committee, a move was made to defer action on the resolution. The move to defer failed by a vote of 15 in favor and 24 against. After more discussion the measure passed overwhelmingly with only one "no" vote and four abstentions.  District 12 Council Member Ginny Welsch was the only "no" vote. 

That Ginny Welsch would vote no is no surprise. While we have a lot of left-leaning progressives serving in the Metro Council, thankfully there is only one Ginny Welsch. While the Council is liberal, it is not totally nuts.  Ginny Welsch is by far the most radical member of the Metro Council. She has a consistent history of attempting to defund the police and votes against the police at every opportunity. There is no vote that she could cast that would surprise me. In 2020 she sponsored a budget amendment that would have slashed the funding for the Police by 40%.  Thankfully, she is one of a kind and no one is following her lead. She did not speak during the debate on the bill. 

Top Stories

Rachel Maddow: Orlando attack follows ISIS 'soft target' call

This video is diffidently worth watching. It explains why "lone wolf" terrorist attacks are still "terror attacks."

 Rachel Maddow is one of my least favorite on-air news personalities, or news reporters, or commentators, or whatever the term may be.  She makes me cringe.  Her smug, cutesy, preachy, unfiltered self-righteous  liberalism makes be want to throw things at the TV.  I feel the same way about her as I am sure many liberals must feel about Rush Limbaugh.  She is not boring however and despite my dislike for  her, I still occasionally watch her.  I was surprised recently to see her explain something better than I have  heard it explained by anyone else. I must give her credit.  I guess even a blind pig finds an acorn every once  in  while.

In the past few years there have been several of these "lone wolf" terrorist attacks. Just like in Orlando, the perpetrator claims his allegiance to ISIS or claims he is committing his act in the name of Allah.  Conservatives generally are quick to call these attacks, acts of terrorism; liberals, not so much.  The media is reluctant to initially speculate that these acts are acts of terrorism.  Sometimes the media and government spokesmen will claim the massacre  was "work place violence," or a "hate crime," or the perpetrator was suffering from mental illness. The religious faith of the attacker is not one of the first things they initially consider important.   It is almost as if they are looking for any motivation for the attack other than radical Islam.  When no ties can be found to ISIS or other organized terrorist groups the act is often  not considered to be a terror attack. 

In this report Rachel Maddow explores the way the ISIS terrorist organization encourages attacks on western civilian targets by followers who act independently and are not given specific orders. ISIS gives a general order for their followers in the West to not come to the Middle East to join ISIS on the battlefield but tells them to commit terrorist attacks on the infidels where they are.  ISIS says do not ask permission or coordinate with us; just do it.  They also say hit soft targets; that does more to spread terror than hitting military or hardened targets. ISIS also tells their followers to make it know they are doing it as an act of Jihad and are loyal to ISIS. Maddow does a great job of laying all of this out.

Top Stories

Six questions we should ask after Orlando

by Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute, June 13, 2016, (link) - Forty-nine Americans are dead at the hands of an ISIS-inspired terrorist. But for all that we know about the killer himself, there are some tough questions that remain unanswered, questions whose answers could help prevent another such attack.

1) Are there more home-grown terrorists than we realize? The short answer is probably yes. While the United States has fewer Muslim ghettos than the UK or France, the growing emphasis on what makes us different rather than what makes us the same almost dictates there will be more young Muslims drawn to the extremist ISIS message. Similarly, Saudi and other money has poured into mosques and Islamic schools advancing a more extremist message.

2) Are lone wolves avoidable? My instinct is largely yes. But that will require more attention to centers of extremism, including foreign funded schools and mosques; more attention to those who seem inclined to extremism; more of the intrusive government that liberals and conservatives together loathe; more scrutiny of those who will end up being entirely innocent. Worth it? You tell me.

3) Why guns? There’s a tendency to attribute more planning and strategic thinking to terrorists, who often rely on luck to inflict their damage. But guns have a special political part in American life. There’s the constitutional right to bear arms, and the fierce devotion of many Americans to that right. And there is the passionate opposition of many — the President of the United States included — to the sale and ownership of those guns. And here we are, talking about guns. Talking about a terrorist attack in the context of other mass shootings as if they were the same. Was that on purpose? Utilitarian? Can guns do more damage than the preferred tool of terrorists, the explosive device? Are they easier to find? Or is this a more sophisticated effort to divide the public?

4) Who can buy a gun? Apparently, terrorists. Former residents on terrorism watch lists. Former known associates of actual terrorists. We all know why: Stove piping. The FBI, local law enforcement, intelligence and the myriad other enforcement agencies all keep their lists separate. This is why the Department of Homeland Security was created in the wake of 9/11 — to stop this sort of stove piping and ensure that information is shared. Guess what? It still isn’t. And more government bureaucracy hasn’t fixed it.

