One of the hallmarks of what it means to be conservative, is fiscal responsibility, that is, getting the most bang for the publics buck. We do indeed hear a lot of noise along those lines, decrying inefficiency in Government departments, programs that don't deliver the goods, corruption and waste, etc., and those are all true concerns. It's just common sense isn't it, wanting our tax dollars to actually do something?

Here's where this principle goes far awry - terrorism. Is terrorism a legitimate concern? Yep, it HAS to be - but at what priority? At what ratio to other concerns? Again, common sense should be a good guide, even if strict conservative principles are not. However, where terrorism is concerned, neither common sense NOR conservative principles are applied. Look at this:
http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/injury-facts-chart.aspx

The odds of being killed by a terrorist in the USA are 1:20,000,000. For every 20 million citizens, one may be killed by a terrorist. The odds of being hit by lightning are higher at 1:280,000, of course there's absolutely nothing the Gov. can do about those odds. The odds of being killed by a firearm are 1:358. For every 358 citizens, one may be killed by a firearm, wielded by a criminal, cop, family member, or by one's own self. The odds of dying from cancer are 1:7. Why then, are we spending so much time, effort, energy and treasure on something far less likely to happen to us, than getting hit by lightning?

We must remain vigilant against foreign operatives entering our country to do us harm. No one can dispute that, however, the fact that the odds remain incredibly low means that what we're ALREADY doing is extremely effective - and doesn't need fixing. I wonder what our cancer odds would be, if we spent as much time and money on THAT, as we do on National Security, ICE, Border patrol, DHS, etc.? Why don't we find out?

The reason why political types like to spend so much rhetoric and time on relatively low priority issues - is because you can't prove a negative. In other words, we ramp up our National security efforts and no terrorist attack happens and we call that a job well done - even though the current efforts achieved the same result. Could we prove that the additional effort had any effect? No, because that would be trying to prove a negative, i.e., there wasn't a high risk to begin with. Using our precious resources judiciously and efficiently, precludes spending extra on a low priority threat, redirecting those resources to higher priority threats, as illustrated in the preceding graph.

Our singular focus on terrorism is highly effective for political purposes, but an extremely poor use of our resources, a complete abrogation of conservative principles and an abandonment of common f&cking sense. It is becoming increasingly obvious that our "conservative" representatives are far less cognizant of, or faithful to, conservative principle and far more responsive to the principle of "ME", where THEIR aspirations , dreams and needs far outweigh those of anyone else, including those of - we, the people.

One of the hallmarks of what it means to be conservative, is fiscal responsibility, that is, getting the most bang for the publics buck. We do indeed hear a lot of noise along those lines, decrying inefficiency in Government departments, programs that don't deliver the goods, corruption and waste, etc., and those are all true concerns. It's just common sense isn't it, wanting our tax dollars to actually do something?

Here's where this principle goes far awry - terrorism. Is terrorism a legitimate concern? Yep, it HAS to be - but at what priority? At what ratio to other concerns? Again, common sense should be a good guide, even if strict conservative principles are not. However, where terrorism is concerned, neither common sense NOR conservative principles are applied. Look at this:
http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/injury-facts-chart.aspx

The odds of being killed by a terrorist in the USA are 1:20,000,000. For every 20 million citizens, one may be killed by a terrorist. The odds of being hit by lightning are higher at 1:280,000, of course there's absolutely nothing the Gov. can do about those odds. The odds of being killed by a firearm are 1:358. For every 358 citizens, one may be killed by a firearm, wielded by a criminal, cop, family member, or by one's own self. The odds of dying from cancer are 1:7. Why then, are we spending so much time, effort, energy and treasure on something far less likely to happen to us, than getting hit by lightning?

We must remain vigilant against foreign operatives entering our country to do us harm. No one can dispute that, however, the fact that the odds remain incredibly low means that what we're ALREADY doing is extremely effective - and doesn't need fixing. I wonder what our cancer odds would be, if we spent as much time and money on THAT, as we do on National Security, ICE, Border patrol, DHS, etc.? Why don't we find out?

