Do You Trust Barack and Hillary With Refugee Policy?

While a public debate blazes between President Obama and many governors, as well as GOP presidential candidates, over whether to give persecuted religious minorities from Syria priority as refugees, it’s not really the crux of the issue. The point is that any screening - whether for religious affiliation or any other filter - is only as good as the available data. And in Syria, torn by a three-way civil war, any documentation issued by the state is suspect.

Germany has found that up to 30% of Syrian refugees have forged passports, or forged ID documents. We can only assume that Germany has reliable standards for official Syrian documents by which they are able to make that estimation. With hundreds of thousands streaming out of the country and heading to Europe, or hoping to reach America, screening any individual refugee really boils down to matter of faith.

That is, an immigration official will have to guess - based on whatever reliable data he or she has - that the person applying for refugee status is telling them the truth. Is it an official passport? Is it an official passport obtained by bribing Syrian government officials? Is it a near-perfect fake - perhaps done with the compliance of corrupt local officials? Is the individual Syrian? Iraqi? From elsewhere in the Middle East? Will each and every immigration official have a first-rate arabic translator on hand, in order to detect nuances in their accents that may indicate the person is lying? No they won't.

Or does the person have an official passport, no involvement in any criminal or warlike activities, a good education and even suitable job experience? As well as recent clandestine training that will be used when he or she goes postal in a few months? Or a few years?

As the GOP field begins to winnow down - ever so slowly - one sees a unity among candidates on this issue. Even Rand Paul is talking tough with his bill to ban refugees from Syria.

On the other side of the aisle, there is beginning to be a pushback against Obama. Senator Feinstein concisely reminded the President of the difference between the meaning of contained and the meaning of expanding. And how that applies to ISIS who Obama believes are contained. Even as they attack in the heart of Paris.

That means that Hillary's close cuddling with the White House on foreign policy - of which she was an architect of course during her time at State - perhaps motivated in part by her need to reach out to those who voted in Obama's administration twice, is now getting uncomfortable for Clinton.

How will Hillary be able to put a little daylight between herself and the administration when it comes to foreign policy is a big question going forward. Any further attacks by ISIS will only make that equation all the heavier for her campaign to bear in 2016.

Posted by Keeley at November 19, 2015 7:48 PM
Comments
Comment #400742

Although there are concerns to be reckoned with regarding the Syrian refugee issue, I have to make an observation.

The uproar over the Syrian refugee issue seems to be the latest in a long list, here’s just a few:

PPACA, Fast and Furious, Obama’s birth certificate, Obama’s education records, Obama’s gun grabs, Supreme Court same gender marriage decision, Benghazi, Obama’s golfing, Obama’s vacations, Mt. Denali renaming, Cuba, Ebola, Planned Parenthood, The debt, The deficit, Iranian nuclear treaty and many, many more too many to list here.

The problem is some of these are valid issues to discuss, debate and decide on. Others not so much and could even be described as inconsequential. But we have the same level of outrage generated by these issues, as it seems to me. I am finding it increasingly difficult to adhere to concerns when every issue gets turned up to eleventeen million on the outrage meter of conservatives and republicans. President Obama has handled this a lot better than I would have, I am sure of that. I am uncertain how Hillary Clinton would handle this but she does have experience with that.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 20, 2015 9:52 AM
Comment #400785

S4A, That is a very salient observation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 21, 2015 9:24 AM
Comment #400791

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nHS1OsvEW0

Posted by: dbs at November 21, 2015 11:42 AM
Comment #400792

With all the illegal aliens, and un assimilated middle eastern immigrants in this country, it’s time to hit the pause button until we have the current issues under control.

Posted by: d at November 21, 2015 11:46 AM
Comment #400793

comment #400792 is mine.

Posted by: dbs at November 21, 2015 11:48 AM
Comment #400794

I’m not sure how illegal immigrants from Latin America are relevant here.

As for the population of legal immigrants from the Middle East, they are very much assimilated. We don’t have the same problems as Europe because we have a more welcoming culture.

Currently, the most pressing security threat is from European nationals with terrorist sympathies. Any of these people can buy a plane ticket and step off the tarmac in America with only a brief interview and a flash of a passport. No visa is required and hardly any vetting is done.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 21, 2015 12:12 PM
Comment #400806

Warren

Watch the video I posted.