5) Why a gay nightclub? Was it just opportunism? Hatred? Another strategic effort to direct and divide conversation? Hard to know. But remember, the narrative for Islamists is that they are hitting at the “corrupt heart” of America. A Turkish Islamist paper headlined the event thus: “50 perverts killed in bar”. In addition to women, Jews, Christians and other Muslims, gays have become a favored target for Islamists. What is US policy doing about that? Not much. And contrary to the favored trope — we win by living our lives — the short answer is that we’re not winning. Their virus is spreading from Syria to Turkey to Afghanistan and beyond.

6) Should we bar all Muslims? Omar Mateen was born in the United States. Major Nidal Hasan was in the US Army. But there’s a more important issue here. What does the United States stand for? As vile as it is, a terrorist attack against a gay club in Florida doesn’t alter the American way of life. But beginning to segregate the country, immigration policy and attitudes based on religion will change us. What makes America great is the hope it holds for the world, the example it shows. Barack Obama may not like to admit it, but America is the greatest nation because of our values, because of our openness, because of our conviction that what it takes to be an American is a commitment to this country, not a creed or a race or a sex. Are those days of greatness behind us?

My comment. 

Having listened to and read a lot of news and commentary on the terrorist attack in Orlando, this above essay comes closest to summing up my feeling.

Item #6 is something that I have been conflicted over.  It would be tempting to say we should ban all Muslims immigration to America, but I agree with the author.  We cannot withdraw from the world and pull up the drawbridge.  Many of the worlds Muslim refugees are the one who have fled ISIS areas and had their life put in danger.  They are our allies in the fight against radical Islam, they are not our enemy.  We must be mindful that there could be enemy infiltrators among them and we should try to properly vet them, but we cannot not turn our back on those who are the primary victims of radical Islam. Also, if we had never gone to war in Iraq, perhaps ISIS would have never developed.  To a certain degree, we have an obligation to deal with the mess beyond a mere humanitarian obligation. Also, as the author says, "What makes America great is the hope it holds for the world, the example it shows."  We should not abandon our values in tough times.

On item #3, I agree with the writer.  The mainstream media and the Obama administration has tried to turn this tragedy into a focus on guns instead of terrorism. On item #4, I think the author raises a good point in critiquing the failure of the various government agencies to share information and improve intelligence. I am not going to jump on the bandwagon, however, and say that if one's name is on "no-fly" list, they should not be allowed to purchase a weapon.  The "no-fly" list is compiled in secret without due process.  Given the recent history of the IRS in targeting critics of the administration, I do not trust an administration, any administration, to draw up a secret list of people for whom it is permissible to take away their constitutional rights.  Maybe a waiting period for those on the list could be imposed, and a purchase of a weapon by someone whose name is on the list should alert authorities,  but we should not deny constitutional rights based on a secret list. Again, we should not abandon our values in tough times.

On item #2, I do think we should be doing more to know what goes on in the American Muslim community.  When the FBI brought down the Klu Klux Klan, it seems that in any gathering of three Klansmen, one of them was an FBI informant.  I would hope we have Muslim informants in every mosque in America and every Muslim student group.   I don't know the extent of our intelligence gathering, but I have the impression that political correctness and reluctance to "profile" keeps us from gathering the intelligence we need to be gathering. It is not a violation of constitutional rights to infiltrate and attend meetings.  We should be mindful of the constitutional right of American citizens but we should not shy away from delving deep into the American Muslim community to determine what is taking place.

On item #1, I think the writer is right when she says, "the growing emphasis on what makes us different rather than what makes us the same almost dictates there will be more young Muslims drawn to the extremist ISIS message."  That is not to say that I am naive and think that putting a "Coexist" bumper sticker on your car and constantly proclaiming "Islam is a religion of peace" will produce fewer Jihadist, but I do think that we should work to integrate Muslims into American society rather than isolate them. Hateful comments and jokes insulting to Muslims and discrimination against Muslims probably does fertilize the seeds of radical Islam.

In addition to the above, I think the U. S. should join the debate within the Muslim community in the rest of the world.  Just as Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe provided the truth to those behind the iron curtain and kept hope alive during the dark days of the cold war, we perhaps should launch a campaign to influence the dialogue in Islamic nations and give a voice to those who oppose the insanity of radical Islam. We should give a platform to  moderate Muslims clerics to counter those funded by Saudi Arabia.  We should fund moderate non-governmental organizations and publications.  We should provide news and entertainment and commentary by those speaking in a sane voice in the voice of the local people.   Muslims are now 23% of the worlds population and gaining. We must engage to make the world safe. We can't retreat to fortress American and draw up the drawbridge and we must remain true to our values.

