My previous post – Illegal Swine Flu – illustrates how wrong it is for someone: especially someone  in a leadership position; to write inflammatory statements or innuendos without first performing a serious fact check. In the business and legal worlds that would be known as Due Diligence. For those who are unsure of the definition, here’s one from Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary.

1 : the care that a reasonable person exercises under the circumstances to avoid harm to other persons or their property

Most legal definitions of due diligence say something like “due diligence is a measure of prudence, activity, or assiduity, as is properly to be expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable and prudent person under the particular circumstances; not measured by any absolute standard but depends on the relative facts of the special case.”

Okay okay – I saw the term “reasonable person”, and I don’t have a response for you. I’m going to take a giant leap with my eyes and ears firmly shut and say that we should expect our elected leaders to be reasonable and prudent persons. I know – please – just humor me on this one. And I did say “we should”, so there. I have been reading The Code so much that I too have learned how to double-talk.

To begin this post, read the first 3 paragraphs of my companion post: Illegal Swine Flu, copied below in italics. If you’ve already read that part in the former post and don’t want to hear it again just skip the following 3 paragraphs.

Have you ever had a conversation with someone and they say something so incredibly asinine that you are literally stunned? You know – at first your brain goes through a system check to be sure your ears are working correctly.  You are hesitant to ask the person to repeat the statement, because you are afraid that you will hear the same thing again, and your entire nervous system is still trying to recover from the original shock. Then your eyes and brain go into overdrive: searching all the visual clues to see if the person was being facetious and you missed it. Then, a feeling of “Oh My God” washes over you as you realize that THEY ARE SERIOUS – and too dumb (and/or arrogant and self-righteous) to know how ignorant they sound.

Your poor brain searches for a response. You stand there in slack-jawed amazement as your mind creates, then discards, potential replies. You can’t believe you actually heard that. Your emotional fight-or-flight defense kicks in: should you respond or just let it go (and run away!). Well, normally, if it doesn’t matter to anyone, you can just say something like “Uh” and get the heck away. But when the statement is so incredibly idiotic, hurtful, and indefensible you just can’t keep quiet. At least that’s the way I am.

Lately I have read some statements made in a social networking site that fit this description. Thank God I didn’t hear this stuff coming out of this person’s mouth, as I’m afraid my ears would have caught my hair on fire. These were some statements I read weeks ago that were so appalling  that I closed the site, waited several days, then reread the entries. I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me. Then, I thought that maybe I was seeing this out of context, so I read a few prior statements. But NOooo, there they were, in black  and white, in all their glorious stupidity.

So here’s the next statement that got my attention:

WhiteHeard that terrorist suspect who apparently wanted to blow up downtown Dallas was illegally in the country.10:27 AM Sep 25th from web”


OKaaaay: now, if you have not been following Farmers Branch politics you may not recognize this as yet another poorly disguised  juvenile slam at illegal immigrants. So, let’s investigate a few facts so that we can put this in the proper perspective.

  1. Okay, okay, stop shouting: I KNOW: technically, Hosam Maher Hussein Smadi was in the country illegally. To be precise, he entered the United States with a student visa which he overstayed. The same thing is true about the 9-11 terrorists. Do you understand the difference: they came here legally, but the government didn’t bother to say anything when they overstayed. Okay? So, technically, he was here past his legal deadline, but he was welcomed into the country with open arms.
  2. At around the same time Mr. Smadi was arrested there was a similar conspiracy in North Carolina, with 8 men involved who were all UNITED STATES CITIZENS. Born and raised in the good ole’ USA. That’s their nicely maintained home in my previous post.
  3. Meanwhile, yet another UNITED STATES CITIZEN was arrested in Illinois, same charge. He was trying to emulate American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh.
  4. Not one of these people was from Mexico. Not one.
  5. 40% of all illegals are kids who came here on student or work visas and forgot to return home.
  6. Kids who come here on student visas are not poor. They have to demonstrate fiduciary responsibility before they are even allowed a Student Visa. Their families are pretty well-off and they are required to prove it. Those kids did not come here to find a better life for their families, to work, or to escape poverty and oppression. And yes, by kids I mean anyone under 35. I’m old enough to have earned that right.
  7. The one thing these kids do have in common is that they are religious fanatics. That’s right: Religious Fanatics. They embrace a very strict religion that promotes itself as a comprehensive solution to every public and private question of importance. And their goal is to force everyone else to abide by their rules. Or else. You could say that they believe their god wants them to do this for our own Health, Safety, and Welfare.
  8. Here’s a bit more about this type of religious fervor. I’ve replaced the specific word with a more general to prevent bias, and to demonstrate how this statement can be applied to many religions:

Contrary to popular perception, <religious terrorism> is not about forced conversions. It certainly may have filled that role very early on, when <that religion> was first expanding, but that hasn’t been the case for a very long time. It is instead a political goal: bringing as much of the world under the control of <that religion> as is possible. This then allows for the fulfillment of two other goals: promoting <that religion> among non-<believers> and establishing a just political and social order (only possible under <that religion>).

Hmmmm – with these FACTS in mind, it seems to me that if you wanted to make a broad accusatory statement concerning undesirable activity in our country it would be something to the effect that we should  keep church and state matters separate, and assiduously avoid overloading our leadership with followers of only one religion. Zealots who believe that they know how you and I should live, so force their own narrow-minded opinions on everyone else while self-righteously maintaining they are doing it to protect our own Health, Safety and Welfare are our own brand of domestic misery.

Tactics of oppression, selective code enforcement and retribution are forms of urban terrorism. And if we stand by and let it happen “the terrorists will win”. Is that how we want to live?