The reason why political types like to spend so much rhetoric and time on relatively low priority issues - is because you can't prove a negative. In other words, we ramp up our National security efforts and no terrorist attack happens and we call that a job well done - even though the current efforts achieved the same result. Could we prove that the additional effort had any effect? No, because that would be trying to prove a negative, i.e., there wasn't a high risk to begin with. Using our precious resources judiciously and efficiently, precludes spending extra on a low priority threat, redirecting those resources to higher priority threats, as illustrated in the preceding graph.

Our singular focus on terrorism is highly effective for political purposes, but an extremely poor use of our resources, a complete abrogation of conservative principles and an abandonment of common f&cking sense. It is becoming increasingly obvious that our "conservative" representatives are far less cognizant of, or faithful to, conservative principle and far more responsive to the principle of "ME", where THEIR aspirations , dreams and needs far outweigh those of anyone else, including those of - we, the people.

One of the hallmarks of what it means to be conservative, is fiscal responsibility, that is, getting the most bang for the publics buck. We do indeed hear a lot of noise along those lines, decrying inefficiency in Government departments, programs that don't deliver the goods, corruption and waste, etc., and those are all true concerns. It's just common sense isn't it, wanting our tax dollars to actually do something?

Here's where this principle goes far awry - terrorism. Is terrorism a legitimate concern? Yep, it HAS to be - but at what priority? At what ratio to other concerns? Again, common sense should be a good guide, even if strict conservative principles are not. However, where terrorism is concerned, neither common sense NOR conservative principles are applied. Look at this:
http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/injury-facts-chart.aspx

The odds of being killed by a terrorist in the USA are 1:20,000,000. For every 20 million citizens, one may be killed by a terrorist. The odds of being hit by lightning are higher at 1:280,000, of course there's absolutely nothing the Gov. can do about those odds. The odds of being killed by a firearm are 1:358. For every 358 citizens, one may be killed by a firearm, wielded by a criminal, cop, family member, or by one's own self. The odds of dying from cancer are 1:7. Why then, are we spending so much time, effort, energy and treasure on something far less likely to happen to us, than getting hit by lightning?

We must remain vigilant against foreign operatives entering our country to do us harm. No one can dispute that, however, the fact that the odds remain incredibly low means that what we're ALREADY doing is extremely effective - and doesn't need fixing. I wonder what our cancer odds would be, if we spent as much time and money on THAT, as we do on National Security, ICE, Border patrol, DHS, etc.? Why don't we find out?

The reason why political types like to spend so much rhetoric and time on relatively low priority issues - is because you can't prove a negative. In other words, we ramp up our National security efforts and no terrorist attack happens and we call that a job well done - even though the current efforts achieved the same result. Could we prove that the additional effort had any effect? No, because that would be trying to prove a negative, i.e., there wasn't a high risk to begin with. Using our precious resources judiciously and efficiently, precludes spending extra on a low priority threat, redirecting those resources to higher priority threats, as illustrated in the preceding graph.

Our singular focus on terrorism is highly effective for political purposes, but an extremely poor use of our resources, a complete abrogation of conservative principles and an abandonment of common f&cking sense. It is becoming increasingly obvious that our "conservative" representatives are far less cognizant of, or faithful to, conservative principle and far more responsive to the principle of "ME", where THEIR aspirations , dreams and needs far outweigh those of anyone else, including those of - we, the people.

One of the hallmarks of what it means to be conservative, is fiscal responsibility, that is, getting the most bang for the publics buck. We do indeed hear a lot of noise along those lines,

Democrats along with the RINOS inefficiency in Government departments, programs that don't deliver the goods, corruption and waste, etc., and those are all true concerns. It's just common sense isn't it, wanting our tax dollars to actually do something?

All the while the Democrats are misleading and manipulating the tax payers of this nation all the while telling everyone that it's going according to plans and everything is OK, trust us they say.
Here's where this principle goes far awry - terrorism. Is terrorism a legitimate concern? Yep, it HAS to be - but at what priority?

The priority has got to be a halt, until a resolve can be found or at least a temporary resolve

At what ratio to other concerns?

