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.
8 comments:
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.
Well, I had more hoped that the list would be posted at polling places... but the response would probably not be what I wanted.
I have linked to this directly and I thank you for it.
'Jesse'
"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?
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?
Pointing out hypocracy isn't an ad hominem, unless you consider self-abuse a form of ad hominem. take a class in rhetoric.
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.
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.
Post a Comment