Top Stories

Keeping Americans Safe at Home and Abroad

by Phil Roe U. S. Representative, 1st District of Tenneseee - Early last Sunday morning, 49 innocent

Phil Roe

people were robbed of their lives when a gunman entered a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. The gunman, who I will not name, allegedly pledged allegiance to ISIS during and prior to this horrific act. An attack on one American is an attack on all Americans - no matter their political party affiliation, religion, socio-economic status or sexual orientation – and I continue to keep the victims and their families, first responders, law enforcement and the entire city of Orlando in my thoughts and prayers.

I am sickened and heartbroken that, once again, we have experienced a cowardly act of terror in our homeland, and I believe we must unite to defeat this evil While the facts surrounding this senseless attack are still being discovered and investigated, I want you to know that fighting terrorism at home and abroad will always be a priority for me as long as I serve in Congress.

 Just last week, the House Republicans’ Task Force on National Security released our proposal for keeping Americans safe and eliminating the threat of terrorism. Our plan includes keeping terrorists out of America with strengthened intelligence and immigration laws, taking the fight to our enemies abroad, and winning the war of ideas against this hateful ideology. I believe the American people, particularly in light of a tragedy like this, need a plan we can rally around. And – while I believe this proposal is a better way to secure our homeland – I’m glad our work to protect the homeland has already begun. In the House of Representatives, we’ve passed several bipartisan bills to provide tools and resources specifically for counterterrorism and intelligence efforts, and that work will continue. Make no mistake, we are at war, but Americans will prevail. We will stand together, and we will fight the ideology that thinks it is okay to slaughter innocent people for no reason.

Two important bills passed by the House to address radicalization in America are H.R. 4820, the Combating Terrorist Recruitment Act, and H.R. 4407, the Counterterrorism Advisory Board Act. Both of these bills would help fight against the radicalization and recruitment of terrorists in America. Additionally, the House passed H.R. 4401, the Amplifying Local Efforts to Root Out Terror (ALERT) Act. The ALERT Act allows for better coordination across the federal, state, and local levels to stop radicalization and terrorist recruitment in the U.S. We’ve also passed bills to close security gaps that allow foreign fighters to travel throughout the world. H.R. 4402, the Foreign Fighter Review Act, requires a full and comprehensive review of Americans who have become foreign fighters in hopes of identifying domestic security gaps. Further, H.R. 4314, the Counterterrorism Screening and Assistance Act, equips U.S. allies and high-risk countries with counterterrorism tools to stop terrorist travel while allowing the administration to suspend foreign aid to countries who do not close security gaps.

These are just a few of the steps the House has taken to protect Americans at home and abroad. You can find a complete list of counterterrorism bills passed by the House here. I hope to continue to have open, honest conversations with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about ways we can keep Americans safe. I agree with House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul’s remarks this week: to defeat this enemy we must define them. The enemy is radical Islamic terrorism, and we have to work together to discredit and defeat this ideology of hate. This is a war of ideas – a war America will win – but we need buy-in from all Americans who value peace and freedom, no matter their political party affiliation, religion, socio-economic status or sexual orientation. We’re all in this together, and together we will stand.

Top Stories

Marsha Blackburn's response to President Obama's "leadership" on addressing radical Islamic extremism

From Marsha Blackburn:



In the aftermath of the attacks carried out by radical Islamic extremists that killed and wounded hundreds in Paris, President Barack Obama stood before the world to issue America's response. But instead of taking a hardline stand against violent acts of terrorism, the President timidly and absurdly claimed that the upcoming summit on "climate change" would be a strong "rebuke" to international terrorists.

Then came the savage San Bernardino attack where 14 people were killed and 21 injured by two radical Islamic terrorists – and it took Barack Obama four days to respond and admit what most Americans already knew – it was a terrorist attack. The President was more interested in taking a cynically opportune shot at Americans' Second Amendment rights than he was about the evil ideology behind the attack!

Unfortunately for the American people, their fearful leader is in denial about the threat terrorism poses to our country. That's why I'm contacting you today – I need you to partner with me to wake up the White House. Will you take a moment to watch my response to President Obama's "leadership" on addressing radical Islamic extremism?
Americans want to see leadership that will communicate the message that we are going to find these terrorists, we're going to destroy them and we're going to destroy their networks. But that is not what the president has been saying. He's too focused on pushing his globalist agenda of bringing thousands of Muslim refugees to the U.S. and crippling our economy with radical environmentalist overreach.

