Saturday, November 21, 2015

SAR #15325


The wheel keeps on turning.
After Saudi-financed Saudi terrorists attacked the US on 9/11, the US immediately attacked Afghanistan, and when the mountains turned out to be useless targets for impressing the folks back home, the US visited its frustration on Iraq. In much the same manner, France, being attacked by European terrorists with European passports, has turned to bombing Syria.
Closer to home, in that the eight terror suspects named so far are not refugees and had EU passports from countries whose citizens do not need visas to enter the US, American politicians have decided that US resettlement procedures for refugees are far too lax.
Refugees go through a rigorous investigation process that takes at least 18 months. Since 2011 the US has admitted about 2,500 refugees, more than half women and children. The Republicans in the House passed a meaningless bill telling Obama to institute unspecified but more strict screening measures. It is not needed and will not become law. However, it may give the guys on the far right something to shut down the government over.
But fear sells, so our politicians have been stoking the fire:
Jeb Bush (R, Wannabe) insists we should only be taking Syrian refugees who “prove they are Christian.”
Trump (R, Wannabe) “absolutely no choice” but to close mosques where “bad things are happening.” Wants to compile a massive database of all Muslims and to make them carry security ID and to wear a Star of David green crescent on their clothing.
Marco Rubio (Sen, R-Fla., Wannabe) said that "we won't be able to take more refugees" in the wake of the Paris terror attacks, without feeling it necessary to explain why.
John Kaish (R, Gov OH, Wannabe) wants a new federal agency tasked with enforcing “core Judeo-Christian, Western values”.
Chris Christie (R, Gov. NJ. Wannabe) cannot believe the Paris attackers were not Syrian refugees, says that the United States should not admit any refugees from the Syrian civil war — not even "orphans under age 5."
Ted Cruz (R Sen, TX, Wannabe) says the attacks in Paris prove that Obama “does not wish to defend” the United States.
Mike Huckabee (R, Wannabe) claims that the terror attacks prove that Obama will make us all memorize the Koran.
Ben Carson (R, Wannabe) says that Syrian refugees are like “a rabid dog running around your neighborhood”.
Rick Snyder (R, Gov MI ) wants to ban refugees because... well, just because the current 18 to 24 month vetting period is too lax. Note that governors cannot tell the federal government what to do, not even about refugee resettlement.
Mike Pence (R, Gov. IN) could not articulate the reason(s) he rejected a Syrian refugee family that was quickly accepted by Connecticut.
Brian Babin (R-TX) sponsored a bill to defund the US resettlement program until Obama agrees to limit refuges to practicing Christians because Mary and Joseph didn't have suicide vests.
Glen Casada (TN GOP House Leader) wants the National Guard (or a group of concerned citizens, engaging in “civil disobedience”) to round up Syrian refugees and march them down a Trail of Tears to the ICE offices in New Orleans. Or put them in concentration camps.
Thus the republicans who have declared for this ride in the clown car are certifiably not competent to be The Occupant and hose making wanna-run noises for next time all need putting down, too.
Over on the Dem side:
Hillary Clinton (D, Wannabe) would give US troops “greater flexibility” to embed with Kurds and moderate Sunnis in Syria, establish no-fly zones in Syria, had hire more Arabic speakers. She seems intent on creating more refugees.
Bernie Sanders doesn't seem to have thought a handful of Syrian refugees, fully vetted and hand picked for settlement were going to burn down great public buildings right away. He has some idea about social equity, yada, yada... which doesn't sell aircraft nor aircraft carriers and is thus a non starter
Sisyphus: Obama's biggest terrorism struggle will be how, in the face of the above idiocy, to formulate a reasonable and effective strategy to deal with an eventual terrorist attack on the US that will not make fit the terrorists playbook and generate more recruits to carry out more terrorist attacks. If he is so inclined, and he may be.

9 comments:

McMike said...

The list fairly speaks for itself. I imagine it printed out and tacked up on the walls of Islamic terrorists around the globe - proof positive of their wild success - evidence that the USA has been driven to stampede right off a cliff, committing mass suicide at the prodding of a mere handful of hunters banging sticks in the brush.

Charles Kingsley Michaelson, III said...

Well, I had more hoped that the list would be posted at polling places... but the response would probably not be what I wanted.

Jesse said...


I have linked to this directly and I thank you for it.

'Jesse'

Anonymous said...

Those home-grown terrorists from France and Belgium weren't Franks, Flemish, or Walloons, but former Muslim immigrants. No one has a right to immigrate to the US and we have every right to decide who enters our country. Muslim immigrants are like oncogenes: the majority may never cause cancer, but if activated they will. It may not happen right away, but 10 or 20 years down the road. Why seed society with potential terrorists? Why take the chance?

Charles Kingsley Michaelson, III said...

"No one has a right to immigrate to the US and we have every right to decide who enters our country." Wow. Just wow.

we might have been better off if your ancestors had been turned away, too. Eh?

Anonymous said...

My ancestors came here to get the hell away their homelands and embraced becoming Americans. That is not longer the case, as assimilation has almost become a dirty word.

But, let's leave aside your ad hominem. Do you think non-citizens have a right to emigrate to the US? Does the US have a right, and obligation, to decide who it lets into the country?

Anonymous said...

Pointing out hypocracy isn't an ad hominem, unless you consider self-abuse a form of ad hominem. take a class in rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

I would suggest that you take a class in both rhetoric and spelling. It was certainly an ad hominem and there is no hypocrisy in noting that immigration to the US is not a right, regardless of how one's forebearers arrived here.

Again, I'll pose the quetion: do foreigners have a right to emigrate to the US? To the extent that we allow immigration, don't we have the right to set criteria for who is allowd to enter? Not tough questions.

Charles Kingsley Michaelson, III said...

I generally take the same approach to spelling that the French newspapers of my youth did - around here it is generally assumed that my readers are smart enough to know a misspelling when they see one and smart enough to know it was inadvertent.

As for questions one and two - somehow I feel you are Lucy setting up the football, but Yes, we (profess, pretend to believe...) extend the "right" of immigration. More importantly, we extend the hand of welcome to refugees - a different thing than a migrant. And yes to we have the right to set immigration criteria - but race, religion, country of birth, sexual orientation would not be among the criteria we should use as screening points.

Enough.