Where should the majority of new ownership housing be located for new UCD Faculty and Staff? (Select One)

  • Davis (42%, 361 Votes)
  • UC Davis Campus (31%, 270 Votes)
  • Woodland (Spring Lake) (25%, 217 Votes)
  • Elsewhere (2%, 21 Votes)

Total Voters: 869

Loading ... Loading ...

Proud of My Fellow Americans

NPR-photo of Omar
NPR-photo of Omar
NPR-photo of Omar

By Tia Will

I do not often wave, or symbolically wrap myself in the flag. I am an unapologetic “one worlder”. I feel that artificially constructed “in groups” whether tribes, or countries or religions, or any other means by which people separate themselves into them vs us, are responsible for most of the hatred, violence and harm in our world.

So what is it that has aroused my pride in my fellow countrymen?

Recently, but prior to the Paris attacks, I heard a story on NPR which embodies just why I love America and why I continue to believe in the “American Dream” as I envision it. The story was “Among the lucky few: Syrian family rebuilds in ‘American Heartland by Ari Shapiro. My “American Dream” is not based on each generation materially “doing better than the preceding”. It is about each American generation acting more humanely than that which preceded it.

This is the story of one Syrian family and their trials as they were forced to flee their homes, lived for two years in a refugee camp in Jordan, and ultimately managed to qualify for relocation to the United States. In September, they arrived in the seemingly unlikely refuge city of Toledo, Ohio. But more than the story of this one family, it is the story of those who I consider true heroes.

This is the story of a group called Water for Ishmael. It is a story of volunteers who offer free English lessons to adults while their children are being cared for by other volunteers in a local church. It is about an engineer, one of a group of volunteers who call themselves the “free loaders”, who between his hours of work, loads donated furniture and other supplies to deliver them for free. It is about those who supply food, clothing, bedding and other necessities until the refugees have a chance to get on their own feet in their new homes. After all, these are people, just like those who were attacked in Paris, who are fleeing this same kind of violence in their homeland every day.

It is also the story of another volunteer group, US Together, coordinated by a Syrian American, Corine Dehabey. She is the only paid employee. Ms. Dhabey’s goup is funded by HIAS which stands for “Hebrew Immigrant Aide Society, an organization originally founded over 100 years ago to help Jewish refugees resettle.

As quoted in the story Ms. Dehabey states, “That’s real humanity. … You want to help everybody, you put religion on the side. That’s it, we’re human before religion was formed,” Dehabey says about this historically Jewish group taking mostly donations from Christian churches to help mostly Muslim immigrants. “So that’s what makes the United States unique because everybody comes together to help this person.”

While the numbers of those Syrians being resettled in the United States is still very small compared to the numbers being relocated in Europe, it is heartening to see that President Obama is belatedly increasing the number accepted into the US and hopefully will continue to do so. For what is our basis as a nation if not as a refuge for those who are persecuted and threatened in their own lands? The actions of these everyday heroes stands in stark contrast to those who want to turn away from our borders desperate asylum seekers without so much as attempting to validate their claims. My heart felt thanks to these volunteers who represent us all so well by their willingness to look beyond fears and prejudices and extend help to those in need regardless of their language, nationality, or religion. This is an example of America at its finest and will hopefully serve as a model for other communities across our country.

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

388 thoughts on “Proud of My Fellow Americans”

  1. Barack Palin

     it is heartening to see that President Obama is belatedly increasing the number accepted into the US and hopefully will continue to do so

    After the Paris killings it’s time to rethink this.  We have no way of truly vetting out those who have intentions to do us harm.

      1. Barack Palin

        I watched video recently showing a huge wave of Syrian refugees walking by.  The caption on the video asked what is odd about this group of refugees.  The answer was there were no women and children, it was all younger healthy looking men.  Not quite the downtrodden forlorn families that one would believe, but highly possible a group with many terrorist implants.  We don’t need to be importing future terrorists into our country.  Some other Arab countries are refusing refugees for just that reason.

        1. PhilColeman

          Point taken, humbly. I failed to notice that, being overwhelmed by the mass of humanity alone and didn’t get a prompt from the narrator.

          If you’re female, you must surely be aware of the gender distinction within the Moslem faith. If you’re not, you are now. There lies at least part of the answer to your point of gender disparity.

        2. Tia Will

          BP

          Some other Arab countries are refusing refugees for just that reason.”

          And so we should emulate these “other Arab countries” with their well known “western values” that we all claim to be defending ? The answer to your objection is really very straight forward. Sorting potential terrorists who for the most part are young men, from the families attempting entry should be a relatively straightforward process for us in the US. We are not faced with millions of Syrians on our borders. We are not rescuing hundreds of people in boats. Entry to the US is being thoroughly vetted and the people eligible for entry are those who have already been living in refugee camps.

        3. Barack Palin

          Have you been watching the news?  There is no way of thoroughly vetting these refugees.  Record keeping in the countries they’re from is poor to nonexistent.

          1. David Greenwald

            But you ignored the point I made earlier – the Paris attackers were French nationals by and large.

  2. Tia Will

    BP

    After the Paris killings it’s time to rethink this.”

    Now is precisely the time when it is most important for us to stand by our principles. The stated gaol of the terrorists is to destroy our way of life. What better way to do this than to cause us to abandon it ourselves. For as long as we have been in existence, this country has been based on the idea that we should defend freedom. We have evolved as a country to include all men and women regardless of their race, religion,ethnicity…. as worthy of protection and that chance to build a life of value for themselves. If we abandon this now, we concede that our way of life was not worth protecting and honoring.

    I am not willing to give up my core values out of fear thus allowing them to win.

     

  3. Tia Will

    BP

    Many things have changed. My core values have not. I would hope that they have not for the majority of Americans. Otherwise, what exactly are we defending ?

    1. Barack Palin

      As you often say Tia when it comes to the constitution and other things that you may not like or be in agreement with, why should we keep doing something just because we’ve always done it that way?

      Otherwise, what exactly are we defending ?

      Well, I would say we’re defending our children, ourselves and our way of life.

      1. Tia Will

        BP

        I also have children. I want them to be safe. I also want them to have as a core value, the belief that those of us who have much, have an obligation to help those who are not so blessed.

  4. Tia Will

    PhilColeman

    If you’re female, you must surely be aware of the gender distinction within the Moslem faith. “

    If you are female, and of a certain age, or certain group within the Christian faith, you will also have been raised to believe that women are determined by God to be subservient to men. I was raised in a Christian family. I was taught that the man is the head of the household, that his role is to protect and provide for the women whose role it is to obey and provide comfort and support for the man.

    My Muslim former sister-in-laws were raised similarly. All of us are professional women. All of us broke through the “obedience” model. No religion has a monopoly on female subjugation, no matter how much we might want to believe that is true.

    1. PhilColeman

      In what country did the former sisters-in-law achieve their laudable professional status?

      Note, please, you were speaking historically, “was raised” and later, “were raised.” You went back and found a rather shakey point similarity between the Christian and Muslim faith in the subservience of women. We can quibble about Western women still being able to drive vehicles and being able to at least reveal their  faces in public, but that only is a deflection away from the contemporary issue that prompted this discourse.

      Let’s move your comment to the here and now. Today, what is your perspective of the Muslim faith compared to, say, Christianity. Has equality for women (generously assuming both faiths have the same base point) progressed within our lifetime to the same level of progress in these, or any other, major faith? No religion should have a “monopoly” on gender equality either.

      1. Tia Will

        Phil

        The country in which these women became professionals was Turkey. They made the change from their mothers status of illiterate to designer, biologist, and public relations professional. All of this was happening within the past 50 years. So not exactly ancient history. Don’t forget that all of us have been the major I fluence in our daughters view of their roles.

         

        1. hpierce

          May those who have eyes, see… may those who have ears, listen.  There has been so many ‘perversions’ of what is written in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic (and probably other) texts.  The genealogy of Jesus, includes a bunch of women (duh) some of who were arguably prostitutes or unwed mothers.

          Anyone who quotes scripture to justify oppression does not understand the the entire works.  Yeah, easy to “cherry-pick” particular verses.  Which is what ISIS, Torquemada, and many others have done… for their own purposes.

    2. sisterhood

      There are many examples, too many to write here, of heinous acts committed by God fearing extreme Christians. Severe corporal punishment to toddlers comes to mind.

      1. hpierce

        Uh… those “heinous acts” did not come from “God”… they came from those claiming to know ‘the mind of God’, and I can pretty much assure you, God was pissed off with the corruption of his/its creation.

        1. sisterhood

          Never said God committed heinous acts.  I wrote that some folks who are religious extremists use the label of religion (Christian, for example) to commit heinous acts, for example, corporal punishment on little children.

  5. SODA

    Thanks Tia for sharing yur views and the NPR story which I must have missed. But it reminds me of seeing on TV a few months ago volunteers from a country (doesn’t matter which) that refugees were passing through, helping with donations, food,clothes, etc. Gave me the same sense of being proud of humanity.

  6. Tia Will

    SODA

    Agreed. In helping the Syrian refugees, we have not been leaders. As Europe experiences a backlash against aiding these displaced individuals due to the heinous actions of a few, it is my hope that America will step up and do more. I applaud the actions of the governors of Hawaii, Washington, and other states who have stated that their intent is to accept refugees from Syria and all those who provide the “boots on  the ground”, in this case those of the “free loaders”,and other volunteers  to help these folks.

    1. Barack Palin

      I applaud the actions of the governors of Hawaii, Washington, and other states who have stated that their intent is to accept refugees from Syria

      I applaud the actions of the 23 governors who are protecting their citizens and saying no.

      1. David Greenwald

        You are reporting them for taking a symbolic action? They don’t have the authority to refuse refugees because governors don’t set immigration policy

      2. hpierce

        27, and counting… at a 99.5% confidence level, their family trees have at LEAST one refugee.  So they should deport themselves.  And only one for those governors is NOT a ‘Republican’.

      1. Scheney

        This is my reaction too.  The U.S. didn’t want Jewish refugees from Germany/Austria because of the fear that they would be agents for Germany.  We know how that turned out.  It is a major regret of WWII that we didn’t do more to save people when we had the chance.   Now these people are fleeing war and oppression and starvation and need our help.

    1. hpierce

      Yes… pandering to the ignorant/fearful… to idiots/bigots.  Fear-mongering.  Yeah, you pretty much got that nailed.  

      The US turned away Jewish refugees ~ 70 years ago… some elements of the US society strongly spoke out against accepting ‘refugees’ from Cuba in the late 50’s early 60’s (too bad they weren’t successful, and we’d not have Cruz to deal with!), and there was the ‘Irish problem’ more than 100 years ago… the world history is replete with xenophopia and “problems” with refugees… the Jews sought refuge in Egypt in the time of Joseph… they sought refuge in “the land of Canaan” many years later.  “Draft dodgers” sought refuge in Canada about 40-50 years ago.  The Pilgrims, the Quakers, etc. sought refuge in a north-American land.  Ask Native Americans if that was an “unacceptable risk”.

      Oh, and how many Iranians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Russians, Germans, etc. came as refugees?

      At a 99.5% confidence level, suspect there are refugees in your family tree… if you go to its “roots”

      We need to be aware and diligent AND HUMANITARIAN… but not exclusionary.

  7. Frankly

    But you ignored the point I made earlier – the Paris attackers were French nationals by and large.

    It is likely that the US has many ISIS supporters here already.  That is one problem and should not be exacerbated by allowing in more.

    With all due respect, I find the liberal mindset on this to be flawed and significantly dangerous.  Liberals don’t want us to fight the terrorism war on other soils, but they demand that we allow in growing danger for terrorism on our soil.

    Liberal bleeding hearts are not well-enough connect to rational thinking, IMO.

    Radical Islam is exploiting Western liberalism in their terrorism strategy.  Western liberals are in fact supporting the rise of radical Islam with so much denial of evil and its capability.  Western liberals demand we play cricket when the enemy is playing smash mouth rugby but without any rules.  They did the same in WWII and 65 million people were wiped out before the problems were corrected.

    Here is something to consider if you are a liberal.  If we have any significant terrorist attack in the US before the election, I think you can expect our new President to be Donald Trump.

    1. hpierce

      Let’s put your comment, frankly, in a historical context…

      “Radical Islam Nazism (Germany, circa 1920’s-40’s) is exploiting Western liberalism in their terrorism strategy.  Western liberals are in fact supporting the rise of radical Islam Nazism with so much denial of evil and its capability.  Western liberals demand we play cricket when the enemy is playing smash mouth rugby but without any rules.  They did the same in WWII and 65 million people were wiped out before the problems were corrected.”

      Most of the Nazis were “professing” (or, as Twain might have said, “professional”) Christians, yet you don’t use the term “radical Christianity”.  Interesting.

      You have a basic concept right… ISIS = Nazis.  It has really nothing to do with the core beliefs in Islam, just as the Nazi movement was not “Christian”.

      1. Frankly

        I would need to see a reference that proves this point that Nazis were professing Christianity as a basis for their evil.

        Goebbels wrote in 1941 that Hitler “hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.”[7] Some historians have come to the conclusion that Hitler intended to eventually eradicate Christianity in Germany

        I think you have some backpedaling to do on this.

        1. hpierce

          And you are citing Goebbels? Try “The areas of strongest Nazi support were in rural Protestant areas such as Schleswig-HolsteinMecklenburgPomerania, and East Prussia….”  source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

          Nah, feel no need to back-pedal… do you?  Remember that at the time of Hitler, Christians blamed Jews for the death of Christ, standard Christian prayers prayed using the term “perfidious Jews”, and the Christians in the middle ages (corporate memory) blamed Jews for the plague.

          Ball back in your court, Frankly.  Goebbels was known for mis-information.

        2. hpierce

          Oh, frankly you glossed over one of my previous points, “… just as the Nazi movement was not “Christian”.”  The Nazi leadership, whether they were believers in Christianity or not, used propaganda to get Christian (primarily Lutheran and Catholic) support.  Or are you a “denier”?

        3. Frankly

          Ok.  Get your point now.  Sure.  I agree with that.  It is not uncommon for tyranny to wrap itself in some religious justification.  Even the imperial Japanese considered their emperor a God.

          However, I think you are trying to draw a parallel from ISIS to the Nazis and both being equal in their basis of religion.

          ISIS is fully based on rigorous interpretation of the scripture of Islam.  ISIS is not Islam like Jim Jones was not Christianity.   ISIS is a significant sect of Islam.

          The Nazis exploited Christianity but there was no religious basis for their actions.

          Your comparison to ISIS is a giant fail.   But I recognize the secular attraction to deflect responsibility for Nazi Germany on Christianity.

        4. hpierce

          Frankly, re: you and I seem to be talking at cross-purposes… however clumsily I tried to make my point, ISIS is no more or less (99.75% less) related to Islam as the Nazis were related to Christianity.  The Nazis’ behavior is anathema to Christian beliefs (yet the Nazis played the card).  The ISIS behavior is anathema to Islamic belief (yet, ISIS is playing that card).  ISIS = Nazi.  It’s not about religion.  Not at a basic level. It’s about power/politics/insanity.

          My problem is you “buying” the BS that this is about religious beliefs.  You are playing into the hands of ISIS.

    2. David Greenwald

      My point is that stopping immigration would not have prevented what happened in Paris, so why is that even on the table. The people who are fleeing are those fleeing the same people who attack Paris – so why would they take common cause?

      On the other hand, I would not start segregating poeple and turning back those in need in order to “win” an election.

    3. Don Shor

      Western liberals demand we play cricket when the enemy is playing smash mouth rugby but without any rules. They did the same in WWII and 65 million people were wiped out before the problems were corrected.

      Non-interventionism before WWII was not “liberal.” It crossed the political spectrum. Taft, for example, was outspoken in his opposition to US involvement in the war.

      1. Frankly

        I was mostly referring to Europe.  The US did not see it as our conflict until Pear Harbor. But in the war on terrorism we have already had our “Pearl Harbor” on 9-11.

        But let’s assume that European non-interventionism crossed the political spectrum for WWII.

        It appears that Western Liberals have not learned anything from those mistakes and are determine to repeat them.

        1. hpierce

          Re-read your history books, Frankly.  Conservative Republicans were MOST opposed to “intervention” in WWI & II.  Both times, it was a progressive Democrat who declared “war”.  What party was in power when we went to Korea?  Almost all of Vietnam?  Wasn’t the conservative Republicans…

        2. Frankly

          Well then hpierce, maybe you support some type of Munich Agreement for ISIS too.