No ratio, immediate action until a resolve or temp resolve can be found. Again, common sense should be a good guide, even if strict LIBERAL principles are not.

However, where terrorism is concerned, neither common sense NOR LIBERAL principles are applied. Look at this:
http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/injury-facts-chart.aspx

The odds of being killed by a terrorist in the USA are 1:20,000,000. For every 20 million citizens, one may be killed by a terrorist. The odds of being hit by lightning are higher at 1:280,000, of course there's absolutely nothing the Gov. can do about those odds. The odds of being killed by a firearm are 1:358. For every 358 citizens, one may be killed by a firearm, wielded by a criminal, cop, family member, or by one's own self. The odds of dying from cancer are 1:7. Why then, are we spending so much time, effort, energy and treasure on something far less likely to happen to us, than getting hit by lightning?

The last paragraph is misleading to the point that, the compilations have been taken over decades through misuse and legal abuse of the system. What we’re talking here is, a second step prevention of terrorism. Homeland security was the first. The Democrats are trying to make it all political, to re-achieve the control they lost.

The Democrat/progressives and rinos have put laws on the books, it appears, the laws are just stagnant in reality and not enforced as they should. Now, the medical issue is separate from the problems of emigration, weapons, automobiles, Yes, they are problems, but not to be used in this context, it’s a skewed LIBERAL biased take.

So, the progressives like all their failed policies throwing massive amounts of resources at it, they want everyone to believe they have it under control, to keep trusting until your constitutional rights evaporate, it'll happen before you feel it.

We must remain vigilant against foreign operatives entering our country to do us harm. No one can dispute that, however, the fact that the odds remain incredibly low means that what we're ALREADY doing is extremely effective - and doesn't need fixing. I wonder what our cancer odds would be, if we spent as much time and money on THAT, as we do on National Security, ICE, Border patrol, DHS, etc.? Why don't we find out?

If this past administration would have used just part of the $ 10 Trillion, many things could have been accomplished for the welfare of this nation. But the Democrat priority was NOT for the bettermentIt was for their self serving progressive party politicians.

The reason why political types like to spend so much rhetoric and time on relatively low priority issues - is because you can't prove a negative. In other words, we ramp up our National security efforts and no terrorist attack happens and we call that a job well done - even though the current efforts achieved the same result. Could we prove that the additional effort had any effect? No, because that would be trying to prove a negative, i.e., there wasn't a high risk to begin with. Using our precious resources judiciously and efficiently, precludes spending extra on a low priority threat, redirecting those resources to higher priority threats, as illustrated in the preceding graph.

Basically that’s exactly what the progressives are doing, no matter what directives the President makes, he will be chastised by the progressives. The progressives, not doing anything because indicators are showing low rates is waiting for disaster before initiating poor preventatives. When that fails, they'll just throw more resources at hoping it'll disappear.

Our singular focus on terrorism is highly effective for political purposes.

The purposes taking place by the Democrats is to open borders for anyone without the proper vetting to be done, if a number of terrorists do come in and cause mayhem and destruction to limb and property, so be it, they’ll look at a resolve, possibly. but an extremely poor use of our resources, a complete abrogation of this Nations principles and an abandonment of common f&cking sense by the progressives. It is becoming increasingly obvious that our "progressive" representatives are far less cognizant of, or faithful to, our nations principle and far more responsive to the principle of "ME", where THEIR aspirations , dreams and needs far outweigh those of anyone else, including those of - we, the people.

Just a question or two.... in your mind, are acts of terrorism on our soil acceptable to you? Regardless if one or a thousand lives are lost, do you think it is acceptable? If so, what if the person murdered was your daughter, son, mother, father....? Would it still be alright with you? I think most Americans believe that our people are worth protecting. You are aware that there are several countries that hold your belief system, of course you may need to stock up on sun screen. Perhaps you would be that lucky person to keep their head until you perish from old age.

The PROGRESSIVES inefficiency in Government departments, programs that don't deliver the goods, corruption and waste, etc., and those are concerns. It's just common sense, wanting our tax dollars to actually do something. If only the progressives would quite spending to keep us out of debt.