President Barack Obama needs to be reminded that his most important duty as Commander-in-Chief is to protect and look after the best interests of the American people above all else. Will you help me make it clear to President Obama that he must prioritize our safety and prosperity by watching my response to the recent attacks and then add your name if you agree, today?

 I'm determined to continue standing up in Congress to demand accountability from leadership in Washington, DC - from Capitol Hill to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but I sure could use your support. After watch my video and add your name, can I also count on you to make a generous contribution of $25, $50, $75, $100 or even more to my 2016 campaign preparations as well?

Thank you – please respond today!
Sincerely, Marsha Blackburn
Congressman Marsha Blackburn

P.S.  Barack Obama only has one year left to improve on his abysmal record – let's urge him to begin now! Watch my response and add your name to the fight if you agree today!

Top Stories

Political correctness is going to get us all killed. How an investigation that could of stopped the San Bernardino terrorist attack was shut down.

While we must not allow our outrage over terrorist attacks to lead to violating our principles and violating the constitutional rights of others, at the same time we must not let political correctness cause us to disarm in the face of terrorism. A whistleblower reports that in 2012 an agent with U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s National Targeting Center opened an investigation into a radical  Sunni Islamic group but the investigation was shut down by the State Department and the Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties because the federal government did not want to profile Islamic groups (link). The group being investigated had ties to the mosque attended by the San Bernardino terrorist.

This is nuts! It is not bigotry to profile. It is rational; it is logical. You fish where the fish are. When boarding an air plane, the old white grandma from Nashville, does not deserve the same scrutiny as as the twenty-something Mid-eastern looking guy with an accent. To investigate a group does not violate civil liberties of members of the group. Police look for people who fit a "profile" all the time in trying to solve crimes.  I also think we should have paid informers and undercover FBI agents in every mosque in America. You are more likely to find a terrorist plot being hatched by an Islamic group than a Baptist group.

When the FBI brought down the Klan, they did it by having paid informers and by having undercover FBI agents infiltrate Klan groups. Not every member of the KKK was a terrorist or violated laws, but we did not think it improper to investigate and infiltrate the KKK.  We properly did not worry about profiling people who joined the Klan.  Had we taken the view that we must never profile, Klan terror might have lasted a lot longer. I am not comparing followers of the Islamic faith with membership in the KKK, but the idea of focusing an investigation on a group that is more likely to have in their midst those likely to commit crime is simply logical. Profile! Profile! Profile!

Top Stories

Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey says of Calilfornia terroist attacks, " we are involved in a war of civilizations."

Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey says on Facebook:

Once again we must bow our heads and pray for the victims of Islamic terror. While some in the media avoid naming the politically incorrect threat and the Left blames inanimate objects, most Americans intuitively understand what we face. This is a pattern and it is unavoidable. A group of Christians gathered to celebrate the birth of Christ and a radical Muslim couple took the opportunity to send a horrific message to the West.

Make no mistake: we are involved in a war of civilizations.   The centuries may have ticked by but goal remains the same: a caliphate in the Middle East, the end of Israel and the capitulation of the West. Through death and destruction, they hope to instill fear. But we must remain unafraid. We must never sacrifice liberty for security but our response must be forceful, aggressive and clear.

We must move quickly to secure our border and monitor those who enter our country through legal means. But even that, as the events of San Bernardino make clear, will not be sufficient. Our law enforcement agencies do excellent work and deserve our endless appreciation, but their efforts will never be enough.

We must take steps to protect ourselves and our families.

Top Stories

Are the Syrian refugees mostly women and children?

We keep hearing from those who think we ought to open our hearts and our arms to Syrian refugees, that most Syrian refugees are women and children.  President Obama recently targeted Chris Christie's concern about accepting Syrian refugees by saying he was “worried about three-year-old orphans," saying, "that doesn’t sound very tough to me.”

Are most of the refugees women and orphans? Well, we don't know, but this report from BBC News, Syrian refugees in the US explained in graphics, would indicate that that is not so. It is not specific enough to tell us how many of them are children, but it does tell us that the majority of them are male. Also this tells us the demographics of those who have come so far, not those waiting to be admitted.

Age breakdown of Syrian refugee arrivals in the US
October 2011 to present

• 55.69% under 20 
• 30.73% age 21 to 40 
• 12.10% age 41 to 64 
•  1.48% over 64

There could be a lot of men of terrorist age in these age groups. This would be more useful it the break was "under 12" or "under 16" rather than "under 20." Young men 17, 18, 19, and 20 are prime age for making good terrorist. Young men age 17, 18, 19, and 20 are not children. They make good soldiers.