          Daladier was a radical liberal progressive that would probably feel right at home today on any state university.  The French are notorious for their liberal views and for appeasement rather than strong defense.

          Chamberlain was said to be a conservative, but then so was Churchill… and Chamberlain was no Churchill.  Like Daladier, Chamberlain would also feel welcomed on US college campuses today.

          Again though, the issue today is that modern western conservatives have learned the lessons provided by WWII, but modern western liberals have not.

           

    4. wdf1

      Frankly:  Western liberals are in fact supporting the rise of radical Islam with so much denial of evil and its capability.  Western liberals demand we play cricket when the enemy is playing smash mouth rugby but without any rules.  They did the same in WWII and 65 million people were wiped out before the problems were corrected.

      I remember Bob Dole in 1976, as a Vice-Presidential candidate with Gerald Ford, in his debate with Mondale made much of referring to “Democrat wars”.  Throughout nearly all the 20th century, military intervention was a hallmark of Democratic Party policy at the Presidential level.

      Ready Conservative interventionism foreign situations is characteristic of Neoconservativism.

    5. Tia Will

      Frankly

      I would like to point out  when you are making statements about the irrationality and emotionalism of liberals, that fear is an emotion. It is an emotion that is now being manipulated primarily by those on the right to scare people into believing that they have a better grasp on how to make America safe. This fear driven abandonment of our basic principle of providing a safe haven for those not safe in their own lands is far more dangerous in my eyes than is the possibility of a terrorist getting along with the refugees.

      And if we are speaking of the use of evidence in determining risk, to the best of my knowledge, none of the 9/11 attackers was here as a refugee, McVeigh and his associates were not refugees, the Boston Marathon bombers were not refugees and yet all mounted terror attacks on American soil within the recent past.

      1. Frankly

        Obama’s FBI director has come out saying that the US does not have databases on these people to vet their association to ISIS.

        The Obama administration has already moved abou 2,200 regugees to states without even telling the states by using the same sancuary city method using compliant churches and and non-profits.

        ISIS originates from Syria.  These are Syrian refugees.

        We should have US leadership for a NATO effort to carve out a safe area for these refugees.  In fact, if we are going to take any in, take in the women an children and take all the men to a camp to teach them how to fight and then send them back to fight for their damn country.

        Liberals need to stop seeking their obsession with feeling charitable and good about themselves over the safety of others.

        1. Don Shor

          So, we have tactical nuclear weapons, some sort of invasion and occupation force, control handed over to some unidentified Sunnis, forcible separation of families with the men put into internment camps and then repatriated. This is going to solve ISIS.

          And you have the chutzpah to use the term irrational to describe people who disagree with your analysis?

        2. Don Shor

          ISIS originates from Syria. These are Syrian refugees.

          The leadership of ISIS is largely Iraqi, not Syrian. Baghdadi is a native of Iraq. Much of the leadership is from the Baathist regime that the Bush administration disbanded. The Syrian refugees are fleeing the imposition of the ISIS rule on their cities and regions, or fleeing the destruction waged on other cities by the Assad regime.

          1. David Greenwald

            Frankly: ISIS comes directly out of Iraq, not Syria. They arose from the fall of the Baathist regime and the remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

        3. Tia Will

          Frankly

          Liberals need to stop seeking their obsession with feeling charitable and good about themselves over the safety of others.”

          Conservatives need to stop putting the theoretical risk of harm to Americans over the actual daily life threatening risks being faced by the Syrian refugees for their own political gain.

          1. David Greenwald

            The bigger problem I see is the wholly disproportionate response to this risk as opposed to the far larger numbers of people who will die not at the hands of foreign terrorists but local mass shooters.

        4. Barack Palin

          How many Syrians and others in neighboring countries have been killed by Obama’s inaction?  Remember he drew the red line then did nothing when it was crossed.  Obama is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths over there but now he wants to put America at risk so he can try and look sympathetic to their cause.

          1. David Greenwald

            “How many Syrians and others in neighboring countries have been killed by Obama’s inaction?”
            That’s pretty speculative given you assume that there is an action that could have been done to save them.

      2. Frankly

        And the French authorities have only IDed 5 of the 7 terrorists.

        It is possible… probably likely… that more of them were refugees.

        I would be real carful making the claim that the refugees pose a small risk of ISIS infiltrators.

        1. Barack Palin

          Muslims don’t want to assimilate into other country’s cultures.  Just look at all the problems Britain, France, Germany and other European countries were already experiencing even before the latest refugee surge.

          1. David Greenwald

            That’s a pretty broad statement – I know quite a few Muslims who are well-assimilated into American culture. Part of the problem in Europe has been the practical isolation and sequestration of Muslims which doesn’t allow for the inter-mixing of culture.

        2. hpierce

          Yeah, and Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and jerks have not wanted to “assimilate”… why would anyone want to give up their “heritage”?  I’m glad I don’t think I know you.  I’d not want you in my life.  In any form or fashion.  Your views are truly “toxic” in this matter.  Maybe even cancerous to the society I participate in.

        3. hpierce

          “Always”?  You never do?  The first statement had nothing to do with you, as an individual.  Generic.  The question was meant as an honest one… sort of… and yet you accuse me of taking things personally?  As you apparently have? “Mirror time”?

        4. wdf1

          BP:  Muslims don’t want to assimilate into other country’s cultures.  

          By that logic, perhaps Hispanic/Latino immigrants, mostly affiliated with Christianity, are safer to allow to immigrate to the U.S., if assimilation is important?

  8. Anon

    As wonderful and idealistic as it sounds to welcome the deluge of Syrian refugees, it has increased to epidemic proportions in France.  One of the results is that France cannot assimilate Muslim refugees into regular society with enough jobs, housing and other welfare assistance.  In consequence, young refugee men are jobless, homeless, and angry.  It has caused a lot of political unrest in that country.  See: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/europes-refugee-nightmare-has-greater-unseen-risks-14184

    1. Tia Will

      Anon

      It is true that France has faced issues related to assimilation of refugees. We face other circumstances in the US and I suspect we could absorb 10,000 refugees withou facing anything on the order of France’s problems.

      1. hpierce

        Ironically, in France, during the German occupation in WWII, in southern France it was the Muslim community who saved many Jews by hiding them.  They were following the tenets of Islam.

  9. Tia Will

    BP

    well they are certainly expressing what some Americans want to hear. I am American and that fear filled message is certainly not what I want to hear. I want us to stand up for our principles, not cower in fear.

      1. hpierce

        Yeah, and a damn good thing we rounded up all the Japanese citizens of CA in 1940’s.  Should have deported every single one of them.  Each was a potential threat.

    1. Anon

      Tia: And are you willing to open your house to a Syrian refugee family?  Just curious.  You certainly do not have to answer.  One of the problems I see with letting in 10,000 Syrian refugees is where are they going to be housed and how are we going to pay for them?  Our economy is struggling as it is, where we cannot adequately fund for current residents here.

      1. Barack Palin

        Not to mention we can’t even take care of our own veterans but somehow we’re going to take care of 10,000 refugees?  And 10,000 my ass, we all know that number will swell.

        1. David Greenwald

          I think you mean, “we choose not to” – as a Jew, I’m very sensitive to this issue. The turning of the St. Louis in the 1930s was a death sentence to many Jews.

        2. Frankly

          The comparison to the rejection of Jewish refugees and the Japanese internment camps are very poor references for the current Syrian refugees since radical Islam followers revel in a culture of death. Also, the technology to do mass killings was not nearly available in the 1940s.

          One person that is gleefully willing to strap on a bomb vest filled with nails is able to kill many without much we can do to prevent it except to prevent them from being here.

      2. hpierce

        Well, abort all fetuses (after all they aren’t human, and neither are the refugees).  Immediately.  In 2011 there were over 500k births in California ALONE (source:  http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Documents/VSC-2011-0201.pdf)

        God forbid we have to deal with 10K folk nation-wide!

        You’ve convinced me!

      3. Scheney

        Anon – That was another argument for not taking Jewish refugees in 1941 – the U.S. was still recovering from the depression and we couldn’t afford to have them come.   We are repeating ourselves – repeating the worst parts of our history.

  10. Don Shor

    “In 2013, 990,553 foreign nationals became lawful permanent residents (LPRs), also known as green-card holders, according to DHS data. The total number of LPRs has decreased since 2011 (1,062,040 in 2011 and 1,031,631 in 2012). New arrivals comprised approximately 46 percent (459,751) of those granted LPR status in 2013. The majority of green-card recipients in 2013 (530,802, or 54 percent) were status adjusters—persons who were already living in the United States before 2013, but whose green-card applications were approved that year. Most status adjusters were formerly one of the following: refugees, asylees, temporary workers, foreign students, family members of U.S. citizens or green-card holders, or unauthorized immigrants.”

    http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states

    I think we can accommodate 10,000 people.

  11. Frankly

    I think a lot of people advocating for allowing all these Syrian refugees are significantly ignorant of the true situation with ISIS and radical Islam… either that or they are hopeless stubborn egotistical ideologues like our President.

    ISIS is not Al Qaeda.  Think of ISIS as a manifestation of a movement of a few million people to live the life of a very popular, but complex, Medieval “video” game (the Koran).  All these bored and angry young men have been introduced to the game over decades of radical clerics, Madrasa and then the Internet and social media.

    ISIS is Islamic. Very Islamic. It does attract psychopaths and adventure seekers from the Middle East and Europe… and even the US… but the movement derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

    ISIS is part of this movement to reestablish a Caliphate like that existed between the seventh and seventeenth centuries and then return civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.

    ISIS is committed to purifying the world by conquering territory and killing vast numbers of people.  They will eventually acquire a nuclear weapon and will use it.

    The terrorist attack in France was done to recruit more followers.

    The reason that the US should absolutely reject the Syrian refugees is the value to ISIS recruiting following an ISIS terrorist attack in the US.  The risk that even one additional ISIS supporter gets in is too big to accept.

    The current “jay-vee” mess is primarily the result of the endless string of bad foreign policy decisions made by this President and his administration.  First, Libya.  Obama and Hillary took out Gaddafi and left the territory with a power vacuum that was filled with radical Islam.  Libya is a hotbed of terrorism now.   Then Obama left Iraq earlier than was recommended by our Military experts.  Lastly, Obama failed to deal with Syria earlier when there was opportunity to take out the Assad regime and keep the radical element contained.

    The ISIS problem is actually easier to solve then is Al Qaeda.  ISIS has selected a Caliph… Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

    To be the caliph, one must meet conditions outlined in Sunni law—being a Muslim adult man of Quraysh descent; exhibiting moral probity and physical and mental integrity; and having ’amr, or authority… which requires that the caliph have territory in which he can enforce Islamic law.

    So for ISIS to thrive, it requires territory.   It attracts followers with the dream of living under the rule of the Caliphate.  And the religious doctrine that ISIS follows demands that that territory continually expand through terror and subjugation of adjacent peoples.

    We destroy ISIS by taking away their territory.  We eliminate their recruiting attraction by demonstrating them incapable of existing in a modern world.

    But allowing even one new ISIS follower into this country is a huge mistake.  Instead of this, we need US leadership to form a coalition that fights ISIS and take away their territory.

    1. Don Shor

      think a lot of people advocating for allowing all these Syrian refugees are significantly ignorant of the true situation with ISIS and radical Islam… either that or they are hopeless stubborn egotistical ideologues like our President.

      I’m not ignorant, Frankly. I’m not an ideologue and I’m not egotistical when it comes to analysis of the Middle East. You should stop denigrating people who hold different views than yours.
      Let me repeat that: You should stop denigrating people who hold different views than yours.
      I am just as aware as you of the facts about ISIS. I consider your prescription, which obviously involves sending thousands of American troops to the region, to be dangerous and counterproductive. I consider the likelihood of terrorists coming in with Syrian refugees to be very slim, and consider that terrorists who wish to enter the United States could do so without having to go through the refugee process. They can’t walk in to our country as they can into Europe. And it seems the current evidence suggests none of those who attacked in Europe were actually from among the current refugee population.

      1. Don Shor

        The current “jay-vee” mess is primarily the result of the endless string of bad foreign policy decisions made by this President and his administration. First, Libya.

        There are plenty of bad foreign policy decisions from 2001 forward that have led to this situation.

        Obama and Hillary took out Gaddafi and left the territory with a power vacuum that was filled with radical Islam.

        It was the French government that pressed for the action in Libya. Something to keep in mind right now.

        Then Obama left Iraq earlier than was recommended by our Military experts.

        In complete fulfillment of our SOFA. No adequate terms of a replacement SOFA could be agreed upon by the US and Iraq. Are you proposing that we should have imposed one?

        Lastly, Obama failed to deal with Syria earlier when there was opportunity to take out the Assad regime and keep the radical element contained.

        There was never an opportunity to “take out the Assad regime” and the unintended consequences of fulfilling that fantasy would have been immeasurably worse than what you just cited in Libya.

      2. Frankly

        Don’t be so sensitive.  I wrote “a lot of people” not all people.  I think you are not ignorant nor an egotistical ideologue.  However, you are routinely stubborn in your views and in this case, you are wrong, IMO.

        1. Frankly

          I’m not the military expert.  I don’t want to send in troops, I think we have to.  Especially if we are going to allow in more Muslim immigrants from these territories.

          How many troops should be a product of the coalition and military strategy required to beat back ISIS.

          Frankly (because I am) I think ISIS is justification of tactical nukes.

          1. Don Shor

            Here’s what modern conservatives have not learned.

            America cannot control outcomes in the Middle East.
            Military force nearly always has undesirable long-term unintended consequences.
            Terrorism is not primarily a military problem.
            Alliances in the Middle East are temporary.
            Our current allies in the region are not committed to the same outcomes we are. They have different priorities.

            ISIS is potentially an existential threat to its immediate neighbors, and yet not one of those countries has shown the will or even the desire to commit fully to battling the group. Some like Turkey are even undermining strategies against ISIS.
            ISIS-trained members have shown they can create mayhem by terrorist actions in Europe. If our European allies, who might now be motivated to take further action, wish for us to expand our current policies against Syria and ISIS, I’m sure this and any subsequent administration would be willing to do that.
            We have done lots in Syria. We have bombed nearly 3000 times, and more than that in western Iraq; we have provided arms and ammunition, funded small rebel groups, and implemented serious sanctions against the Assad regime. We take action to disable Syrian air defenses so we can bomb in their country. Special ops troops have been allowed to enter Syrian territory. If asked, we will ramp up those actions and continue to shrink the territory available for ISIS to operate. But on the ground, this is not our fight. If we invade, we have to occupy. There is no rationale for America to occupy western Iraq and eastern Syria.
            If American conservatives don’t want Syrian refugees, they should embrace massive funding to help the millions who are trapped there by the fighting. And they should strongly support the peace process being tirelessly pushed forward, against great odds, by Secretary Kerry.

        2. hpierce

          Ok, Frankly, you’ve gone from “Islamic extremists” to “Muslims”.  

          “more Muslim immigrants”  Your words.  Looks pretty ignorant/bigoted language to me.  Your words.  Am ‘judging’ those.  Not you.  [trying to fend off misunderstandings, ‘attacks’ from folk that think I personally attack, and whom have absolutely no problem attacking me, not my words, or ideas] 

           

        3. Barack Palin

          [trying to fend off misunderstandings, ‘attacks’ from folk that think I personally attack, and whom have absolutely no problemattacking me, not my words, or ideas] 

          Give it up Hpierce, the only time you get attacked on here is in retaliation because you fired the first shot.

        4. Barack Palin

          Here’s what modern conservatives have not learned.
          America cannot control outcomes in the Middle East.
          Military force nearly always has undesirable long-term unintended consequences.

          Conservatives?  Guess you haven’t heard that Obama bombed Libya, is bombing Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria and not to mention almost daily drone strikes all over the region

        5. hpierce

          Frankly (re:  your 12:52 post).

          How do you tell if a fetus will become a Sandy Hook murderer?

          How do you tell if you or I will “go postal” and kill/maim dozens?

          How do you tell…

          Nice rhetorical device… no value.

        6. Frankly

          The coalition first invades to diminish the territory, and then turns it over to the nations of Sunnis to occupy.  In this case the Sunnis have a vested interest to do this.