Here's where the Progressives go far awry - terrorism. Is terrorism a legitimate concern? Yep, it HAS to be - but at what priority? . The priority should #1, vetting anyone who is from the terrorist areas that want to enter. At what ratio to other concerns? No ratio, just vet who comes into this nation from known terrorist countries, not too hard to understand. Again, common sense should be a good guide if only the progressives would use it. Liberal principles are not. However, where terrorism is concerned, neither common sense NOR Liberal principles are applied. Look at this:
http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/injury-facts-chart.asp

You can't use charts with the cancer rates, etc. nor weapons because the facts are skewed, skewed because the laws weren't enforced because of liberal policies.

We must remain vigilant against foreign operatives entering our country to do us harm. No one can dispute that, however, the fact that the odds remain incredibly low means that what we're ALREADY doing is extremely effective - and doesn't need fixing. The idea here is, wait until the odds become unbearable to life and infrastructure, then do something or capitulate.

I wonder what our cancer odds would be, if we spent as much time and money on THAT, as we do on National Security, ICE, Border patrol, DHS, etc.? Why don't we find out?
Look, the progressives spent $10 TRILLION dollars and what these entities cost is a pittance NS, ICE,DHS. So, why didn't the progressives put some of that $10 trillion towards cancer?

It is becoming increasingly obvious that our “ LIBERAL” representatives are far less cognizant of, or faithful to, conservative principle and far more responsive to the principle of "ME", where THEIR aspirations , dreams and needs far outweigh those of anyone else, including those of - we, the people.

One of the hallmarks of what it means to be conservative, is fiscal responsibility, that is, getting the most bang for the publics buck. We do indeed hear a lot of noise along those lines, decrying inefficiency in Government departments, programs that don't deliver the goods, corruption and waste, etc., and those are all true concerns. It's just common sense isn't it, wanting our tax dollars to actually do something?

Here's where this principle goes far awry - terrorism. Is terrorism a legitimate concern? Yep, it HAS to be - but at what priority? At what ratio to other concerns? Again, common sense should be a good guide, even if strict conservative principles are not. However, where terrorism is concerned, neither common sense NOR conservative principles are applied. Look at this:
http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/injury-facts-chart.aspx

The odds of being killed by a terrorist in the USA are 1:20,000,000. For every 20 million citizens, one may be killed by a terrorist. The odds of being hit by lightning are higher at 1:280,000, of course there's absolutely nothing the Gov. can do about those odds. The odds of being killed by a firearm are 1:358. For every 358 citizens, one may be killed by a firearm, wielded by a criminal, cop, family member, or by one's own self. The odds of dying from cancer are 1:7. Why then, are we spending so much time, effort, energy and treasure on something far less likely to happen to us, than getting hit by lightning?

We must remain vigilant against foreign operatives entering our country to do us harm. No one can dispute that, however, the fact that the odds remain incredibly low means that what we're ALREADY doing is extremely effective - and doesn't need fixing. I wonder what our cancer odds would be, if we spent as much time and money on THAT, as we do on National Security, ICE, Border patrol, DHS, etc.? Why don't we find out?

The reason why political types like to spend so much rhetoric and time on relatively low priority issues - is because you can't prove a negative. In other words, we ramp up our National security efforts and no terrorist attack happens and we call that a job well done - even though the current efforts achieved the same result. Could we prove that the additional effort had any effect? No, because that would be trying to prove a negative, i.e., there wasn't a high risk to begin with. Using our precious resources judiciously and efficiently, precludes spending extra on a low priority threat, redirecting those resources to higher priority threats, as illustrated in the preceding graph.

Our singular focus on terrorism is highly effective for political purposes, but an extremely poor use of our resources, a complete abrogation of conservative principles and an abandonment of common f&cking sense. It is becoming increasingly obvious that our "conservative" representatives are far less cognizant of, or faithful to, conservative principle and far more responsive to the principle of "ME", where THEIR aspirations , dreams and needs far outweigh those of anyone else, including those of - we, the people.

The PROGRESSIVES inefficiency in Government departments, programs that don't deliver the goods, corruption and waste, etc., and those are concerns. It's just common sense, wanting our tax dollars to actually do something. If only the progressives would quite spending to keep us out of debt.