 Gender breakdown of Syrian refugee arrivals in the US October 2011 to present

• 47.05% female 
• 52.95% male

 I think one can conclude that it is inaccurate to say most of the refugees are women and children. 

Top Stories

Protecting Our Homeland and Eradicating ISIS

by Phil Roe, U. S. Representative, 1st District of Tennessee- Last Friday, radical Islamic

Phil Roe

terrorism sadly reared its ugly head in Paris, France, claiming the lives or more than 130 innocent people. My thoughts and prayers continue to be with the French people, especially the loved ones of the innocent victims who were wounded or killed. ISIS was quick to take responsibility for this horrific attack, which occurred just after President Obama claimed the terrorist organization was geographically contained in Iraq and Syria. ISIS may not be gaining any new ground in Iraq in Syria, but it’s clear their plan is to spread terror throughout the Western world at any and all cost. I strongly believe it’s time for all civilized nations to join together to eradicate this evil for the Earth. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said it best when he said that it was not enough to contain ISIS; our only option is to defeat them.

French authorities are still investigating Friday’s horrible attack, but they believe at least one of the terrorists entered France by posing as a Syrian refugee. I understand the situation in Syria is dire, but our first, most important duty is to keep American citizens safe. I’ve had concerns about the vetting process for Syrian refugees entering the country since the president announced the U.S. would accept 10,000 refugees starting in October, which is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3314, the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act. The bill prohibits the administration from allowing refugees into the United States until Congress passes a joint resolution allowing the federal government to resume admitting refugees. We cannot be certain each refugee entering the U.S. from Syria has been thoroughly and properly vetted, and we cannot risk opening ourselves up to another attack.

Additionally, I’ve signed a letter led by Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) to House leadership encouraging that the House move quickly to take up a solution to this serious issue. I am also pleased the House voted on a bill to pause the president’s plan to resettle Syrian refugees in the U.S. until we have more certainty about the vetting process. While I have doubts we can achieve the level of vetting necessary, I’m glad we’re taking steps to put the president’s plan on hold.

I was also pleased to see Tennessee leaders express similar concerns. Governor Haslam said on Monday that he was working with the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to share relevant information with public safety partners across the state. The governor also requested the federal government to suspend refugee placement in the state of Tennessee. Similarly, Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey and State House Speaker Beth Harwell also requested a halt to all refugee placements, which is what H.R. 3314 would do.

As I’ve said before, with matters related to war and peace, there are no easy answers. The Western world is at war with ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism, and we must do everything in our power to protect our citizens. The only way to fully eliminate the threat of ISIS is to defeat them, but our current strategy isn’t working. I sincerely hope the Commander-in-Chief will re-evaluate his current policy and present a clear, comprehensive plan to protect our homeland and eradicate ISIS.

Top Stories

Marsha Blackburn on the attacks in Paris and the possibility of similar attacks being carried out on U.S. soil.

Marsha Blackburn

by Marsha Blackburn - Our hearts are heavy over the loss of innocent lives as terror swept over Paris just one week ago. Understandably, the attacks in Paris have caused us all to be greatly concerned about the possibility of similar attacks being carried out on U.S. soil. Please know that the security of American citizens is our top priority.

With reports that one, and possibly more, of the Paris attackers posed as Syrian refugees before entering Europe we called for immediate suspension of similar resettlement efforts in the U.S. In addition to having the support of governors across the United States, just yesterday the House acted swiftly to pass H.R. 4308, the American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act. This legislation would require the FBI, Homeland Security Department and director of national intelligence to certify to Congress that any refugee seeking entry to the United States from Syria or Iraq is not a threat to the security of the United States. This legislation is a solid first step in strengthening our national security and protecting Americans from terrorists that pose as refugees. When we return after Thanksgiving, we will begin work on another package of legislation because more work must be done to ensure the safety of our country.

We know that Islamic State terrorists can just as easily pose as illegal aliens crossing our southern border as they can refugees fleeing a war torn country overseas. Congressional action to protect American citizens from Islamic State terrorists must acknowledge vulnerabilities in our overseas vetting process as well as our domestic security vulnerabilities. That’s why I’m working with my colleagues to temporarily suspend Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) resettlement funding for all refugees, as well as individuals not in a legitimate lawful status. Click here to learn more about the legislation I’m working on to address this issue for inclusion in an omnibus spending bill. If Congress funds ORR without such restrictions, Congress will be providing the President the funds to carry out his refugee resettlement efforts in full – both from countries overseas as well as through the resettlement of illegal aliens at the Southern border.