          1. Don Shor

            Yep. Easy as that, eh? Too bad those Sunnis you’re referring to are presently cooperating with ISIS. But other than that, great strategy. Unless you meant the Saudis to occupy? Or maybe some other Sunni neighbors? That’ll go great.

        7. Frankly

          How do you tell if a fetus will become a Sandy Hook murderer?

          How do you tell if you or I will “go postal” and kill/maim dozens?

          You are talking about mental health cases that in retrospect people always seem to say “the guy was weird and acting weird”… and these are people that are already here.

          There are millions of people that qualify as refugees.  Why these people from Syria and not from several African nations that have experienced genocide from the armies of Islam?

          Allowing in these Syrian refugees opens up the door for ISIS supporters to be included.  You would not be able to tell who is an ISIS supporter and who is truly a refugee.  Since we cannot tell, we should not allow any.

          1. Don Shor

            In order for any such “ISIS supporter” to take terrorist action, the recent events show us they need to travel back to Syria, get access to bombs and automatic weapons and large amounts of ammunition (without calling attention to themselves), and coordinate their activities with others of their ilk. The problem isn’t people coming out of Syria, it’s people going back in to Syria and then returning. The border with Turkey is open, and they aren’t closing it. Turkey is our ally. Turkey is with us, supposedly, in the fight against ISIS. So the problem isn’t the refugees, it’s the porous border there.
            How many Muslim immigrants do we presently have in the United States? How many such bombings have been carried out here? “We should not allow any” is inhumane and does not reflect the values that I consider core American values.

    2. Scheney

      I agree that we shouldn’t allow ISIS followers into our country.   However, I agree that we should allow people who are starving and brutalized under the ISIS regime to come into our country.  This is something we can do that may actually help.  I believe that these people will work hard to integrate into their communities and forge a better life here.  Isn’t that the core of what we are about as Americans?  This ugly, political rhetoric just has to stop.

      1. hpierce

        Your words make sense.  In the 30’s we should not have had excluded Germans from our shores, but Nazis, sure.  What if we had excluded a guy named Albert, from Germany?  Guess in the current rhetoric, we’d exclude a guy named Einstein, just in case he was a Nazi threat.

        1. hpierce

          Let’s just assume that EVERYONE here now, or seeking immigration, PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt that they are NOT a threat to our society.

          Think a guy named Joe (McCarthy was it?) tried that in the 50’s.  Oh, and he was a “stand-up” conservative Republican.

      2. wdf1

        hpierce:  What if we had excluded a guy named Albert, from Germany?  Guess in the current rhetoric, we’d exclude a guy named Einstein, just in case he was a Nazi threat.

        Or more relevant to this discussion, what if we had stopped Steve Jobs’ father from immigrating to the U.S.?  (Steve Jobs’ father was Syrian).

        1. Frankly

          That would have at least preventing me from smashing my iPhone when it failed on an IOS update and rendered my phone inoperable where I would then need to schedule an appointment in Sacramento to get it fixed.  I would have just stuck with my Blackberry that works fine.

          Just kidding…. mostly.

          We were not at war with ISIS back when Steve Jobs’ father immigrated here.

          Einstein quote:

          The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.

           

        2. hpierce

          Hope you take that whole quote to heart… I agree with it… but to take the default position that all/most Syrian refugees are “evil”?  As I said earlier, we need to be wary, but a whole bunch of Republican and other reactionaries (Democrat governor of NH) seem to be taking extremist postures.  Almost to the point that “there is no good Syrian/Muslim except a dead Syrian/Muslim”.  I’m only matching my ‘rhetoric’ to that of those who say “zero refugees”.

  12. Tia Will

    Anon

    “Are you willing to open your house to a Syrian family ? ”

    I am happy to answer.

    We do not have room in the house I live in now, but Robert and I have already talked about offering my childhood home rent free to a Syrian refugee family if that could be arranged. During the time when we were dealing with Afgan refugees, one of the women was my nanny. This was after 9/11 and I certainly did not make the assumption that her nationality made her a terrorist any more than she blamed me personally for the bombing that had destroyed her neighborhood.

  13. Frankly

    Pal Ryan:

    “Our nation has always been welcoming, but we cannot let terrorists take advantage of our compassion. This is a moment when it’s better to be safe than sorry.”

    1. Barack Palin

      I fully agree with Paul Ryan so I guess I’ll just have to chance that Hpierce doesn’t want me in his life or my toxic cancerous views.  Oh well.  Won’t lose any sleep over that.

      1. Frankly

        Think about it BP.  We are advocating safety, not saying we reject allowing any and all refugees.  We are at war with radical Islam and the absurdity of the situation requires that we be smart and not fall back on decision paralysis and fanciful thinking.

        The Boston bomber Tsarnaev brothers were refugees.

        1. Frankly

          Sure there is a relationship in that we let in Muslim refugees (if they were allowed to stay accepting their claim for asylum, then they are by definition refugees) from territory rife with Islamic extremism that went on to commit terrorist acts that led to death and maiming of Americans.

          1. Don Shor

            So you want to stop all tourist visas, asylum seekers, and refugees from all parts of the world that have active jihadists terrorists?

  14. Frankly

    Great quote from Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal:

    129 people are dead in Paris because Europe decided to make a fetish of its tolerance for intolerance and allow the religious distempers of its Islamist communities to fester over many years. That’s what happens when you sanctify political tantrums, explain and appease them, refuse to name them, try to look away.

      1. Frankly

        Beautiful rhetorical swing Don.  Now when you are done you can get back to your shamelessly liberal exploitation of anything and everything related to class and group division.

        The difference here is that conservatives are opining for policy to keep Americans safe, and you are opining for things to help keep your favored political party in power.

        France had a security failure.

        So your point here is that we should accept stronger security measures to prevent these types of things.

        You know you would start complaining about civil rights being trampled on.

        This is why I don’t think liberals are sometimes capable of rational thought.  They ping-pong back and forth in emotional reaction.

        “Oppose strong security measures”

        “Oppose strong law enforcement… demand that they “demilitarize”

        “Oppose blocking a flood of immigrants and refugees.”

        “Claim the subsequent tragedy caused by the previous oppositions and demand is because of a security failure.”

        Right.

        1. Don Shor

          conservatives are opining for policy to keep Americans safe, and you are opining for things to help keep your favored political party in power.

          I am “opining” for the values that I hold as an American: that we respect immigrants and accept refugees. That is fundamental to our identity. It’s one of the things that makes us exceptional.

          So your point here is that we should accept stronger security measures to prevent these types of things.

          Since we have not had a security failure anywhere near this magnitude, and our security system in place right now has prevented several dozen terrorist plots every year, then I don’t think we need stronger security measures at this time. Obama, you might say — to paraphrase Jeb! — has kept us safe.

          … you are done you can get back to your shamelessly liberal exploitation of anything and everything related to class and group division….This is why I don’t think liberals are sometimes capable of rational thought.

          You’re arguing with those phantom liberals in your head again.

    1. Tia Will

      Frankly

      129 people are dead in Paris”

      How many innocent Syrians have died ?  How many more will die if they are not given refuge. Why are the lives of westerners more important than the lives of Syrians ?

      1. Davis Progressive

        and how many have died in this country this year from mass shootings?  i find it interesting that somehow shootings from foreigners are worse than those in this country?

        1. Frankly

          Un effing believable.  You are actually justifying the future death of Americans at the hands of these refugees.

          So, because we have a problem with mental health services and violent black on black gun crime we should just accept a little more from these people you want to allow in?

          1. Don Shor

            You are actually justifying the future death of Americans

            Hyperbole much? You’re going faster and further off the rails.

      2. Frankly

        This is a fantastic statement that lays bare your misty-eyed fanciful thinking.

        Why not invite in all the Central American refugees or African refugees?

        Better yet, what about all the needy people already here?

        What makes you think we can or should save everyone?

        We can’t.

        I feel for you because you must be racked with guilt and self-loathing for your fortune.  However, I am not impressed with your approach for attempting to satiate these tremors with mortgaging the safety of others.

        If you care that much then go to those places and help.  It is their homeland.  How elite of us to think that they would rather leave their homeland.  Heck you cannot even stomach development change next door to your home.

        You know the reason that they want to immigrate?  Free crap. If not for the free crap, they would not be so happy to come west.  And the free crap will not be enough.  They will grow unhappy with their relative success… the same dissatisfaction that is happening in Europe.  We talk about the difference with the US that immigrants assimilates… but the changes in the economy have set us on a path to the same as Europe.  Because the US history of assimilation was economic.  And there are not the same opportunities today for many reasons… and many of those are because of other policies you demand.

         

        1. Tia Will

          Why not invite in all the Central American refugees or African refugees?”

          I would happily welcome 10,000 of each if they were fleeing for their lives. As a country we most certainly have enough wealth to absorb that many refugees.

           

  15. Frankly

    Quote from Obama that indicates he might be figuring stuff out.

    “Tough to combat terrorists that are willing to die.”

    However, I would change this to “tough to combat enemies that are eager to die for their cause… and eager to kill as many innocent people as they can at the same time.”

    This is a key point that makes allowing in the Syrian refugees a nonstarter.

    We experienced this with Imperial Japan in WWII… and what did our leaders at the time do about it?

      1. Frankly

        They did not learn about the extent of the Japanese soldier’s eagerness to die until the battles of the small Pacific Islands from where the US could bomb Japan mainland.  There they uncovered documents after experiencing what they suspected.  The result was the recognition that we would lose over 250,000 additional US soldiers trying to force a surrender.  So, what did we do?

        I consider suicide fighters as weapons of mass destruction.  They throw the rules of traditional warfare out the window.

        1. Tia Will

          Frankly

          the Japanese soldier’s eagerness to die”

          Yes, the Japanese soldier’s eagerness to die. Not the willingness to die of the typical Japanese father, mother and children…..or the typical Syrian father, mother, and children, who are only fleeing because they want to live. You do not seem to be able to make this distinction.

          I consider suicide fighters as weapons of mass destruction.  They throw the rules of traditional warfare out the window.”

          And now for a complete abandonment of consistency. You do not consider the actual use of drones, the theoretical use of tactical nuclear weapons, and the forcible separation of men and women with the former, however peaceful they may be, being trained as fighters as “throwing the rules of traditional warfare out of the window ?

          Of course, I forgot, we can throw out the rules of traditional warfare, because after all, we are the good guys, even though much of the problems facing this fleeing population is due to our actions which caused the destabilization of their homeland to begin with. From your comments, it would seem that you have no problem with our meddling, and overthrowing stabilizing regimens that we do not happen to like, thus destroying a stable if sub optimal situation, and then abandoning the peaceful population to their actual fate because of the theoretical possibility that a terrorist might be hiding amongst them.

    1. Tia Will

      eager to die for their cause… and eager to kill as many innocent people as they can at the same time.”

      This is a key point that makes allowing in the Syrian refugees a nonstarter.”

      This would only be true if all Syrian refugees shared the eagerness to die for the cause of the terrorists. I think it is very safe to say that this is not the case. Otherwise they would be signing up for their suicide vests, not fleeing with their children.

       

       

  16. Barack Palin

    As far as vetting refugees, we’ve already scene the disaster of the Obama Administration’s $500 million fighter training program where the vetted trainees they picked either defected or quit leaving only 5 fighters.

  17. Tia Will

    I believe that the issue of how to separate potential terrorists from true asylum seekers is valid. I would say that a good place to start would be to realize that someone who has been living with their family in a refugee camp for two years rather than in a ISIS training camp, is probably a pretty good start on making that determination.

  18. TrueBlueDevil

    Yesterday President Obama mocked the GOP being afraid to accept women and orphans into our country. Last night, a female radical blew herself up in Paris, a female suicide bomber.

    Is not the President’s first and higher purpose to protect our own citizens?

    Besides, it’s Obama’s policies and / or lack of action that helped create these numerous disasters.

    I don’t ever recall the US settling members of the Nazi Party. In fact, I think we helped hunt them down across the globe.

    1. hpierce

      Well, some Nazis did manage to fly under the radar, or get recruited and settled in the US… does the name ‘von Braun’ have any meaning to you?  He was a principal architect of the device known as the V-2 rocket that was used for terrorism against civilian populations in England.  We not only didn’t “hunt him down”, the US, recruited him, “settled” him, and lionized him as a hero. [He was also SS]

      Those who got in to the US “under the radar” often lived peaceful, productive lives, raising families, and some were then “outed” in their 80’s, and sent off to prison in Israel to die.  If I remember correctly, a guy from Chicago needed a medical entourage to fly back to serve his “death sentence”.

    2. hpierce

      Oh… membership in the Nazi Party (a political party… think, like ‘Republicans’ or ‘Democrats’) didn’t mean that you committed war crimes/crimes against humanity.

    3. Davis Progressive

      “Besides, it’s Obama’s policies and / or lack of action that helped create these numerous disasters.”

      it’s actually a string of policy decisions and opportunities that led to numerous disasters.  we decided to destabilize iraq unnecessarily back in 2003 taking out hussein.  we believed wrong in 2003 that we could create a stable democracy in iraq just as we decided to back democracies elsewhere in hte middle east a few years ago.

    4. Tia Will

      TBD

      Is not the President’s first and higher purpose to protect our own citizens?”

      Not if it means abandoning our moral obligations and fundamental principles. If you were to carry this further as the president’s highest purpose, we would certainly not be sending American citizens abroad to fight in the wars of others. We would be hiding behind our oceans defending ourselves with our superior arms. We were first put at risk by those who decided that we would impose democracy across the Arab world by toppling a key power player in the Middle East on trumped up fears of non -existent weaponry and threats and the completely unrealistic expectation that we would be thanked for our efforts and democracy seamlessly installed. Where was your plea for the first and higher purpose being to protect our own citizens then ?

  19. Barack Palin

    Why did we just start targeting ISIS oil trucks yesterday?  Why have these trucks been allowed to deliver oil feely which is part of the finding mechanism for ISIS?  The okay to hit targets comes directly from the White House.

  20. Biddlin

    I remember when the United States of America was the home of the brave. Reading the comments, I can’t help wondering what happened to us.  Doing the morally right thing in the face of dangers and doubts is the true measure of our national fortitude.

    1. Davis Progressive

      you remember that?  that’s a strange comment.  for one thing, the phrase originated from the war of 1812 and frances scott key.  but was america ever really the home of the brave?  we’ve always been the home of the reluctant.  we didn’t leap into wwi.  we didn’t leap into wwii.  it took pearl harbor to get us in.  so how can you argue that?

      1. hpierce

        Bravery is not the same as “itching for a fight”.  Bravery is not the same as “picking your battles”.  Bravery is all about doing what you know you need to do, even at personal risk.  Bravery is not about being “reckless”.

        1. Davis Progressive

          stating that they aren’t 1939 jews is different from a comparison between the two groups.  there are always similarities and differences in comparisons because again they aren’t identical groups.  so the more fruitful discussion would be to compare points of similarity and difference between the two.

        2. Davis Progressive

          well, here’s a point that has nothing to do with either of our views – do you have a real sense from the article of what the population of syrians look like or why jews were turned away?  their argument is that the sins of isis differentiate the syrians from the jews, but they don’t really get into the reasons why jews weren’t welcomed into america.  it had to do with a strong current of anti-semiticism.  moreover the majority the refugees are children, under 18.  they argue that 1 in 8 support isis in polling – but first that’s like 12 percent, meaning 84 percent don’t have a positive view and you’re not dealing with a hugely educated population, so it’s not clear how much they know about isis or what that even means.  like i said, reasonable people can differ on their views, but this isn’t a heavy analysis. and again, as has been pointed out, the people who were operating in paris were not immigrants, they were french nationals.

    1. hpierce

      Yes, and many of the Syrian refugees are not adherents of Islam. Many who are, fear ISIS, as they are other different sects, or are anti-militant/zealot.  Many are non-religious, and many are Christian or Jewish… for the latter two, damn good reason to try to “get out of Dodge” (or, currently, Syria/mid-east).  Yet the majority of Governors have said, they are not welcome here.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        And how do we distinguish one from another?

        We have already had “refugee” terrorists arrested here. In Istanbul, 8 have individuals have pretended to be refugees.

  21. TrueBlueDevil

    Bill O’Reilly has offered that NATO should declare war on ISIS, set up settlement camps, and then be able to return the Syrians to their towns when ISIS is under control. Makes perfect sense.