Posted by: dbs at November 22, 2015 7:54 AM
Comment #400809

The War on Christmas took a startling turn today when Republicans banned the display of Nativity scenes. They stated a strong need for a pause on accepting refugees in general, and Mary and Joseph in a manger in Bethlehem present exactly the kind of example they want to avoid. Clearly, a symbolic crèche would only encourage the wrong kind of behavior among people who see it. They also stated a fear the baby Jesus could be an example of an anchor baby for unmarried parents demanding a free place to board while offering their community no apparent skills in return. ‘People seriously underestimate the terrorist threat the Jewish population presented to the Romans and the towns they were responsible for maintaining,’ one GOP Congressman stated. ‘We just want to nip this problem in the bud.’

Posted by: phx8 at November 22, 2015 11:42 AM
Comment #400813

I did watch Reid Henrichs on YouTube yesterday but did not address it because the whole argument is fallacious. He makes serious flaws in his video:

The Madison Quote is taken out of context. Madison opposed the expenditure of public funds not because the Constitution prohibited such an act of charity, but because he “was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes, very different from those of charity.”

Ultimately, Congress did pass “An Act providing for the relief of such of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo, resident within the United States, as may be found in want of support” and spent $15,000 from the public treasury.

Second, Reid Henrichs makes a collosal mistake, claiming that the refugees waiting for admittence to the US are currently in Europe. Syrians in Europe are NOT ELIGGIBLE to emigrate to the US. The refugees we are vetting for acceptance are coming from camps adjacent to Syrian territory and located in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 22, 2015 12:26 PM
Comment #400814

Third, Reid Henrichs continues his perversion of Madison’s words. Madison spoke within the context of the first party system that put Madison & Jefferson in opposition to Federalists like Hamilton & Washington. Because Jeffersonian Republicans were more likely to come from rural areas, they opposed the establishment of the first Bank of the United States (BUS). However, they chose to oppose it on Constitutional grounds rather than utilitarian ones in order to embarrass their political opponents. Hamilton continued to advocate the original meaning of the Constitution, which enabled spending of public monies on anything that supports “the common defense” or “the general welfare”. Ultimately, the first BUS was established by Congress. Years later, when Madison was President, the show was on the other foot and he made no fuss establishing the second BUS.

As for Reid Heinrich’s fourth argument, it is rendered moot because the Federal government is not threatening the security of any state. Vetted Syrian refugees pose far less risk than European Tourists visiting without a visa and there is no objection to the latter from the right.

Reid Heinrich finishes with a plea for President Obama to restrict himself to merely executing the laws of the land. But apparently, Heinrich wants Obama to ignore the Refuge Act of 1980, which establishes the procedures for admitting refugees to the US and contains no provision for a state governor to restrict the passage of persons legally admitted to the US from entering their respective states.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 22, 2015 12:42 PM
Comment #400815

What’s wrong with Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan? There’s no wars in those places, are there? Why can’t they stay there?


Posted by: Weary Willie at November 22, 2015 12:44 PM
Comment #400816

As per the Refuge Act of 1980:

The Congress further declares that it is the policy of the United States to encourage all nations to provide assistance and resettlement opportunities to refugees to the fullest extent possible.

We can encourage these nations to provide assistance by not letting them come here.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 22, 2015 12:57 PM
Comment #400817

WW,

The tent cities along the Syrian border are only a temporary solution. Permanent resettlement is needed instead. Already, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt have provided refuge for 95% of displaced Syrians. It is up to the rest of us to deal with the remaining 5%.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 22, 2015 12:58 PM
Comment #400818

Why are we assuming they don’t want to return to Syria after this is over? Do we expect ISIS to win? This whole situation reeks of fraud. It seems to me to be another excuse to flood the U.S. with immigrants, just like the children crossing the border in the past.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 22, 2015 1:36 PM
Comment #400821

http://paa2006.princeton.edu/papers/61036

Prior to 1991 very few people of Somali decent resided in the United States. However, with the onset of the 1991 Somali civil war this situation was to rapidly change (Pagliacolo 2004). Since that time tens of thousands of Somali refugees have relocated to the United States, making them the largest African refugee group in this country and one of the most unique sets of newcomers to ever enter this nation.

How about Cameroon’s refugees fleeing Boko Haram? Should Afghanistan send all of it’s refugees to the U.S.? Mali is in turmoil, should we let all of those people come here?