The President of the United States does still not understand that ISIS is not “contained” and we must kill the jihadists and destroy their networks before they kill us. Even more astonishing is just days after the attacks in Paris, President Obama transferred 5 Gitmo detainees to the United Arab Emirates. We all know that the President is trying to close down Gitmo and there have been talks that he would transfer detainees to the United States, but even the President’s own attorney general said he cannot and does not have the authority to move Gitmo detainees to the United States.

Top Stories

Senate State and House to hold joint committee hearings in early December on Refugee Resettlement

TN Senate Republican Caucus press release, NASVHILLE — Senate State and Local Government Committee Chairman Ken Yager (R-Kingston) and House State Government Committee Chairman Bob Ramsey (R-Maryville) said today that they are planning to conduct a joint hearing in early December to look at plans by the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to bring Syrian refugees to Tennessee. 

Reports indicate that Tennessee will likely receive some of the 10,000 Syrian refugees for resettlement under President Obama’s admissions plans. Governor Bill Haslam on Monday asked federal officials to suspend placements in Tennessee until states can become more of a partner in the vetting process.

“We treat the placement by the federal government of Syrian refugees in Tennessee as a serious matter,” said Senator Yager. “The attack in Paris serves as another wake-up call that ISIS is serious about embedding the enemy in our communities. This comes on the heels of the terrorist attack in our state this summer. While we want to act humanely in our efforts to help those who legitimately need assistance, we owe it to our citizens to place their safety as our highest priority.”

Yager and Ramsey said their agenda is incomplete but they plan to ask the state’s Department of Safety and Homeland Security and Tennessee Office for Refugees to provide testimony at the meeting. In 2008, Governor Phil Bredesen’s administration withdrew the State of Tennessee as the point of contact for the federal refugee resettlement program, instead opting to allow the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement to select a non-governmental organization to operate the program. That program, the Tennessee Office for Refugees, is now operated by Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Inc.

“We just have a lot of questions as reports have indicated Tennessee is set to receive Syrian refugees,” added Ramsey. “We want to get to the facts about how these refugees are handled and what kind of say-so the state has in the matter. Most of all we want to know how best to protect our citizens.”

###

Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey on Facebook writes:

I look forward to this hearing and I am confident there will be many bills brought this year to address this issue. It has long been clear that we need to secure our borders and do a better job vetting who we allow to enter this country. The atrocity in Paris merely brought added clarity to the issue. The Western world is at war with radical Islam. Period. The United States has throughout history been the most welcoming country to immigrants in the world. But we are a nation and a nation has borders. The state of Tennessee has an absolute right to do what is necessary within the law to protect our borders and our citizens. We need not apologize for it

Top Stories

TNGOP: Tennessee Democrats Show A Stunning Level of Ignorance with Latest Press Release

TN GOP press release, NASHVILLE, Tenn.--Tennessee Republican Party Chairman Ryan Haynes released the following statement after learning of the Tennessee Democratic Party's latest press release:

Tennessee Democrats show a stunning level of ignorance about the role of the states and the complex world we live in with the statement released today. Leaders can legitimately take pause about our immigration procedures in light of the fact we are still answering basic questions from the worst terrorist attack in France since World War II.

Moreover, questioning the Obama Administration's ability to handle the process of verifying the background of individuals trying to enter this country when it could not effectively roll out a healthcare website or when it labeled terrorists 'contained' just before they killed 129 innocents far from a battlefield is entirely appropriate. As the President stated, Democrats view the Paris attack as a 'setback.' We believe that is a gross understatement.

11/13 was a horrific tragedy that requires sober judgment, an examination of our military policies, and a clear-eyed strategy for dealing with the refugee crisis while ensuring our homeland is safe.

#

Mancini Statement on Republican Reaction to Refugees

TNDP press release, Nashville, Tenn. (November 17, 2015) – Tennessee Democratic Party Chair Mary Mancini has released the following statement to address Republican letter regarding refugees:

Governor Haslam’s letter calling for the federal government to halt placement of refugees in Tennessee is a mistake because it ignores our founding principles. It ignores that we offer hope to those fleeing from violence and tyranny. It ignores that we offer opportunity to those who will grasp it. It ignores that our strength lies in our welcoming those who seek a better life and that our power comes from generations of immigrants that came here to make a better life for their children. But it’s also a mistake because rather than reaching out to the federal government to have a substantive conversation about keeping our state safe, he and the Republicans in the State House and State Senate are offering us the same old politically-motivated, reactionary response that shows a startling lack of independent thought. It also shows that, once again, Republicans in Tennessee are more interested in playing politics than solving problems.