    Option 2 is that there are 15 neighboring states that offer similar religions and cultures. Settle them there.

      1. David Greenwald

        That’s not really accurate. You’re ignoring the very complex playing field. Turkey is worried that the Kurds will gain a foothold. Some of the refugees are Syrian-Kurds so that’s a non-starter. Iraq is no longer really one country. You have Kurdish areas. The Shi’as aren’t going to take them and Iraq is just as messy as Syria. Iran is very different from the Sunnis refugees. So who among the neighbors is going to take refugees?

        The one country that is similar and has stepped up is Jordan, a country of 6 million who has taken in 1.5 million refugees.

      2. TrueBlueDevil

        Bingo. They don’t want the danger or the costs.

        Meanwhile, southern Europe is on a wall building move. Too bad Obama didn’t honor his “red line in the sand” comment to Assad.

    1. David Greenwald

      Except that there aren’t 15 neighboring states that offer similar religions – there are profound splits sometimes along nation-state lines, sometimes within the nation-states – and who are burdened with huge problems of their own.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        So we should pay for 65,000 refugees (the number Obama is pushing) and pay for them ahead of wounded Veterans, give them jobs ahead of new legal immigrants, ahead of African Americans, ahead of teenagers and the unemployed?

        1. Tia Will

          TBD

          So we should pay for 65,000 refugees (the number Obama is pushing) and pay for them ahead of wounded Veterans, give them jobs ahead of new legal immigrants, ahead of African Americans, ahead of teenagers and the unemployed?”

          No. We should be doing all  of this and more. We have the accumulated wealth to do this in our country. We simply choose not to.

  22. Tia Will

    Jordan: >600,000

    Lebanon: 1.2 million
    Turkey: 1.9 million.
    Egypt: 132,000
    Iraq: 250,000″

    And we are quibbling about our “ability” to take 10,000 ?  Where is our courage ? Where is our sense of strength and world leadership ? Do we only lead when it is bombing someone else’s home ?  Or are we willing to accept some level of risk to put our money where our mouths ( of American exceptionalism and leadership ) have been. These thousands of people in real and imminent need and we are arguing over the unacceptable risk of a single terrorist.

    “One is too many” was posted here on this thread least anyone say that is not what is being claimed.

     

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      I think our “courage” must be tempered by common sense. We have repeatedly been named as target number 1 or 2 for decades – along with Israel. We can pay for 10,000 – who stay in their neck of the woods. Besides, we’ve already absorbed tens of millions of illegal immigrants from south of the border – does Saudia Arabia want to help pay their social costs?

      Meanwhile, five Syrians were just apprehended in Honduras trying to get to America with forged papers. Five.

      There are 15 middle eastern countries who could take them in. Only tough security prevented some of those murderers from setting off bombs in a stadium filled with tens of thousands in Paris.

       

       

       

      1. wdf1

        Frankly:  Those are all Muslim countries with cultural norms that will be a better fit for these refugees.

        Then would the U.S. presumably be a Christian country with cultural norms that are a better fit for immigrant refugees from Mexico/Central America, also predominantly Christian?

    2. Frankly

      And here is the other thing.  The US has already invested much money and blood to help eliminate the problem of radical Islam in the region.  But the American pansies won the election and we pulled out.  The general argument was that it wasn’t our problem and we should not be there.  That is was a regional problem and should be contained there.

      And so all those wealthy and stable Mideastern countries… many that had fanned the flames of Islamic extremism and Western-blame to prevent revolt of the masses… now have to deal with the consequences of taking in the refugees.  If they don’t like it they should go fight ISIS.

      If it isn’t our problem, it isn’t our problem.

      1. Mark West

        Frankly:  “The US has already invested much money and blood to help eliminate the problem of radical Islam in the region.  But the American pansies won the election and we pulled out. The general argument was that it wasn’t our problem and we should not be there.  That is was a regional problem and should be contained there.”

        It wasn’t our problem and we would not have been there – with all the inherent costs in money and blood –  without the hubris of the neocon nincompoops.  We fanned the flames of this problem by the utter stupidity of our actions, which in turn made it our problem.

        1. Frankly

          Mark, that is BS – but the normal left of politics talking points.  It is all Bush’s fault.  Everything is Bush’s fault.

          So are you going to go Ward Churchill on me now?

          We let Iraq and Iran duke it out for years… how many people died?

          We did not intervene in the Syrian war… how many people died and are dying?

          The Mideast has been a crap hole for many reasons that make US involvement a de minimis cause.  Muslim violence goes back to the seventh century.

          Islam need a reformation… a new testament of the Koran.  Those cultures are stuck on Medieval.  Where is the million man march of Muslims in DC to condemn these terrorist attacks?

          I don’t trust the population of Syrians because that is the birthplace of the current ISIS movement.

          I don’t trust our current government to do the right things to keep Americans safe.

          I don’t want the refugees harmed, I just want them to be taken in by other Mideastern countries.

          1. Don Shor

            because that is the birthplace of the current ISIS movement.

            Huh?

            I just want them to be taken in by other Mideastern countries.

            More than 4 million have been taken in by other Mideastern countries.

        2. TrueBlueDevil

          We had stability, calm, but Obama refused to negotiate hard to keep a Standing Forces Agreement in place and maybe 10-15,000 military (like Korea or Germany). He blew it, just like his line in the sand comment about Syria. Obama fumbles while Putin runs over him. He is clueless. But I’ll happily watch Russia take on ISIS.

        3. Mark West

          Frankly:  “Mark, that is BS – but the normal left of politics talking points.  It is all Bush’s fault.  Everything is Bush’s fault.”

          I love listening to people who only remember the parts of history that fit with their Fox News talking points. Woohoo! Such intelligence and logic. Really makes my knees shake.

          By the way, I don’t blame Bush, he wasn’t smart enough to find his way out of a wet paper bag, let alone figure out where Iraq or Iran are located.

          Checking out now.  This conversation is not worth the bandwidth.

           

        4. Frankly

          Huh?

          Don, since you are apparently hard of “hearing”…

          The group has changed from an insurgency in Iraq to a jihadist group primarily in Syria, to an army largely in Iraq. Following the past of least resistance, the group moved from Iraq to Syria, then Iraq again and today is in control of parts of both countries.

          I will repeat what I wrote so you might be able to hear it this time.

          “I don’t trust the population of Syrians because that is the birthplace of the current ISIS movement.”

          ISIS was nothing until it gained strength in Syria merging with the Nusra Front.  It is in this modern (or maybe I should have written “current”) form that is responsible for the territory push to establish a Caliphate and to execute terrorism acts against other targets that will both help it recruit more followers and move closer to its ultimate goal of the apocalypse.

          The bottom line is that ALMOST ALL of ISIS hails from Syria… either Syrians before the Iraq war or Iraqi ISIS followers that fled to Syria during the Iraq war.

          But maybe you agree with the President that they are just the Jay-Vee team of Al Qaeda.

        5. wdf1

          Frankly:  The bottom line is that ALMOST ALL of ISIS hails from Syria… either Syrians before the Iraq war or Iraqi ISIS followers that fled to Syria during the Iraq war.

          Source?

        6. Frankly

          wf1 – watch the link to the video I provided below.  Islamic State in Iraq merged with broken off Al Qaeda groups in Syria and moved to Syria to fight Assad to establish territory in Syria.  From there ISIS expanded into Iraq.

          One really big risk for the US not leading to beat back ISIS territorial expansion and the money flow is that more Al Qaeda decide to join them.  Right now they don’t like each other.  ISIS followers call Al Qaeda apostates based on some of their Medieval interpretations of the Koran.  But at some point they might decide that they are better off working together than apart.

    3. sisterhood

      T.B.D.

      Do your statistics support that the rape epidemic you describe is really any worse than the one in the United States? Perhaps you may be able to catch the CNN Special, The Hunting Ground? Perhaps Scandinavian and British women are beginning to feel more comfortable reporting sexual assaults?  Perhaps law enforcement does not harass an ex-wife if her ex-husband is accused, rightfully or wrongfully, of sexual assault? Perhaps women are not afraid that a member of law enforcement will threaten to take her kids away from her if she reports an assault?  Do you know that there is really an epidemic that is worse than the one in America?

  23. Napoleon Pig IV

    Tia

    I’m late to this party due to travel, but to add my two cents:  Great essay!

    I’m glad to see you stimulated so much discussion and debate.

    For another two cents, while I have virtually no respect for most of our politicians, I do have immense respect for the “American idea” and the people who live it and built it – virtually all of whom were immigrants.  I don’t expect to hear the truth from Obama, any more than we heard the truth from Bush, JFK, LBJ, Tricky Dick, or Slick Willy before him, when it comes to enemies and/or supposed justifications for war. I could, but won’t, digress on that topic.

    However, I strongly believe in the value that immigrants bring to America, and even if one is not motivated by basic human decency and a desire to help fellow humans who are tragically suffering, welcoming immigrants to join us is in our collective best interest. Immigrants, through both our own government’s vetting process and their own self-selection processes, end up supplying us with some of our brightest, hardest working, and most valuable citizens.

    Criminals and religious wackos arise from within all populations. Given the natural human desire to believe in delusion and fantasy along with the natural human lust for power and wealth, we will never stop scumbags from appearing among us no matter how tightly we seal our borders or how many poorly conceived laws we pass giving government more and more power to “protect” us.

    We should welcome far more Syrian and other refugees than we have historically done and simultaneously make sure our police forces employ and well-compensate truly good people and that our justice system actually delivers on its promises. Then, we will be able to limit the damage done by scumbags while continuing to grow and expand the quality and vision of the American “idea.”

    1. Frankly

      Interesting perspective.

      1. We should bring them in and even greater numbers.

      even though

      2. I don’t trust any politician and our security, law enforcement and judicial system is broken.

       

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        Same points Chris Christie made. Obama continues to put his foot in his mouth … says the GOP is scared of women and orphans … and then a female suicide bomber detonates herself.

        Humm, will she get 144 virgins in heaven?

      2. Napoleon Pig IV

        Yes, I do think we should welcome them in greater numbers.

        No, I don’t trust most politicians, especially at the federal level, because of their long consistent track record of lying, whether self-defined as liberal or conservative. Just a day or two ago the director of the CIA lied about the impact Snowden’s revelations have had, and Obama has been lying steadily about many things ever since he was elected. He’s as much a war-monger as Bush. By the way, have you noticed how quiet liberals tend to be about war when a Democrat occupies the White House? And, have you noticed how unwilling the Republicans in Congress have been to take a public position via a public vote on Obama’s approach to ISIS so far? They’re mostly a bunch of spineless wimps who wage war when convenient and then blame each other for the carnage. No, I don’t trust politicians.

        I do trust much of law enforcement, but think the bad apples need to be weeded out much more aggressively with full cooperation of the good ones. In law enforcement, as in other professions (like law and medicine), there is a reluctance of good people to “rat out” sleazoids,and even though the internet and cell phones are making that less necessary, they should still take responsibility for the standards of their chosen profession.

        Our judicial system IS broken. It’s a toy of the rich and powerful and deliberately made slow and complex at the expense of the poor and poorly educated.

        I trust our capability to vet new immigrants who apply for legal status. I also trust in the basic decency of the vast majority of ordinary people.

        I don’t trust any organized religion any further than I could throw the tooth fairy.

        Thus sayeth The Pig!

        1. Frankly

          Ok.  Thanks.  I think we differ primarily on the ability to accurately vet the new immigrants since our current FBI Director basically said we could not.

          And did you know that the Obama administration has already been using the sanctuary  city channels to place these refugees in states without telling state officials?

        2. Frankly

          NPIV – Question… do you support stronger data surveillance… for example, new laws that prevent private message encryption from cellular carriers, etc.?  Apparently that is the excuse that the French authorities are giving for why they failed to prevent this well-coordinated terror attack.  The terrorists used apps that encrypted their communication and also gaming consoles that the officials don’t pay attention to.

        3. Napoleon Pig IV

          Frankly

          I have a mixed and still-evolving opinion about stronger data surveillance. First, I think we all have to realize and adjust to the fact that steadily advancing technology is never likely to be adequately controllable by any government in a way that protects freedom while assuring safety. For example, if new laws are placed on private message encryption, then only criminals will privately encrypt messages, and given that the mathematical and programming cats are already out of the bags, it will be easy for them to do so. On the other hand, restrictions on encryption will render legitimate businesses more vulnerable to predation by the scumbags. That’s a high price to pay for the hypothetical possibility that such restrictions will stop a terrorist from using encryption. I suppose I think it’s sort of like it’s too late for you or me to be told we cannot own a gun because some hypothetical bad guy might get one.

          Regarding the need for law enforcement and the military to be able to efficiently gather intelligence on scumbags and enemies, I think they need to be given the tools to do so, but with proper restrictions on misuse and abuse. Neither Bush nor Obama have been willing to support such restrictions. The Patriot Act is one reason I’m so reluctant to support any additional relaxing of safeguards against abuse. Laws like that create too many opportunities for selective enforcement and abuse. I also think there is a difference between targeted monitoring of communication and broad band collection of all data on everyone – as well as domestic spying on citizens versus spying on known foreign hotbeds of scumbag recruitment and training.

           

        4. Frankly

          Good stuff Mr. NPIV.  I appreciate the response.

          Maybe because I work directly with an agency of the Federal government I have little expectation that any agency can ever achieve this nuanced, but valued, vision of reasonableness to have adequate tools and use them appropriately in all situations.

          At best our government is a bumbling megasized bureaucracy that is so layered and top-heavy… and with so much cross-agency bickering… and with way too many attorneys on power trips and causing total downstream decision risk avoidance… that it will consistently make mistakes.

          My expectations are low because I think that is reality and I don’t think it will get any better anytime soon.

          I have quite a bit of freedom to pass data back and forth on my company and home network without much fear of it being read by someone I don’t want to read it because I have a firewall.  When data goes outside the firewall then it either needs to be encrypted or it is open for anyone with a smidgen of technical skills to see.  if encrypted I expect government officials to have access to the keys and also expect them to abuse their power with those keys.  So, I do nothing significantly illegal (I might drive too fast sometimes).

          So I don’t have too big of a problem with the government having the keys and being able to view all my data outside my firewall.

          But some people do.

          And some of those same people say to bring in all the refugees we can.

          And I consider those people a danger to us because they are really advocating for increased risk of terrorist acts that will not be prevented in time.

          Either we accept a loss of privacy and strong militarized law enforcement, or we increase our firewall… basically preventing others from coming here unless they come through a 100% vetted “port”.

          Because I don’t see your vision ever happening given the nature of government.

        5. Napoleon Pig IV

          Frankly

          I appreciate your response also. I think what you say is logical, and your description of your experience working for a part of the federal government puts the situation in a useful perspective. You have first-hand knowledge of systemic inefficiency (and I certainly agree with you about the over abundance of lawyers!). When that is combined with the temptations that seem to often take politicians and senior government officials away from the straight and narrow, I see we have a lot to watch out for.

          My own experience includes a lot of international travel and work overseas, including very productive interactions with a wide range of people from many backgrounds. Although I don’t personally care much for religion, I’ve worked with people of many different beliefs, some of which seem down right bizarre to me, but virtually all the people were good, hard-working people just like my neighbors here at home. Among these various people I’ve had the opportunity to get to know have been several who have been refugees or who are the children of refugees. Some of them have been brilliant, funny, creative, and remarkably generous. I suppose this positive experience among individual people, one at a time, is why I have a bias toward gambling on the goodness of humanity.

          However, I think your analogy to the firewall is an excellent one, and it is likely that my own view is a little too rosy, while yours may be a little too dark. I suppose we should get some really smart people to work on that port you mention capable of 100% vetting, but we also have to make sure it doesn’t take two long years for an applicant for legal immigrant status to get an answer. I’ve helped a few people get over here, and I know for sure that the system could work better if more resources were put into it. A lot of the front-line government employees are smart and dedicated, but as you said, there’s way too much unproductive layering above the people who do the real work. The big, bloated unproductive layer is a danger to us all.

  24. TrueBlueDevil

    Syrians with stolen passports caught trying to enter US, police say

    “Police in Honduras caught five Syrians who were trying to make their way to the United States with stolen and doctored passports, a law enforcement spokesman for the Central American country said Wednesday.

    Police spokesman Anibal Baca told the Associated Press the men were detained on Tuesday at the Tegucigalpa International Airport on an alert from Interpol about the passports.