Here's where the Progressives go far awry - terrorism. Is terrorism a legitimate concern? Yep, it HAS to be - but at what priority? . The priority should #1, vetting anyone who is from the terrorist areas that want to enter. At what ratio to other concerns? No ratio, just vet who comes into this nation from known terrorist countries, not too hard to understand. Again, common sense should be a good guide if only the progressives would use it. Liberal principles are not. However, where terrorism is concerned, neither common sense NOR Liberal principles are applied. Look at this:
http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/injury-facts-chart.asp

You can't use charts with the cancer rates, etc. nor weapons because the facts are skewed, skewed because the laws weren't enforced because of liberal policies.

We must remain vigilant against foreign operatives entering our country to do us harm. No one can dispute that, however, the fact that the odds remain incredibly low means that what we're ALREADY doing is extremely effective - and doesn't need fixing. The idea here is, wait until the odds become unbearable to life and infrastructure, then do something or capitulate.

I wonder what our cancer odds would be, if we spent as much time and money on THAT, as we do on National Security, ICE, Border patrol, DHS, etc.? Why don't we find out?
Look, the progressives spent $10 TRILLION dollars and what these entities cost is a pittance NS, ICE,DHS. So, why didn't the progressives put some of that $10 trillion towards cancer?

It is becoming increasingly obvious that our “ LIBERAL” representatives are far less cognizant of, or faithful to, conservative principle and far more responsive to the principle of "ME", where THEIR aspirations , dreams and needs far outweigh those of anyone else, including those of - we, the people.

One of the hallmarks of what it means to be conservative, is fiscal responsibility, that is, getting the most bang for the publics buck. We do indeed hear a lot of noise along those lines, decrying inefficiency in Government departments, programs that don't deliver the goods, corruption and waste, etc., and those are all true concerns. It's just common sense isn't it, wanting our tax dollars to actually do something?

Here's where this principle goes far awry - terrorism. Is terrorism a legitimate concern? Yep, it HAS to be - but at what priority? At what ratio to other concerns? Again, common sense should be a good guide, even if strict conservative principles are not. However, where terrorism is concerned, neither common sense NOR conservative principles are applied. Look at this:
http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/injury-facts-chart.aspx

The odds of being killed by a terrorist in the USA are 1:20,000,000. For every 20 million citizens, one may be killed by a terrorist. The odds of being hit by lightning are higher at 1:280,000, of course there's absolutely nothing the Gov. can do about those odds. The odds of being killed by a firearm are 1:358. For every 358 citizens, one may be killed by a firearm, wielded by a criminal, cop, family member, or by one's own self. The odds of dying from cancer are 1:7. Why then, are we spending so much time, effort, energy and treasure on something far less likely to happen to us, than getting hit by lightning?

We must remain vigilant against foreign operatives entering our country to do us harm. No one can dispute that, however, the fact that the odds remain incredibly low means that what we're ALREADY doing is extremely effective - and doesn't need fixing. I wonder what our cancer odds would be, if we spent as much time and money on THAT, as we do on National Security, ICE, Border patrol, DHS, etc.? Why don't we find out?

The reason why political types like to spend so much rhetoric and time on relatively low priority issues - is because you can't prove a negative. In other words, we ramp up our National security efforts and no terrorist attack happens and we call that a job well done - even though the current efforts achieved the same result. Could we prove that the additional effort had any effect? No, because that would be trying to prove a negative, i.e., there wasn't a high risk to begin with. Using our precious resources judiciously and efficiently, precludes spending extra on a low priority threat, redirecting those resources to higher priority threats, as illustrated in the preceding graph.

Our singular focus on terrorism is highly effective for political purposes, but an extremely poor use of our resources, a complete abrogation of conservative principles and an abandonment of common f&cking sense. It is becoming increasingly obvious that our "conservative" representatives are far less cognizant of, or faithful to, conservative principle and far more responsive to the principle of "ME", where THEIR aspirations , dreams and needs far outweigh those of anyone else, including those of - we, the people.