#

Haslam Releases Statement on Paris Attacks, Refugee Placement 

Tn Gov. Bill Haslam press release, Monday, November 16, 2015,  NASHVILLE - Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam today released the following statement regarding the terrorist attacks in Paris and the placement of Syrian refugees:

 As we mourn the loss of innocent life from Friday’s horrific and cowardly attacks in Paris, these terrible events have once again shown us that the threat of Islamic terrorism knows no boundaries and recognizes no borders. We as a state must do everything we can to provide Tennesseans the safe environment to live, work and raise a family that so many across the world seek. 

Since Friday the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security has been in contact with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and this administration has actively shared information with our local public safety partners across Tennessee.

We are currently working to get specifics from the U.S. Department of State on the status of any Syrian refugees currently slated to come to Tennessee. While screening, acceptance and placement is legally under the authority of the federal government, they have said in the past they would be open to cooperating with receiving states. Today I’m asking the federal government to suspend placements in Tennessee until states can become more of a partner in the vetting process.

Top Stories

Corker: More Paris-Like Attacks Coming

WASHINGTON, DefenseNews, Jan. 12, 2015 — A senior US senator on Monday issued a chilling prediction about new Islamic extremist group attacks like the ones in Paris last week that left 16 civilians dead.

"More is coming," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told reporters. "And I think we all know that." (link)

Top Stories

Thoughts on the code name "Geronimo" for Osama bin Laden

Some Native Americans and sensitive NPR-listener types and politically correct liberal moralizers and MSNBC fans are appalled at the U.S.military's use of the code name "Geronimo" for Osama bin Laden during the raid that killed the al-Qaida leader. After bin Laden was killed, the military sent a message back to the White House: "Geronimo EKIA." EKIA stand for "enemy killed in action." The use of the code name "Geronimo" may offend some, but I don't care. I am just glad they killed the evil bastard. God bless our military, the CIA, and the United States of America.

Top Stories

Thoughts on the extra-judicial execution of an unarmed man

Navy Seals and the CIA went into Pakistan, violating that nations sovereignty, and committed an extra-judicial execution of an unarmed man and I don't care. I am just glad they killed the evil bastard. God bless our military, the CIA, and the United States of America.

Top Stories

Is that a bomb in your pants or are you glad to see me?

Ever since 9-11 flying has been no fun. I remember the good old days, when you did not have to arrive an hour or two early, when your loved ones could walk you to the departure gate and be there at the gate to greet you when you returned, when there were no baggage searches or removing of your shoes or pat downs and you could carry your toothpaste, shampoo, aftershave, a pint of bourbon and a Swiss army knife.

Now, The Transportation Security Agency has rolled out new rules that require full-body scans, which can see through your clothes and leave nothing to the imagination. They can detect nipples and pubic hair and tell if a man is circumcised or not. If one does not want to be seen virtually nude by strangers one can instead opt for the body search. The new body search will not be a gentle pat down using the back of the hand but a real search with groping of the breast and the groin. There will be a good ole squeeze to see if what is there is all that should be there.

Now, I am not that modest of a guy. I am not going to mortified if someone sees me naked. And, if it was an attractive women doing the search I might even opt for the search instead of the scan, but I think it will be men groping men and women groping women. I will put up with the indignity of the nude scan because I really am not bothered by my own nudity and if some guy gropes my groin I am not going to freak out.

Many people are however going to be uncomfortable with this. I would bet that nude pics of celebrities will find their way to the Internet. With people being human and technology the way it is, I just do not believe all those nude pictures will be kept secure.

Will this make us more secure? Probably. Is it worth it? That is a judgment call. One should not just assume that because it will make us more secure, that it is worth it. There is a trade off between security and safety, and convenience. As individuals and as a society we have to decide the proper balance. Sometimes the trade off is not worth it.

I remember when the interstate speed limit, in an effort to save gas, was reduced to 55 miles per hour. I didn't like it. I could not drive 55. People objected and the government argued that the lower speed saved X number of lives. The number of lives saved by driving the slower speed limit was simply not worth it as far as I was concerned. Some people find that statement abhorrent but in reality we all accept a certain number of deaths for our own convenience.

You often hear people say about expenditures for safety or inconveniences for safety, "if it saves just one live it is worth it." I don't think anyone really believe that. It sounds nice, but people don't really believe it. Driving 55 saved lives. Driving 35 would have saved even more. Drive 5 MPH and we could end all highway deaths. What is the magic number at which the additional saved life is not worth it. For me it was 74MPH.