    He said the international organization followed the group from Syria, to Lebanon and Turkey, then on to Brazil, Argentina, Costa Rica and Honduras….”

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/18/syrians-with-stolen-passports-caught-before-trying-to-enter-us-police-say/

     

     

     

     

      1. Frankly

        “losing tens of thousands?”

        I guess this proves my theory that taking away a liberal’s opportunity of feeling good feels like death to him.

        Do you want to get back on track with your moral equivalency?

        Who said I want to exterminate 10,000? I just want them to go to a Mideastern country or for the US to form a NATO coalition to create safe territory for them.

        You do know that Obama refused to accept any Yazidi or Assyrian Christian refugees even while thousands were being slaughtered by ISIS?  This was something Rich Rifkin was bringing up many months ago… where were you on that?  Silent.

        It just boggles my mind how people will put their head in the sand about all the death and carnage occurring in these countries and rejecting any US military intervention, and then make the “sanctity of life” argument for bring them into our country.

        And it appears that our President has a bias against Christians and for Muslims… which is pretty much the same as the general liberal population.

        1. Davis Progressive

          “Logic is tough for liberals.”

          facts are evidently tough for conservatives as you guys have made multiple statements here that were factually untrue and neither you, bp, or frankly are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge those errors.

        2. Frankly

          What errors?  Show me proof of things in error that I have written and I will gladly and calmly accept responsibility and accept the correction.

          Note too while you are at it that there are plenty of facts pointed out that don’t fit your view and you just ignore those.  So let’s not get too high and mighty on this point of intellectual honesty.

        3. Tia Will

          You do know that Obama refused to accept any Yazidi or Assyrian Christian refugees even while thousands were being slaughtered by ISIS?:

          A point of agreement. If possible, we should have been offering asylum to those folks also. So now, criticizing Obama for not helping Christians in need, you want him to double down by not helping Muslims in need ?  May I point out that these refugees are fleeing from the same terrorists. So your only point here is that we should be protecting Christians, but not Muslims.  I can’t agree with that.

          It just boggles my mind how people will put their head in the sand about all the death and carnage occurring in these countries and rejecting any US military intervention, and then make the “sanctity of life” argument for bring them into our country.”

          You do not seem to understand that the people creating all the “death and carnage” are not the same people as are fleeing.

        4. Tia Will

          Frankly

          form a NATO coalition to create safe territory for them.”

          You mean like the west has often done ? To”create”, aka, carve out a portion of someone else’s land on which to settle them according to the preferences of the west ?  That has worked out really well every time we have done it in the past….right ?

          How convenient. We send a little money, and of course our best wishes, risk little to nothing, divide up someone else’s region according to our preferences and then brag about how generous and how brave we are. Now that is certainly logical, and an evidence based approach….right ?

  25. wdf1

    Mayor uses Japanese internment camps to defend his rejection of Syrian refugees

    David Bowers, the mayor of Roanoke, Virginia, thinks the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a good idea and that there should be more of that kind of thing.

    Bowers, like a lot of state and local government officials, is trying to prevent Syrian refugees from being resettled in his area. Unlike most state and local government officials, however, he justifies his actions by saying we should be at least as harsh toward Syrians because of ISIS as FDR was to Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor:

    I’m reminded that President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt compelled to sequester Japanese foreign nationals after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and it appears that the threat of harm to America from Isis (sic) now is just as real and serious as that from our enemies then.

    And then,

    George Takei has the perfect response to a mayor who praised Japanese internment

    Star Trek actor turned internet celebrity George Takei takes this subject very personally because he was one of the 120,000 Japanese Americans who were targeted by Roosevelt’s policies. And in a powerful Facebook post, he pointed out that the lesson Bowers has drawn from this history is totally wrong:

    1) The internment (not a “sequester”) was not of Japanese “foreign nationals,” but of Japanese Americans, two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens. I was one of them, and my family and I spent 4 years in prison camps because we happened to look like the people who bombed Pearl Harbor. It is my life’s mission to never let such a thing happen again in America.

    2) There never was any proven incident of espionage or sabotage from the suspected “enemies” then, just as there has been no act of terrorism from any of the 1,854 Syrian refugees the U.S. already has accepted. We were judged based on who we looked like, and that is about as un-American as it gets.

    3) If you are attempting to compare the actual threat of harm from the 120,000 of us who were interned then to the Syrian situation now, the simple answer is this: There was no threat. We loved America. We were decent, honest, hard-working folks. Tens of thousands of lives were ruined, over nothing.

  26. Frankly

    Interesting that in the comment section of the Enterprise we have what appears to be a liberal Jew doing the “it is Western civilization’s fault” dance and what appears to be a Muslim strongly condemning the terrorism.   Of course I am basing my opinion here on the names of the letter writers… so I could be wrong about their ethnicity.

    1. hpierce

      I have met and engaged many times with Hazma… I know I’d “have his back”, and am pretty sure he’d have mine… he is indeed “Muslim”, and he and his family are very spiritual and are strong in their faith… and great Davis citizens… I say this as a spiritual person who happens to be Christian (of the pre-reformation version).  I’d say more, but respect their privacy.  Too many folk out there who use “broad-brush” ignorant approaches to life.

      A thinking person should “listen” to him. I deeply respect his views, in spite of the fact that I might disagree from time to time

      I have no clue as to the other author.

    1. Tia Will

      Frankly

      It is very interesting to me that you specify that you do not trust the Obama administration to “keep us safe” while 9/11 happened while Bush was president. So is it your position that no administration can “keep us safe” regardless of the measures taken, which would seem a reasonable conclusion, or do you simply dislike the Obama presidency so much that you cannot admit that perhaps this administration might just deserve a little credit for no comparable attack having occurred during his administration ?

      1. hpierce

        Tia… gonna’ make a prediction here… some will say that 911 was “set up” by Clinton and Democrats, and the “shrub” was just “inheriting the wind”… Bush I and Clinton both attacked middle-east “targets”… as did Bush II… as did…

      2. Frankly

        Bush was in office less than 8 months when 9-11 hit.  There were absolutley zero Islamist terrorist attacks on American soil after that.

        And that carried over to Obama’s first couple of years.  But after that the list of Islamic terror acts multipled significantly.

        Bush said it… we are going to fight them over here so we don’t have to fight them here.   Apparently Obama believes in the opposite strategy.

        Obamba’s foreighn policy is a disaster for the US and the rest of the free world.

        1. Don Shor

          Bush said it… we are going to fight them over here so we don’t have to fight them here.

          Yep. Sounds exactly like something he would say.
          George W. Bush and his administration presided over the worst foreign policy debacle of the last fifty years. You, your fellow conservatives, and the Republican Party need to own that. Until they do, they can’t be trusted with the reins of power. The bidding war for how many troops has already begun. A third Bush is already advocating that the US invade another Mideast country. That’s the clearest sign that the lesson hasn’t been learned by the right. Hubris, overweening pride, and a delusional faith in the power of the US military to achieve strategic outcomes in the Mideast; trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of American dead, tens of thousands of American wounded, scores of thousands of Iraqis dead, and still they don’t learn.

        2. Tia Will

          hpierce and Frankly

          Bush was in office less than 8 months when 9-11 hit.”

          I didn’t have to wait long.

          I do not blame Bush for the 9/11 attack. What I blame his advisors for, since I believe that he was as far over his head as you believe Obama to be, is the completely irrelevant course of action that they took us on when, failing to fully pursue those responsible for that attack, they decided to over throw the stabilizing force in power in Iraq, which had absolutely zero to do with said attack.  We are seeing the same kind of generalization and deflection of blame now. ISIS leaders and fighters are causing death and destruction, so we need to protect ourselves from those who are fleeing them just as we would be if we were caught in the same situation.

          By painting all Muslims, as though they were one, as Frankly is doing when he states that there are countries that would be a much more suitable place for them “culturally”, never mind that they are being slaughtered by those”who are culturally similar”, he is using exactly the same logic that was used in claiming that Saadam was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. How many times are we going to buy into this xenophobic tripe ?

        3. Frankly

          claiming that Saadam was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

          Tia – you seem to be forgetting that the response to the 9-11 attacks was the war in Afghanistan, not Iraq.  Afghanistan was a UN-sanctioned war against the Taliban.

          The war in Iraq was pushed by the Bush Administration for other reasons: some proven true and some proven false.

          But as usual you seem to leave out the parts inconvenient to your views.

          1. Don Shor

            The Bush administration clearly tried to link Iraq to 9/11. There are multiple quotes from Bush, Cheney and Rice all making the assertion of links between Hussein and al Qaeda and 9/11 as justifications for the war in Iraq.

        4. hpierce

          Frankly, re: your 8:41 post… which war in Iraq?  As a knowledgeable person said, “But as usual you seem to leave out the parts inconvenient to your views.”

        5. Frankly

          George W. Bush and his administration presided over the worst foreign policy debacle of the last fifty years.

          I have said it before.  Liberals appear to be more terrified of being made to admit they are wrong than death itself.  So liberals are risk-averse and afflicted with analysis paralysis.  And then they become the smartest people in the room after the decisions of others.  Professional critics.  Einsteins in hindsight.

          But make a critical decision… no!…  that might lead to them making a mistake.  God forbid that any liberal is held accountable for any mistake.

          Good leadership requires making decisions and taking actions.  And good leadership often results in mistakes in judgment.

          How many mistakes have been made in war by previous Presidents?  How many mistakes did liberal-loved-FDR make in the great war that resulted in 65,000,000 dead?  FDR was originally afflicted with analysis paralysis… he did not want the US to fight in the great war. How many more dead resulted from that decision?  But what might his uncle Teddie have done instead?  Would earlier involvement in the Great War prevented so much death?  We will never know.  Just like we will never know what the consequences of not taking out Saddam would have led to.

          A decision to do nothing is still a decision and a decision with consequences.

          And I love how everyone on the left keeps turning back to Iraq while contracting amnesia about Libya.

          1. Don Shor

            I have said it before. Liberals appear to be more terrified of being made to admit they are wrong than death itself. So liberals are risk-averse and afflicted with analysis paralysis. And then they become the smartest people in the room after the decisions of others. Professional critics. Einsteins in hindsight.

            Apparently you are still arguing with those fictitious liberals in your head.

            How many mistakes have been made in war by previous Presidents?

            You are still deflecting and repeating fables.
            How about you admit the complete disaster that Bush led us into based on fabrications and lies, and then perhaps we can discuss the best policies going forward. This is important because conservatives and current Republican candidates have concocted a complete fable about Iraq and Syria, and are listening to the same advisers that caused the complete debacle in the first place. So, with nothing learned from those mistakes, they plan to repeat them. And you plan to vote for them.
            Taking America into an unnecessary war that killed thousands of Americans and others puts George W. Bush in the ranks of our worst presidents of all time. “We will never know” is weaseling out of an honest admission of the bankrupt, immoral, disastrous policies of your party and your president and now your candidates.

          2. Don Shor

            And I love how everyone on the left keeps turning back to Iraq while contracting amnesia about Libya.

            No amnesia whatsoever. The Libyan operation, which was initiated by France and for which we provided a supporting role, was opposed here by liberals and conservatives. It is an excellent example of what will surely go wrong in Syria if we try to do the same thing there. And the same thing is what is being proposed by conservative interventionists.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

        6. Barack Palin

          And I love how everyone on the left keeps turning back to Iraq while contracting amnesia about Libya.

          Not to mention how Obama pulled out of Iraq too soon and did nothing when Syria crossed his “line”.  Let’s not forget about Arab Spring either. The man is pathetic on the national stage and luckily even the left is starting to realize.

        7. Frankly

          Thanks for that correction TBD.  Yes, I get that messed up.  We call the “Great War” WWI and the “Greatest Generation” those that fought and sacrificed for WWII.  I should have written the “war fought by the Greatest Generation”.

    2. hpierce

      And, after you’ve seen Frankly’s (frankly partisan and somewhat selective/ignorant) post, and cite, I suggest you read this also:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Syria#Syria_under_Hafez_al-Assad_.281970.E2.80.932000.29

      Let’s see… rise of dictator  1971… who’s watch was that on?  Oppression in 2001… who’s watch was that on?  Reality of what has led to the current situation spans at least 44 years, if not 800 years… the world was not watching/didn’t act/didn’t care.  But Frankly (and others) SOLELY lays it on Obama, and therefore, the US.

      YEAH, RIGHT.  Simplistic laying of blame.  Historically incorrect.  Worse?  The US, no matter who led, did not “cause” the current situation.  Could Obama/Bush II/ Clinton/Bush I/Carter/Reagan/Nixon done more?  I doubt it.  Or, had they tried, would it be worse?

    1. Frankly

      Funny Onion-like stuff.

      But it is actually the point.  The change to soft targets is a game-changer.  I’m sure once the terrorists hit a liberal arts college, or a gay bar or some Hollywood celebrities, then the left will start demanding SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!

  27. Barack Palin

    On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said at a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill that the total number of refugees taken in by the United States could rise to more than 100,000, from the current figure of 70,000. State Department officials said that not all of the additional 30,000 would be Syrians, but many would be. But Mr. Earnest said that members of Congress “misunderstood” Mr. Kerry, and that the number of refugees would not rise to 100,000 next year but might in later years.

    For those who think it’s only 10,000, so what’s the big deal?  Then once they’re over here they’ll want to bring in their fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, cousins……..

    1. David Greenwald

      For me, a number isn’t the overriding consideration. For me, there are specifics about the French treatment of Muslim immigrants that led to a breeding ground for local residents to take up extremism. And to me, extremism is a tool not a cause here. You end up with disenfranchised and disaffected youths in this country causing problems as well. And that’s my second point, far more than 129 people have been killed this year, in this country from mass shooting, and we don’t get this kind of reaction. Fourth, we’re never going to be completely safe. I’m not saying that as an argument to not act, what I am saying is if we start going against our values, then we end up letting the terrorist win a far more important value. Those who value temporary security over liberty, deserve neither. And for me, insecurity is the risk we take for our freedom and I don’t want anyone taking that away.

      1. Frankly

        There is a lot in here to comment on.

        For me, there are specifics about the French treatment of Muslim immigrants that led to a breeding ground for local residents to take up extremism.

        I think this is very superficial in understanding.  Sure the French are pretty arrogant about their culture and it can be more difficult for immigrants to feel accepted.  But France does what American liberals like yourself demand… copious social services.  Housing, food, medical, education… all paid for by some of the highest tax rates in the world.  But it isn’t enough.  And it won’t be enough for many of these refugees if they are allowed to come here.

        And to me, extremism is a tool not a cause here. You end up with disenfranchised and disaffected youths in this country causing problems as well.

        With all due respect I think the political left is brain-dead on this point and what the true causes are… and why it is a key point in understanding why our immigration laws and principles need to change.  French Muslims turn to extremism because they are locked out of the primary economy of France and they don’t have enough to do.  And in their bored and angry state they are exploited by the marketing campaigns of the Islamic extremist groups… that then breeds the radicalism.  We see similar things brewing with Black Lives Matter.  The kids… primarily young men… are angry.  Why are they angry?  The left has tried to deflect from the true root cause by scapegoating law enforcement.  But the reality is the crappy jobless economy and crappy education system. What is fascinating to me is to watch liberals advocate for and defend all of the policies that perpetuate these problems (higher taxes, more regulations, bigger government, bigger deficits, unions, minimum wage hikes, environmental extreme policies, anti industrialism, land preservation vs economic development… the list goes on).  The root cause of radical Islam in Europe is European liberalism… and American liberals are pushing for the same here.

        And that’s my second point, far more than 129 people have been killed this year, in this country from mass shooting, and we don’t get this kind of reaction.

        We get plenty of reactions from the mass killings from insane people.  And we demand improvements to mental health and are willing to accept stricter licensing and background checks for gun ownership.  But liberals are dishonest here… they want to exploit each one of these tragedies to secure more gun BANS.  And since that is their clear agenda they don’t want to waste it moving on policies to improve mental health services and laws (including doing away with much of the liberal-and libertarian-pushed healthcare privacy laws and rules that prevent having people committed to full0-time, dedicated care facilities).  They know that if they do that it will change the national narrative away from the “guns kill people” narrative they believe will eventually take hold so they can ban guns.

        Fourth, we’re never going to be completely safe. I’m not saying that as an argument to not act, what I am saying is if we start going against our values, then we end up letting the terrorist win a far more important value.

        Give me an effing break.  We have already compromised many of our values and freedoms because of the threats of terrorism.  Our rights to privacy are toast.  Been to airport lately?  I agree that we are never going to be completely safe, but we should not be stupid in our pursuit of things that make us feel good that result in increase safety risks.

        Liberals are the most stubborn group of people that I will ever have the pleasure of debating in this short 4/5-20s life.  They have clear view from the statistics and events in Europe to see where we are heading; yet they won’t stop pursuing exactly the same.  It is the claimed pursuit of utopia that actually results in dystopia.  For example, Sweden is the rape capital of the world!

        In terms of the feel good pursuit, we already have plenty of people we have allowed in to care for.  We have copious charity cases already here that liberals can feel good about helping.  We have had the most generous immigration policies for decades.  There is already a very large population of existing people in the US that require help.  Let’s focus on them and leave the Syrian refugee problem to the Mideastern countries. It would also help prevent terrorist attacks.

        Those who value temporary security over liberty, deserve neither. And for me, insecurity is the risk we take for our freedom and I don’t want anyone taking that away.

        You are going too far with this, and you are also myopic in your concern.  Again, every additional risk we add that leads to an event is going to cause Americans to demand that their government keep them safe and we will lose more freedoms in the name of safety.  Look at all the people in Davis demanding we take away freedoms of merchants to operate a profitable business and freedoms of college students to socialize, party and dance… in the name of safety. If these people had their way they would build a wall around Davis to keep out the “bad elements”. But many of the same are demanding we allow in terrorist threats.  Fascinating.

        Here is something for you to consider.  A foreigner that legally immigrates here is tested.  And so there is a filter that determines that they are good fit for American culture and ways.  We are already reading storiedsof recent Syrian refugees to Europe complaining and protesting that the situation is not meeting their expectations.  They are complaining about the food, the housing, the language difficulty, the cultural differences.  These are people that have been ruled by dictators and have a view of society that is way out of sync for what American life is today.  Assimilation in the best of circumstances would be tough for them.  But with our anemic economic growth and poor job availability… and the visibility of the new upper class stoking class envy… we are going to have a higher percentage of them turn radical.

        The bottom line for me is that modern Western civilization is no longer a good fit for many refugees and even many immigrants.  It used to be, but it no longer is.  And proof of this just happened in France.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Great points. There has also been an apparent rape epidemic in England, Sweden, and elsewhere where the liberals let in these vastly different cultures and values. While a large percentage of the new immigrants may be law abiding, there is a significant crime impact from a certain segment of these new arrivals.

          In Rotherham, England, runaway political correctness was partly blamed for the continued and ghastly rape and exploitation of foster children / girls, even when they finally divulged the horrible acts to counselors and officials. The reports were seen as too unbelievable, and no one wanted to believe in PC England / British school system that Pakistani cab drivers were really committing these ghastly crimes.

          “It conservatively estimated that 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men.[7] Abuses described by the report included abduction, rape, torture and sex trafficking of children.[6]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

          In the past when I have googled this topic, I’ve also run across a pattern of rape of English women by Muslim cab drivers in the hundreds.

        2. Tia Will

          Frankly

          Liberals are the most stubborn group of people that I will ever have the pleasure of debating”

          At least I can thank you for this mornings first out loud laugh. Have you read any of your own posts recently ?

    2. Tia Will

      Then once they’re over here they’ll want to bring in their fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, cousins……..”

      And that is how strong families are built and maintained. If those family members are also threatened, they should be admitted also. If they are not under threat ( namely asylum seekers) then they should stay home and would probably want to for the most part. Not every one chooses to migrate just because one family member does. My ex-husband and one brother chose to come to the US for their education, and remained. The remaining sibs and all of the rest of the family stayed in Turkey by choice. The belief that everyone would come to the US if they could is a delusion. This is simply not true. But if it is a choice of dying, or coming to the US, I am sure most would find relocating here preferable. If we turn our backs because of fear, we do it to our own shame.

      1. Barack Palin

        Then we can all admit that the 10,000 number is just a charade.  It will end up being 100’s of thousands and not only will we be upping our chances of attacks over here we will also be bringing in a culture that doesn’t want to assimilate as evidenced by the problems that many European countries have been experiencing.

        1. Tia Will

          Then we can all admit that the 10,000 number is just a charade”

          No we cannot “all admit that….” All I can attest to is that the numbers are not particularly important to me. The principle and the lives at stake, regardless of religion, do. I do not make policy.  I do not speak for the administration, but only for myself.

        2. Barack Palin

          Did you read what Kerry stated?  There will be 10’s of thousands more than the 10,000 number.  So let’s just stop saying it’s only 10,000 and it’s not a big deal.

        3. Tia Will

          BP

          a culture that doesn’t want to assimilate as evidenced by the problems that many European countries have been experiencing.”

          Again, you generalize. Some fit in very well. Some do not. It is not the fact that they are Syrian, or Muslim, it is their choices as individuals. Do you think that every Irish immigrant made a successful transition?  Or every Italian ?  I know some who certainly did not…they were a part of my family.  Others fit in beautifully. You are describing human beings, not just Syrians or Muslims.

           

        4. hpierce

          “… bringing in a culture that doesn’t want to assimilate as evidenced by the problems that many European countries native American populations/cultures have been experiencing experienced.”  

          Spot on… (as edited).  All of us descended from Europeans should leave and apologize?

  28. Tia Will

    if we start going against our values, then we end up letting the terrorist win a far more important value”

    Mr. Holland knows this to be true. The stated goal of the terrorists is to destroy the western way of life. He understands that if the French are so terrified that they give up the parts of their lives that bring them joy, then the terrorists have won a major victory. He has urged his citizens to go about their lives.

    If we abandon our principles now, we are allowing them to win. This we must not do.

  29. Barack Palin

    MUSLIMS’ REFUSAL TO ASSIMILATE INTO WESTERN CULTURES

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1504

    England, Sweden, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands – in every European country with a large Muslim immigrant population, the story is the same: Islamic supremacists refuse to assimilate into the Western melting pot; instead they carve out a foothold in a neighborhood, and then, through intimidation or outright violence, push out the infidels whose failed secular values are no longer acceptable. Even public services such as police, firefighters and ambulances are often driven out of such neighborhoods with stones, bottles, or bullets. Lacking the political and cultural will to assert control in areas that in some cases have become urban war zones, the authorities have simply retreated and abandoned them.

    1. hpierce

      Yeah, and Christians (and Jews) have refused to “assimilate”, historically.  They kept their beliefs, cultures. And they changed the cultures that they encountered. Are you “Borg”?  “You shall be assimilated?”  “Resistance is futile?”

    2. TrueBlueDevil

      While many refugees have good intentions, others are not. Even uber liberal Europe is waking up to this.

      Rape epidemic in Norway caused by Muslim immigration

      “Back in May it was reported that every rape assault in the city of Oslo in the last five years had been committed by a person with a “non-Western” background – a Norwegian euphemism for Muslim. Now it turns out that there have already been twice as many rape assaults in Oslo so far this year as there were in all of 2010….”

      “Not so very many years ago, Oslo was virtually a rape-free city, inhabited by people who had been brought up on civilized notions of mutual respect and tolerance. No longer. Over the years, the incidence of rape has risen steadily. A wildly disproportionate number of the perpetrators are “rejected asylum seekers” – which may sound puzzling unless you are aware of the perverse state of affairs whereby even persons officially rejected for asylum in Norway are still allowed to stay. And the increasing temerity of the rapists – who know very well that they will probably not be caught, and, if caught, will not be severely punished – is reflected in the fact that the most recent rape (in which two men assaulted a 21-year-old woman) took place virtually in the backyard of the Royal Palace.”

      http://en.europenews.dk/Rape-epidemic-in-Norway-caused-by-Muslim-immigration-78667.html

      1. David Greenwald

        You write, “Even uber liberal Europe is waking up to this,” while quoting a right wing publication’s opinion as though it were fact.  Lot’s of contradictions here. That’d be like me writing even the south is waking up to years of historic racism as I quote from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

      2. Tia Will

        TBD

        Back in May it was reported that every rape assault in the city of Oslo in the last five years had been committed by a person with a “non-Western” background – a Norwegian euphemism for Muslim” 

        It is nearly universally reported that almost every perpetrator of rape on an adult woman, is a man. This clearly should prove to us that men are incapable of assimilating into a peaceful culture where rape is an unacceptable action under any circumstances. This of course leads me to the obvious conclusion that in order for women to be safe, we cannot accept men into our communities. I therefore propose that we, humanely of course, set aside camps for men where they can live separately in areas more accepting of their sexually violent nature. All boys will be taken to these areas at onset of puberty, thus keeping we non raping women safe.

        Sound good to you ?

        1. sisterhood

          TBD

          My Irish Catholic Christian ancestors had a difficult time fleeing the potato famine and assimilating on the east coast.  For example, my great grandmother believed in the  gremlins when she misplaced things. If she lost her thimble, the gremlins must have taken it. They ate no meat on Friday. The women and men did not use any sort of birth control and had very large families.Adult women covered their hair when they attended Mass.  Wives usually acquiesced to their husbands, especially when in public.  They worked long hours as maids and manual laborers, and it stung to read the signs “Irish Need Not Apply.”

  30. Barack Palin

    In Britain, where there were already some 85 Sharia courts in operation as of August 2011, an Islamist group called Muslims Against the Crusades (MAC) has launched an ambitious campaign to turn twelve British cities into independent Islamic states. These cities include Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and what MAC calls “Londonistan.” In the Tower Hamlets in East London – or as the Muslims there refer to it, “the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets” – imams known as the “Tower Hamlets Taliban” issue death threats to unveiled women, and gays are attacked by gangs of young Muslim men. The neighborhood has been littered with leaflets announcing, “You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced.” It was in East London, moreover, that the Islamist Abu Izzadeen challenged former Home Secretary John Reid by saying: “How dare you come to a Muslim area?”In France, there were some 751 so-called Sensitive Urban Zones (ZUS) as of August 2011. The nature of the ZUS, and chaos like the nightly burning of cars in Paris, are topics that the French media largely downplay in order to avoid accusations of racism or “Islamophobia.”

    The Dutch government has released a list of forty “no-go” zones in the Netherlands. In Brussels, Belgium — which is twenty percent Muslim — police have to patrol with two police cars, so they can protect each another from hostile locals. And yet the multiculturalist mindset is so deeply entrenched in Europeans that it is the police who are expected to avoid offending cultural sensitivities: Officers, for example, who frequently are targeted with rocks by Muslim youth, have been ordered not to drink coffee or eat in public during the Islamic month of Ramadan.In Sweden, which an imam there has labeled “the best Islamic state,” whole patches of the city of Malmö – which is more than 25 percent Muslim – are no-go zones. There and in Gothenburg, Muslim teenagers have been burning cars, attacking emergency services, throwing.stones at patrolling officers and temporarily blinding them with green lasers.

  31. TrueBlueDevil

    FWIW, the Islamist brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev – the Boston bombers – were both refugees living on welfare.

    George Washington, 1783: “”The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”

    Interesting. While Syrian Christians are a target for slavery, rape and murder, since 2011 only 53 of the Syrian refugees allowed into America by President Obama have been Christian.

    President Obama seems confused. For years he implies or says that we are a racist nation and people, yet now he wants us to live up to our generous and helpful traditions. Which one is it, Barry?

    1. hpierce

      From someone who doesn’t know of ONE Nazi (and SS) German [hint: Von Braun] (recruited, settled, funded and ‘lionized’ at full government expense), at the end of WWII, at no less, please excuse me for asking for your cite. so I/we may judge the source.

      Your “facts” are not credible without corroboration… not even close.  You write, ” … since 2011 only 53 of the Syrian refugees allowed into America by President Obama have been Christian.”  How many were personally approved or disapproved by Obama?  Failing that, how many immigration employees who actually made a decision to admit or not admit “came on board” during the Bush years?  You appear to be spewing manure.  Put up (using credible cites), or…

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        The Hill: No room in America for Christian refugees

        “At the end of World War II, the Jewish survivors of Europe’s Holocaust found that nearly every door was closed to them. “Tell Me Where Can I Go?” was a popular Yiddish song at the time. Decades later, the Christians of the Middle East face the same problem, and the Obama administration is keeping the door shut.

        “America is about to accept 9000 Syrian Muslims, refugees of the brutal war between the Assad regime and its Sunni opposition, which includes ISIS, Al Qaeda, and various other militias. That number is predicted to increase each year.  There are no Christian refugees that will be admitted….

        “The Christians are being raped, tortured, and murdered by militias, not by the Syrian government. This technicality condemns them to continue to be victims without hope. And this technicality is being adhered to with all the tenacity with which President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s State Department manipulated quotas and created subterfuges  to keep out the Jews fleeing the oppression of Nazi Germany. Obama no more wants the Middle East’s Christian refugees than Roosevelt wanted Europe’s Jewish refugees.”

        http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees

         

        1. David Greenwald

          “The Hill: No room in America for Christian refugees”

          You imply this is the opinion of the Hill.  It’s actually a blog entry by Alan Miller, an emeritus professor of political science, University of Cincinnati, and a contributor to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a conservative think-tank.

  32. TrueBlueDevil

    Very interesting, I just learned that the UN dictates say that refugees should be kept in the closest and safest place to their home country. This makes perfect sense as it is easier for them to go home when peace returns. They can help rebuild their country.

    Second, we can support 12 people there for what it takes to support one person here.

     

    1. Davis Progressive

      there are a lot of problems with this.  first, you say “the gang that couldn’t shoot straight” because what, bush could?  the middle east policy has been fumbled since before the first gulf war.  given that there have been two democratic admins and two republicans in that time, i’m guessing the problem is elsewhere.

      second, this article proves that the notion of liberal bias in the media is bs.  the article is based on the opinion of rand corp policy analyst.  he’s the sole source and his view is the view expressed by the authors – there is no attempt to balance, no opposing viewpoint presented.

      1. Barack Palin

        200 ISIS oil trucks were bombed yesterday after 2 years of them pretty much having a free roam and have brought much revenue to ISIS.  What, was Obama afraid that the driver might be civilian?  Face it, Obama has bumbled this from the start.  And here you always claim you’re not an Obama lover but you sure jump to his defense often.

  33. tribeUSA

    TBD and Frankly–good to see you two are bringing some balance and additional facts to the discussion–in addition, I think it should be pointed out that a large fraction of the Muslim communities in Europe support segregated enclaves for muslims with Sharia law, and are sympathetic to the more extremist (and small) fraction of muslims who support establishment of a Caliphate and also support ISIL and other anti-western groups-as i understand it, a substantial minority see themselves not just as immigrants, but in the vanguard of muslim/islamist expansion and colonization of the west toward the grand goal of a Caliphate. Because of the significantly large fraction of sympathizers, it is easy for the extremists to hide out in the muslim community without being reported–in many neighborhoods there is sort of a passive support (mainly looking the other way and pretending not to know there are extremists in their midst who might be jihadi supporters).

    I wish there were a way to screen them for willingness to assimilate and integrate into american society–many of them do; the problem is the ones who don’t, and how to screen them. At least they should be made to swear an oath out loud and by signature that they will uphold American law as trumping over Sharia law when the two conflict. (as an additional explicitly clear qualifier to the oath to abide by american laws—and customs too?)

    The mainstream media and politicos continue to shamefully trumpet and parrot that we should not be fearful or bigoted–as if de facto these are the primary reasons for opposition to immigrants of any stripe. Since they imply that they are reading the psyches of the immigration policy opposition; I will engage in my own reading of their own psyches–I believe that they are projecting their own fears and anxieties onto others; by doing so they can represent themselves as courageous; furthermore society sanctions that they can award themselves moral points for sympathizing with their plight (gratis of course, with no personal effort on their part)–perhaps such views make themselves feel better; but of course such argument do not constitute any kind of a basis for policy; wherein the basis for policy should be what is best for the american people and the nation (not what makes some people feel good about themselves and not what is best for people in other countries–our government leaders are rightly our representatives;it is not their job description to represent the interests of non-citizens).