The new security measures will probably make us safer. It we all had full body cavity checks and all flew naked, and could take no baggage with us we would be safer still. Like I said, I am not going to be that bothered by these new regulations but there are still some modest people in this country who are going to be very offended. This is much like the speed limit. The higher level of security may not be worth the cost.

Top Stories

Surrendering Our Freedom in the Name of Security

NSA Sued On Wiretap Claim
PORTLAND, Ore., March 1, 2006
(AP) Civil rights attorneys have sued the National Security Agency, claiming it illegally wiretapped conversations between the leaders of an Islamic charity and two of its lawyers. The charity, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, had been accused of aiding Muslim militants, though charges were later dismissed.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Portland asks that electronic surveillance by the NSA be shut down, arguing the agency illegally wiretapped electronic communications between a local chapter of the charity and Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor, both attorneys in Washington, D.C. The complaint also seeks $1 million in damages for each of the plaintiffs. It alleges the NSA did not follow procedures required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and failed to obtain a court order authorizing electronic surveillance of the charity and its attorneys.

Dave Fidanque, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union chapter in Oregon, said the complaint is similar to other lawsuits the ACLU has filed recently. “The law couldn't be clearer on this issue,'” he said. “Not only is the NSA's spying program unauthorized by federal law, but we suspect that conversations of thousands of Americans have been subjected to illegal surveillance by the NSA.”

For the rest of the story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/01/national/printable1357628.shtml

I want our government to protect us from terrorist. It would be dereliction of duty, it they did not. But, I am fearful we are surrendering our freedom in the name of security and we can have both. Following the law is not burdensome. I am not ready to repeal the 4th Amendment for the sake of convenient surveillance.

"Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

Top Stories

Reagan appointed Judge Criticizes Warrantless Taps

Ex-Surveillance Judge Criticizes Warrantless Taps
By Michael J. Sniffen
Associated Press, Sunday, June 24, 2007; A07

A federal judge who used to authorize wiretaps in terrorism and espionage cases criticized yesterday President Bush's decision to order warrantless surveillance after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."We have to understand you can fight the war [on terrorism] and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left when you get through fighting the war," said Royce C. Lamberth, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington and a former presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, speaking at the American LibraryAssociation's annual convention.

Lamberth, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, expressed his opposition to letting the executive branch decide on its own which people to spy on in national security cases. The judge said it is proper for executive branch agencies to conduct such surveillance. "But what we have found in the history of our country is that you can't trust the executive," he said."The executive has to fight and win the war at all costs. But judges understand the war has to be fought, but it can't be at all costs,"Lamberth said at the Washington Convention Center. "We still have to preserve our civil liberties. Judges are the kinds of people you want to entrust that kind of judgment to more than the executive."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which Lamberth led from 1995 to 2002, meets in secret to review applications from the FBI, the National Security Agency and other agencies for warrants to wiretap or search the homes of people in the United States in connection with terrorism or espionage cases. Each application is signed by the attorney general. The court has approved more than 99 percent of such requests. Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to spy on calls between people in the United States and terrorism suspects abroad without warrants. The administration said that it needed to act more quickly than the surveillance court could and that the president has inherent authority under the Constitution to order warrantless domestic spying. After the program became public and was challenged in court, Bush placed it under court supervision this year. The president still asserts the power to order warrantless spying. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush believes in the program, which is classified because its purpose is to stop terrorists' planning. The program "is lawful, limited, safeguarded and -- most importantly -- effective in protecting American citizens from terrorist attacks," Fratto said. "It's specifically designed to be effective without infringing Americans' civil liberties."

Lamberth took issue with Bush's approach. He said the special court, established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, met the challenge of reacting quickly to the Sept.11 attacks. Lamberth was stuck in a carpool lane near the Pentagon when a hijacked jet slammed into it that day. With his car enveloped in smoke, he called marshals to help him get into the District. By the time officers reached him, Lambert said, "I had approved five FISA coverages [warrants] on my cellphone." He also approved other warrants at his home at 3 a.m. and on Saturdays."In a time of national emergency like that, changes have to be made in procedures. We changed a number of FISA procedures," Lamberth said.

Normal FISA warrant applications run 40 to 50 pages, but in the days after Sept. 11, the judge said, he issued orders "based on the oral briefing by the director of the FBI to the chief judge of the FISA court."Lamberth would not say whether he thought Bush's warrantless surveillance was constitutional. "Judges shouldn't give advisory opinions, and I was never asked to give an opinion in court," he said. But, he said, when the NSA briefed him about the program, he advised the agency to keep good records so that, if any applications came to the FISA court based on information obtained from the warrantless surveillance, the court could rule on the legality. He said he never got such an application.

for link, see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062301125_pf.html

Top Stories