    That said (and there is much more to add to what I’ve written); I do favor a very stringent screening process to let in some few thousands of Syrian migrants (Muslim and Christian); mainly because the USA has incurred a moral obligation to the refugees,due to the blood and chaos and destruction USA policy has wreaked throughout the middle east. The USA should have been and should be working day and night with middle eastern partners in establishing more and better refugee camps in the middle east; including substantial funding/ material support (housing, food) for them paid for by USA tax dollars–yes, we have incurred a moral debt that will take another bite out of the taxpayers wallet; while we have our own substantial problems with poverty in the USA.

    1. Frankly

      So the House passes a bill for more robust vetting of these refugees, and Obama makes childish shots at GOP candidates for fearing women and children and then says he will veto the bill.

      And the left and the left media keep up the narrative that Obama is a reasonable and cooperative leader… if only those Republicans would learn to compromise.

      Lefties that absolutley still support this president… that have been unwilling to accept any criticism except that he isn’t liberal enough… have lost much of my respect for being capable of rational and objective thought within the topic of politics.

      Obama is the great destructor.  He is stubborn, egoistical, selfish, biased and is an outright political bully.  He is a reflection of Trump except with greater oratory skills and a left-leaning sharkskin suit.  It is clear that he cares more about the partisan fight than he does doing what is right for the country. He has abused executive power like no other… leveraging his race and the PC correctness police and getting propped up by media and entertainment industry filled full of like lefty egomaniacs.

      McConnel better come through on this one.

  34. Tia Will

    tribeUSA

    as an additional explicitly clear qualifier to the oath to abide by american laws—and customs too?)”

    Just which American customs did you have in mind ? Are they going to have to start going to church ? To celebrate Christmas ? Will Thanksgiving be a required holiday for them ? I think you are conveniently forgetting that not all Americans share the same set of customs and traditions. My Buddhist neighbors and Muslim coworkers are certainly going to be surprised that now they are going to have to start following “American customs” as some kind of proof of loyalty. After all, why shouldn’t this be extended to those who are already here ?  Who knows who might become “radicalized” ?

    they can award themselves moral points for sympathizing with their plight (gratis of course, with no personal effort on their part)”

    I think that you missed the point of the article. The people who are helping the refugees are doing it with their own personal time and resources. These are people who are putting their own time and money into the effort. The are not people, like Dick Cheney, who are perfectly willing to allow other people to be soldiers and go and fight for their safety because “they have other priorities” at the time, or send other people’s children to their deaths ( “boots on the ground”) so that they can live the American dream while denying it to others.

    It is a nice catch phrase to say that “we are either going to fight them here or there” as though this is mutually exclusive. If we fight them “there” then we don’t have to see the carnage, the children blown to bits by our bombs just as surely as children were blown to bits at the Boston Marathon. So it seems it is ok to blow up Syrian children, but not American children ? A friend of mine put it very succinctly back at the time of controversy over whether the return of American soldier’s bodies should be televised. She said “I don’t think that we should have to see that”. So, if we don’t have to see it, it’s ok ? I personally think that we should have to look those affected as a  consequence of our actions right in the face and tell them that our children are worth more than theirs.

        1. Barack Palin

          There obviously isn’t enough being done for our own needy and homeless veterans by the shear numbers on the streets.  Why should we bring in and take care of more needy when we can’t take care of what we have now?

          1. Don Shor

            Then by all means, donate more. Do whatever you want, dude. I’m not sure why you felt the need to criticize my suggestion or the link I provided. Your comment was churlish and highly predictable. I also donate to the Red Cross, which provides help to (gasp) non-Americans, too. Again, feel free to donate to any American-centric charity of your choice.

        2. Barack Palin

          Hey Don, I’m just making a point that why should we take in more needy outsiders and donate money their way when we can’t take care of those we already have.  Nothing churlish about it, you’re just being a little sensitive here, don’t you think dude?

      1. hpierce

        They say, “charity begins at home”.  I agree with the sentiment.  Have never seen (except for some “outliers”) that “charity ends at home”.  Think that the latter is what Don is expressing.  for those in a position to, why not direct whatever ‘excess’ we have to those in “need”.

        I believe what is deemed “excess” is up to the individual.  But, even for those of us “well off”, what would we hope for if major “shit” happened, and it all ‘vaporized’?

      2. Tia Will

        BP

        Why don’t people just donate to our homeless veterans and other Americans that are needy?”

        Why don’t we as a very rich society, just choose to support those in our society who are in need adequately so that they do not have to be dependent upon the charity of others ?

        1. Frankly

          Do you even see the absurdity of that statement?

          Let me translate what you wrote so you can better understand it.

          Why don’t we give more to the needy so they don’t need to rely on the charity of others?

           

           

    1. Tia Will

      BP

      So I watched the clip you posted. I often have not agreed with the actions of President Obama. He is not nearly far enough to the left on the political spectrum for me since I am closer to a Bernie Sanders style democratic socialist.

      However, this one he has right. I firmly disagree with Trey Gowdy’s statement that the primary goal is the defense and security of the American public if that means abandoning the very principles that make us distinct as a nation. We cannot both pound our rhetorical chest about how brave and generous and compassionate we are as a nation, while we do not extend those traits and capabilities in the defense of those who are most in need of them now.

  35. Tia Will

    Frankly

    Do you even see the absurdity of that statement?”

    No ,I do not. And that is probably one of the clearest illustrations of how differently we see the world that I have yet encountered. I do not see a social compact that provides for all of the members of the defined group as “charity”. It is a right of membership.

    Just as you probably would not have allowed a sick or weak member of your nuclear family to die from illness or starvation or home invaders if preventable, I define my family as any human that I have the ability to help. But as you and others point out, I do not have enough resources to do that as an individual. But collectively, we could if we had the will to do so. We have the wealth, we simply do not have the will.

    1. Frankly

      Too bad the press didn’t post more pictures of the dead in France and other places from Islamic extremist terrorist attacks, because then you would have other pictures to not be able to get out of your head that might help you balance heart and head.

  36. Tia Will

    Biddlin

    Thank you for sharing.

    I had sincerely hoped not to have this experience again in my life. One Phan Thi Kim Phuc ( “napalm girl” for those too young to remember) was more than enough for me.

    I do not understand those who believe that our only obligation to humanity is to those who happen to have been born in the same geographic location as ourselves. As Frankly said recently in another context “one is too many”.

  37. Tia Will

    I still have not heard a logical explanation for why it is more heinous for an innocent life to be taken by a member of ISIS than for an innocent life to be taken by a military bomber or by not helping a refugee who could have been saved. I await such an explanation.

    1. Don Shor

      I’m sure we could find lots of pictures of people killed by terrorists. And lots of people killed and maimed by bombs dropped by Assad on his own people. And if you search, you’ll find pictures of the 10,000+ people he has in prison that he is torturing and starving to death; just check Amnesty International. And lots of pictures of people killed by bombs we dropped in our “war of choice” against Iraq. And lots of pictures of the Americans killed and maimed in that war.
      Or perhaps we could focus on helping the refugees there and here, and offer support for the diplomatic efforts that Secretary Kerry is undertaking on behalf of the president, and try to reduce the conditions that are leading millions of people to flee their homes.

    2. Frankly

      Islamic extremist terrorists takes innocent lives on purpose.  In fact, with this last terrorist attack on the French people, ISIS purposely targeted places where young people would be.

      There is a FREAKIN’ HUGE difference between a group purposely targeting and killing innocent people and a nation attempting to take them out to keep more innocent people save while the terrorist hide among more innocent people knowing full well that it will result in some of them being killed even though the US uses every possible precaution to prevent it.

      Your typical Western liberal moral equivalency argument is disturbing on many levels… one of them being that terrorists rely on it and exploit it.   Therefore Western liberals are culpable for being the cause of innocent death.

      What if we were all united in voicing a clear separation of outrage over the terrorist acts and understanding of the few mistakes the US military makes relative to the challenge?

      It is also really aggravating and irritating to hear liberals like you and Biddlin exploit the picture of that dead Syrian child as somehow the fault of the US.  Your national self-loathing sticks out like a big pimple.  The terrorists killed that child.  You should remember that.

      1. Don Shor

        The terrorists killed that child. You should remember that.

        The family of that little boy fled Damascus first, then Kobani. They were fleeing the civil war and Assad’s atrocities as well as ISIS. A genocidal dictator and terrorists “killed that child.”

        1. Frankly

          Yes.  And how many other children have been killed by the same?  I don’t need a heartbreaking image to help me understand the heartbreaking reality… and it has nothing to do with the US position on Syrian refugees… which was the inference I was responding to initially.

  38. Tia Will

    Frankly

    The terrorists killed that child”

    First, we do not know the exact circumstances under which that particular child died.  It is possible to claim that the terrorists are responsible because they created circumstances that the child’s parents found intolerable. It would also be possible to claim that this circumstance would not have existed had there been stability in the region. When ever there are wars, there is plenty of blame to go around.

    There is a FREAKIN’ HUGE difference between a group purposely targeting and killing innocent people and a nation attempting to take them out to keep more innocent people save while the terrorist hide among more innocent people knowing full well that it will result in some of them being killed even though the US uses every possible precaution to prevent it.”

    Not in my opinion. Once it is known that innocents are present and will be harmed then that action becomes deliberate if carried out. What is being decided by whoever makes the decision is that the innocent lives lost are worth the destruction of the guilty. In my mind, the is a very small step from “targeting the innocent”. If you know they are there, and you proceed, what is the difference ?

    What I loathe is violence, regardless of the perpetrators. And it is a really aggravating that you do not seem to be able to differentiate that from “national self loathing”. And it is especially baffling from my point of view since this article which I wrote was about pride in my fellow Americans.

    1. hpierce

      “Once it is known that innocents are present and will be harmed then that action becomes deliberate if carried out. What is being decided by whoever makes the decision is that the innocent lives lost are worth the destruction of the guilty. In my mind, the is a very small step from “targeting the innocent”. If you know they are there, and you proceed, what is the difference ?
      What I loathe is violence, regardless of the perpetrators.”

      Well, the terrorists in Paris, Egypt, Mali, et cetera, et cetera, SOUGHT to kill the innocent…. those folk were not “collateral damage”… they were the targets.  If I had been in a position to take all the perpetrators 6 feet under, BEFORE they killed those innocents who died, at the cost of two innocents, I’d cry, and pray for understanding from the families of the two, but I could sleep at night.  No problem.

      Are we to assume you loathe the violence the 3 young men displayed when they beat the crap out of the Belgian guy on the train?

      1. Tia Will

        hpierce

        Are we to assume you loathe the violence the 3 young men displayed when they beat the crap out of the Belgian guy on the train?”

        I really do not see what you get out of this repetitive game. I am sure that you know that I have stated on many occasions that I consider imminent threat an exception to my preference for not using physical force. How do I know ? Because you have responded to my posts stating this on many occasions.

        As for intent, I agree the acts of the terrorists were deliberately to harm civilians. This is unconscionable. When we know for a fact that innocents are present and choose to napalm or bomb or use drones anyway, for me that also becomes a deliberate act also since we do have the choice to strike at a different time or place. For me, this is also unconscionable.

         

        1. hpierce

          I will try to assure you, am not trying to “play a game” … perhaps it’s partly the ‘medium’ where things are said, out of passion, conviction, frustration, etc., where others, similarly inclined react to what appear to be “black/white” (take that at whatever level you wish), absolutist, “I’m right, you’re wrong” statements.

          I tend to be more complex, but find myself reacting strongly to strong  positions.  Philosophically, and spiritually, am a pacifist… but you mess with me/mine, you’d better be ready to “bring it on”, because that’s where I’ll come from.  I’ve been at the scenes of murders… saw the drying blood (assisting the police)… I, some of my family members, many friends, have had similar experiences with violence and how to deal with it.

          Tia, I do not choose to “play games” for fun, but if I perceive someone else is (rightly or wrongly), I may very well say, “deal me in”.

          Personally, I strongly wish you and yours have a wonderful Thanksgiving, upcoming holiday season, and a safe, happy, and secure New Year.

          Will now fully disengage from this topic.

  39. Frankly

    Not in my opinion. Once it is known that innocents are present and will be harmed then that action becomes deliberate if carried out

    You, young lady, are a piece of work.  God forbid you ever make a mistake trying to save lifes knowing that there are risks.

        1. wdf1

          There’s also a very credible narrative that says that neocon policy and behavior is great for Alqaeda/ISIS inspired terrorism.  One key thing that I liked that GW Bush did was to emphasize that American Muslims were not the enemy.  The narrative that works in favor of ISIS is to convince Muslims that the world is against them and that they’re better off joining with ISIS.  Compare that with statements from Donald Trump and a few others — his claim that American Muslims cheered the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11, etc.  Trump is the drunk uncle that I don’t want over for Thanksgiving.

        2. Frankly

          Politifact has a liberal bias.  But Trump is digging himself a big hole with claims that are divisive but lacking clear evidence.  Nevertheless there is some evidence as I had posted.

          1. Don Shor

            lacking clear evidence. Nevertheless there is some evidence

            That’s complete garbage. Let’s keep this simple. His statement was false. His followup statements were false. He is, in fact, lying now and was probably lying before. Why you are even remotely supporting that, I have no idea.

        3. Frankly

          There’s also a very credible narrative that says that neocon policy and behavior is great for Alqaeda/ISIS inspired terrorism. 

          we will see how the Obama liberal model compares.  so far not so good.

        4. Barack Palin

           He is, in fact, lying now and was probably lying before. Why you are even remotely supporting that, I have no idea.

          LOL, when Obama’s lies are pointed out on this blog we often hear “all politicians lie”.

          Why do liberals support Obama and his lies?

        5. Barack Palin

          Are you really sure you want to go down this road?  I can go on a long time when bringing up Obama’s lies.

          For one Obamacare and the many lies Obama told about that.

          You can keep your insurance.

          You can keep your doctor.

          You will see a savings of $2500.

          ISIS is just a JV team.

          ISIS is under control, then a day or two later Paris happens.

          Obama’s biography had 38 lies in the book.  I didn’t hear the liberal press vetting that during his candidacies like you do Ben Carson now.

          Do you want me to go on?   I’m just getting started.

           

          1. David Greenwald

            I’ll just give you an example: I kept my insurance, I kept my doctor, and I saw a savings. But what’s interesting is that you ignore the fact that most liberals wanted single payer, were disappointed to get the ACA, but probably like me believe that the new system is better than the old system even if it still has some kinks to work out. Most of what you cite are not lies, some are evolving situations and some are simply subjective views. The intelligence community clearly screwed up ISIS, just as they did a decade and a half ago with Al Qaeda. Do you believe that Bush lied about WMDs or simply was in error? Personally, I think we should use the term lie very sparingly for clear intentional fabrications and what you site doesn’t rise to that level. My opinion and I’m not going to continue this discussion, although you are welcome to do so.

  40. Tia Will

    Frankly

    God forbid you ever make a mistake trying to save lifes knowing that there are risks.”

    I never refused to operate on someone because their ethnicity or sexual preference of use of IV drugs put me at risk.

    But then, I don’t suppose you would count doing countless emergency procedures and surgeries without knowing the HIV status of the patient now would you ? Finger sticks included dating back to the time when this was a lethal illness rather than a chronic manageable condition. When you have done that, then you can criticize my courage or lack thereof. Until then, I really don’t think you should make this personal.

     

  41. Tia Will

    Frankly

    Like I have said before… one of the primary weapons of the terrorists is western liberals.”

    And that may have some truth to it. But liberals are not nearly as effective in helping the terrorisst as are the neocons, individuals who would act according to religion thus supporting their claim of this representing a Crusade, and playing into the hands who want to destroy our way of life by destroying it ourselves from the inside.

    1. Frankly

      There is no historical evidence or current indication that passivity, flowers and displays of “we will not respond in anger” do anything to stop radical Islamists from killing.  There is plenty of evidence that only killing most of them ends their terrorist acts.

      1. Don Shor

        There is plenty of evidence that only killing most of them ends their terrorist acts.

        Creating more chaos and even more desperate conditions is likely to increase the number of people in the region who go to work for ISIS for pragmatic as well as sometimes ideological reasons. We can’t kill “most of them.” And even if we invaded, conquered, and chased them off until they melt back into the populace of nearby cities, we couldn’t then govern them. So all the military options you favor are very likely to increase terrorism and make the problem worse in the absence of any diplomatic effort that re-establishes a government capable of self-government in those regions.

  42. Tia Will

    Frankly

    There is plenty of evidence that only killing most of them ends their terrorist acts.”

    Along the lines of what Don just posted, your comment brings up a fundamental difference in our world view. You see killing as a solution. I see stability, collaboration and hope as the solution. True, killing a terrorist stops that particular terrorist from killing again. It also demonstrates to others that he was correct  about the intentions of “the west” especially when there is “collateral damage” which you write off as a “mistake”. It plays right into his narrative of himself and his fellow terrorists as brave”freedom fighters” only trying to fight back against the invaders ( which by the way is an accurate description when we have “boots on the ground” regardless of the justification used). It inspires more to join the cause especially when our politicians give them fodder to believe in a religious basis for the conflict.

    Killing is not the answer for anything but the single terrorist directly involved.  It does not address the root problems. It does not provide for political or social stability. It does not win hearts and minds and will not ultimately help anyone except weapons manufacturers for whom it is a wind fall.

  43. Tia Will

    Frankly

    God forbid you ever make a mistake trying to save lifes knowing that there are risks.”

    I am not quite done with what I consider a cheap shot and cowardly statement. Courage is putting ones own self at risk to save lives or benefit others. Courage is not risking the lives of other people’s children and /or foreign innocents in order to save lives deemed to be of greater value, in this case American lives.

     

    1. Tia Will

      While sounding reasonable, this policy may actually be a two edged sword. We may be trading theoretical safety for actual increased risk. Many of these terrorists seem to be disaffected, alienated young men. So what happens to the young man who has no terrorist tendencies, but has turned 16 or 18 or 20 in a refugee camp where his family has been housed for two or more years, and is now told that he cannot come with his family to the United States or Canada because he is a “single male “?  I cannot think of a better way to make him seek another “family”. I cannot think of a better way to turn a potential productive citizen into a hate filled, bitter extremist …. aka a terrorist.

        1. Barack Palin

          Yes, but some are much more likely than others to be terrorists especially when a terrorist group has already stated that they’ve embedded terrorists within the refugees.

  44. Tia Will

    BP

    So you’re saying countries should take in possible terrorists so others don’t possibly turn into terrorists?”

    No I am not saying that. Just as I do not stay locked in my house because every male might be a potential rapist given that almost all rapes are committed by males, I also do not perceive every single Syrian or Muslim male as a potential terrorist.

  45. Tia Will

    BP

    “How self serving is this for you ?”

    I see it as very self serving for the terrorist. The self stated goal of the individual making this statement is the destruction of the western way of life. How convenient for him if he can terrify us into abandoning our way of life ourselves just because he makes a scary statement.  I choose not to cede my way of life and my principles to some undocumented threat by some random self styled terrorist. I find it interesting that you show so much distrust of the media and politicians here, but are willing to take the word of a terrorist who stated goal is to terrify you.

    1. Miwok

      I find it interesting that you show so much distrust of the media and politicians here, but are willing to take the word of a terrorist who stated goal is to terrify you.

      It terrifies me that politicians think that wherever I am I can dial 911 and be protected. It terrifies me they believe what they are saying. And I believe what the terrorists say, even though the probability is low they will be here, but I want them to know, and you can tell them, that when they want to come here I will be ready, and have been for some time.

      If criminals pretty much have free reign around here, then a terrorist has no problem.

      I distrust the media because they all seem to be shills for the house, whatever house they think they are a part of, when they are not journalists enough to discern what is BS, whoever it comes from. It takes many years for some of them to realize they are writing about actors pretending to be public servants. If you are a member of the Fourth Estate, you are not a friend of these people, but think you are.

  46. Frankly

    This policy issue clearly identifies Democrats as the party responsible for the partisanship that has resulted in the greatest lack of political cooperation since the republic was formed.

    In a 289-137 vote, the House on Thursday easily approved legislation that requires new screening requirements on refugees from Syria and Iraq before they can enter the United States.

    The legislation would prevent any refugees from Syria or Iraq from entering the United States until the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence certify that none of them are dangerous.

    “If our law enforcement and our intelligence community cannot verify that each and every person is not a security threat, then they shouldn’t be allowed in,” said Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

    “We cannot and we should not wait to act. Not when our national security is at stake,” he added.

    But…

    Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) vowed to block the House bill if it is considered by the upper chamber after the Thanksgiving recess.

    When asked about the prospect of Obama vetoing the legislation, Reid said, “Don’t worry, it won’t get passed. Next question?”

    Harry Reid is a disgrace and an enemy of this once great country.  So is Obama.

    1. Don Shor

      This policy issue clearly identifies Democrats as the party responsible for the partisanship that has resulted in the greatest lack of political cooperation since the republic was formed.

      Apparently you’ve forgotten entirely the last six years.

      Harry Reid is a disgrace and an enemy of this once great country. So is Obama.

      I have no fondness for Sen. Reid’s tactics or style. But neither he, nor especially President Obama, is “an enemy of this …. country.” I really don’t know why you use this kind of rhetoric.

      1. Don Shor

        1. Refugees are screened by several different agencies.

        Their first point of a refugee’s contact is with the U.N. High Commission for Refugees. The UNHCR refers people to countries based on whether they have any family members there and where resettlement makes the most sense, say U.S. officials. If that’s the U.S., then refugees are vetted by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, and the Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security. Fingerprints are taken, biographical information is collected. They are then each individually interviewed by U.S. officials trained to verify that they’re bona fide refugees.

        Refugees from Syria are then subject to additional screening that looks at where they came from and what caused them to flee their home, stories that are checked out. All of this occurs before a refugee is allowed to set foot in the country.

        2. It’s a lengthy process.

        As you might imagine, all of the vetting, from interviews to fingerprinting, takes a while. On average, officials say it’s 18 to 24 months before a refugee is approved for admission to the U.S.

        http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

        Please tell me what the legislation adds to this process. The only thing it does is add another layer of paperwork that slows things down. Which is exactly the intent of the sponsors. Most of those who voted for it probably did so for political reasons: they are afraid of the SuperPAC ads that will be run in their congressional districts in 2016. At least 1/3 of the senators don’t have to worry about that.
        This bill provides NO greater safety, adds nothing of value to the process, and benefits nobody. It’s a crass political maneuver. IMO the president should have just said, “yeah, I’ll sign this turkey while I pardon the other one. Now let’s get on with helping these people who are fleeing the chaos and desperation of Syria.”

        1. Frankly

          Maybe we should pass it to see what is in it.

          One of the main things it does is to hold agency heads responsible for the clearances instead of low-level functionaries.   This will cause the agency heads to work harder to ensure no mistakes are made.

          Federal government is rife with mistakes.  I know this.  I work with those people every day.

          The point here is that if you really care about the Syrian refugees like you say and not just winning your ideological battle, you would support this legislation as a compromise.

          Libs and Dems have been spoutin’ off that the GOP would not compromise with Obama.  Folks on the right have seen just the opposite… that the lib-dems lead by Obama and blocked by Reid and Pelosi have made it clear that the ONLY compromises they would expect is only if it matched their ideological views.

          So here is proof that the latter is true.  Frankly (because I am) I am surprised that you don’t seem to have a twitch in consideration of this point.  Well, I guess I am not really that surprised.

           

          1. Don Shor

            One of the main things it does is to hold agency heads responsible for the clearances instead of low-level functionaries.

            How? They have to personally sign off on each one? You think they’re going to change any aspect of the vetting process for this, other than to create one more slip of paper that needs to be signed? Please cite the relevant parts of the legislation, which I’m sure you’ve read, that explain how this bill makes you any safer.

            …if you really care about the Syrian refugees…you would support this legislation as a compromise.

            I don’t support anything that slows down an already cumbersome, detailed process that takes many months. I would guess that, if enacted, it will make things somewhat harder for people whose situations are already pretty desperate, for no apparent reason.

      2. TrueBlueDevil

        Obama made little effort, for example, to win over any GOP support for the ObamaCare (ACA) bill, which is now doing more poorly by the minute. He rammed id down the GOP with tricks, backdoor deals, and lies. Now he and we suffer the consequences.

        1. Don Shor

          False. He spent most of that summer negotiating with moderate Republican senators.

          with Obama’s blessing, the Senate, through its Finance Committee, took a different tack, and became the fulcrum for a potential grand bargain on health reform. Chairman Max Baucus, in the spring of 2009, signaled his desire to find a bipartisan compromise, working especially closely with Grassley, his dear friend and Republican counterpart, who had been deeply involved in crafting the Republican alternative to Clintoncare. Baucus and Grassley convened an informal group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the committee, which became known as the “Gang of Six.” They covered the parties’ ideological bases; the other GOPers were conservative Mike Enzi of Wyoming and moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, and the Democrats were liberal Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and moderate Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

          Baucus very deliberately started the talks with a template that was the core of the 1993-4 Republican plan, built around an individual mandate and exchanges with private insurers—much to the chagrin of many Democrats and liberals who wanted, if not a single-payer system, at least one with a public insurance option. Through the summer, the Gang of Six engaged in detailed discussions and negotiations to turn a template into a plan. But as the summer wore along, it became clear that something had changed; both Grassley and Enzi began to signal that participation in the talks—and their demands for changes in the evolving plan—would not translate into a bipartisan agreement.

          What became clear before September, when the talks fell apart, is that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had warned both Grassley and Enzi that their futures in the Senate would be much dimmer if they moved toward a deal with the Democrats that would produce legislation to be signed by Barack Obama. They both listened to their leader. An early embrace by both of the framework turned to shrill anti-reform rhetoric by Grassley—talking, for example, about death panels that would kill grandma—and statements by Enzi that he was not going to sign on to a deal. The talks, nonetheless, continued into September, and the emerging plan was at least accepted in its first major test by the third Republican Gang member, Olympia Snowe (even if she later joined every one of her colleagues to vote against the plan on the floor of the Senate.)

          http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/

  47. Tia Will

    I wrote this article about an aspect of American activity that evokes pride in me. I did not intend for it to become a partisan screed about which politician one happens to be unhappy with at the moment, and certainly it had nothing that I can see to do with the ACA.

    1. Frankly

      Good job getting the conversation going.

      The legislation that passed the House is a key point here.  And if the Democrats block it this sets up a very important and, I think, dangerous escalation of the Obama dictatorship.

        1. Frankly

          A very non sequitur.

          The apt comparison would be support for a bill that prevented the Japanese internment camps with a stronger vetting process to help ensure that there were no Japanese loyal to imperial Japan and looking to blow themselves up to kill Americans.

          1. David Greenwald

            Can you show an example where I cited polling to support a policy? I often use polling to suggest where things are going, but I don’t think I do to support a position.

      1. Don Shor

        the Obama dictatorship.

        What is wrong with you? Seriously? Why do you say stuff like this? I don’t get it. Much of the time you are cogent and can articulate your views clearly. Then every so often you lapse into this kind of thing.

          1. Don Shor

            So what, Frankly? He’s not a dictator. Your rhetoric is bizarre. All presidents have used executive orders. All have used memoranda. Congress can overturn them, the next president can reverse them. They’re an accepted part of the post-WWII presidency.

      2. Tia Will

        Frankly

        dangerous escalation of the Obama dictatorship.”

        This I see as the epitome of an off topic, non objective, completely reactionary comment. From someone who maintains that he is objective to a fault…..not so much so. It is surprising to me that you, who have frequently complained about there being too many layers of government blocking anything from getting done by the bureaucrats whom you often speak of loathingly, that you now find additional signatures ( not additional substantive and evidence based safety measures) as the best way to go. Is it possible that one of those pesky emotions ( fear in this case) that you also choose to deride is driving your thought process ?

        1. Frankly

          Give me a break.  The point is that this President consistently plays bipartisan campaign politics with every significant issue.

          Did he say “we have a majority of governors and a bipartisan majority in the House asking for stronger security measures.  I have asked my staff to work a representative team from the House to come to an acceptable compromise.

          Tai, with all due respect, you have lost all credibility with this issues from your frequent demand for compromise.  You have proven yourself just as partisan as the people you complain about.  From my perspective you are in deep competition only to win a political point.

          A majority of the House.  A majority of Governors.   And you are going to defend this dictatorial President and his Senatorial minion Reid for doing what THEY want to do instead of accepting what the majority wants.

          This is exactly the type of policy work from Obama and the Dems that is responsible for the ever increasing partisan divide.

          You had your oppotunity here to demonstrate non-partisan cooperation.  But you just went hard left.

          So don’t give me any crap about cooperation, collaboration and compromise again.  This was an easy one and you blew it.

          We live in a REPUBLIC. Lefties seem to just want to ignore that.

    2. hpierce

      Just playing devil’s advocate…

      ACA is kinda’ the same as dealing with the Syrian refugee problem:

      Pre-existing conditions (growing up Syrian?) are not covered.  ACA tried to deal with that on the medical front.

      Prior to ACA, if you didn’t have medical insurance, (or government assurance, in Syria) you were somewhat in danger of ill health, loss of resources, and/or death.

      Hard line conservatives dread allowing Syrian refugees into the US.  Hard line conservative dread/oppose the ACA.”affordable care act”, analogous to what might become “american compassion act”?

      As you can see ACA might actually be germane.

       

      1. Tia Will

        hpierce

        As you can see ACA might actually be germane.”

        Well written. I am almost embarrassed that, nearly always seeing the relationship of any issue to medicine, I missed this connection.

    1. hpierce

      How many of the Governors, who basically said “no way, no how” will support the legislation you tout, and change their position to be “accepting”?  Meant as a fair question…

      1. Frankly

        Ryan conferred with this governors to craft the legislation.

        Something that Obama the dictator would never do.  Instead he would pull his media puppet strings and evoke a victim mentality move out of his rules for radicals playbook.

        1. hpierce

          Sure sounds like the ‘flu’ thing still has you in its grippe. [no spelling error]

          First sentence was an honest answer.

          Second, not so much, and looked like a “bit” of a rant to me.  Definitely non-responsive to what was meant as an honest question.

          Hope you had a good ‘turkey day’, and glad to see you were not the ‘guest of honor’.

           

      2. Barack Palin

        The governors that said “no way, no how”, as you put it, are against the current vetting of Syrian refugees because of the chance that terrorists will slip through.  If the vetting system is upgraded to what the GOP has asked for in its bill I’m sure the governors will then be more accepting.

        1. hpierce

          ‘The governors that said “no way, no how”, as YOU put it,’  Actually, that’s pretty much the way the majority of the governors “put it”…

          Why should we not put the same criteria for those who visit as tourists, those who come on student, or work visas?  Country of origin?  Religion?  Once you’re here, you can go “off-grid”.

          Again, meant as a fair question…

  48. Tia Will

    Having just read the provisions of HR 4038 which we found on a link on Garamendi’s web site, I fail to see how this proposal would keep us any safer than the current multi-year vetting process. However, I am completely open to any evidence that anyone might have to suggest that it is a safer alternative to that which is already in place.

  49. Tia Will

    Frankly

    You had your oppotunity here to demonstrate non-partisan cooperation.  But you just went hard left.

    So don’t give me any crap about cooperation, collaboration and compromise again.  This was an easy one and you blew it.”

    If I believed that this was an attempt at collaboration, you would be right. I am awaiting an evidence based opinion on how this measure would make us any safer than the current two year vetting process does. If you see any evidence to support this being a safer process, I am open to listening. So far I have not heard anything from you on how this improves safety. I am listening.

        1. Barack Palin

          Did you happen to hear the CNN commentator who stated (before he knew all the facts) that he thought it was domestic terrorism as in right wing militia?

          Here’s another spin from CNN:

          “Some people might be concerned about this following what happened in Colorado a few days ago,” a CNN host says. “We’ve gotten word that this shooting is not at a Planned Parenthood. So that’s some perspective on where the shooting may be.”
          The another CNN anchor pipes up: “Is there a Planned Parenthood nearby?”

          http://www.lifenews.com/2015/12/03/cnn-uses-terrorist-shooting-in-san-bernadino-to-blame-pro-lifers-is-planned-parenthood-nearby/

          Have they no shame?

        2. Frankly

          No they do not have any shame.  Something happened around the 2004 election where the media went off the rails in overt left bias.  It used to be that the talking heads on the mainstream media would work hard to hide their bias and deliver a middle-of-the-road news report.  But today just consider those MSNBC moderators at the last GOP debate.

          Journalism has always tended to lean left, but there was also a code of ethics that good journalists followed to just report the news and do no harm.  But they stopped following their own code of ethics.

          As Marco Rubio succinctly stated, the mainstream media is the Democrat party SuperPAC.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for