What about the left’s bleeding heart for:
Burma-Myanmar
Yemen
South Sudan
Israel
Nigeria
Egypt
France
Ethiopia
Libya
Iraq
Lebanon
Ukraine
Somalia
Kenya
Turkey
Somaliland
Colombia
Pakistan
Russia
Mali
Congo
Chad
Central African Republic
Burkina Faso
Mexico
Thailand
Tunisia
Burundi
Iran
Indonesia
Philippines
Malaysia
Angola
Peru
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Mozambique
Djibouti

What about the refugees from these places? Should we invite all of them here also? What makes Syria so special?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 22, 2015 2:53 PM
Comment #400822

WW,

Currently, the US is expecting to accept 10,000 refugees from Syria and 85,000 refugees from other nations.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 22, 2015 2:58 PM
Comment #400824
Why are we assuming they don’t want to return to Syria after this is over? Do we expect ISIS to win? This whole situation reeks of fraud. It seems to me to be another excuse to flood the U.S. with immigrants, just like the children crossing the border in the past.

I’m sure most Syrian refugees do intend to return to Syria once the situation stabilizes. However, Syrians intending to return are likely to seek asylum in neighboring nations (Jordan, Lebanon & Turkey). Some Syrians wish to leave the area permanently and those are the ones who apply for permanent resettlement in Europe, the US and elsewhere.

It seems to me to be another excuse to flood the U.S. with immigrants, just like the children crossing the border in the past.

The US has been admitting tens of thousands of refugees each year for a long time.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 22, 2015 3:04 PM
Comment #400826

Not from Syria. Their civil war started in 2011. Less than 300 have immigrated from Syria since then. Why the urgency now?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 22, 2015 4:29 PM
Comment #400827

Again, if they are in Turkey and other surrounding countries why can’t they stay there?

Why must they come to the U.S.?

In the last quarter of the 20th century, the base was used to house Cuban and Haitian refugees intercepted on the high seas. In the early 1990s, it held refugees who fled Haiti after military forces overthrew president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Yes, that’s Guantanamo Bay. Why not there? If 1.8 million people can live in the Gaza Strip then, surely, 10,000 can live in Guantanamo Bay for the brief time they would be there.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 22, 2015 4:42 PM
Comment #400828

WW,

Why the urgency now?

Initially, most Syrian refugees fled to camps in Turkey just across the border. However, after 4 years of living in tents it is now apparent that these refugees need permanent resettlement and not just temporary shelter. It simply isn’t sustainable to have millions of people sitting in tents and eating donated food. These people need to find jobs, earn a living and support themselves.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 22, 2015 5:12 PM
Comment #400829

Or, they could arm themselves and join in to free their country. If they’ve been living together in tents for 4 years they can fight together for another one or two.

It’s their home, why don’t they defend it? Why are we supposed to provide for them, i.e. jobs, a living, or most likely, support, here in the U.S.?

Like I said, this is a fraud and we’re suckers for falling for it.

Look at the photos of these refugees. They are mostly young males. Are they cowards, running away, or do they have ulterior motives?

The story of the Trojan Horse comes to mind.


Posted by: Weary Willie at November 22, 2015 6:12 PM
Comment #400830

Are Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, all dead zones? Are there no jobs, no way to earn a living, or support in those countries? Why must the U.S. be the only “compassionate” country on the face of the planet?

Warren Porter, do you believe all these wars would end if everyone who thought they were victims relocated to the U.S.?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 22, 2015 6:19 PM
Comment #400831
Or, they could arm themselves and join in to free their country. If they’ve been living together in tents for 4 years they can fight together for another one or two.

It’s their home, why don’t they defend it? Why are we supposed to provide for them, i.e. jobs, a living, or most likely, support, here in the U.S.?

Many of these people are not men of combat age. Even though some of them are combat worthy, they may have their own reasons not to fight. Be they moral objections, political objections or whatever else.

Why are we supposed to provide for them, i.e. jobs, a living, or most likely, support, here in the U.S.?
Life isn’t a zero sum game.
Look at the photos of these refugees. They are mostly young males. Are they cowards, running away, or do they have ulterior motives?
I think you are confusing photos of Syrians who entered Europe without permission with Syrians who apply for permission to enter the US.
Are Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, all dead zones? Are there no jobs, no way to earn a living, or support in those countries? Why must the U.S. be the only “compassionate” country on the face of the planet?
Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan already house millions of refugees and the number of Syrians being resettled in those nations is many magnitudes larger than the 10,000 being accepted here. This nation has a 240 year tradition of providing not only a safe haven from conflict, but also providing a secure place to resettle and begin life anew. We are a nation of immigrants.
do you believe all these wars would end if everyone who thought they were victims relocated to the U.S.
No. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 22, 2015 6:45 PM
Comment #400832

History

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

You forget our history, and the history of the west, as it pertains to the middle east. We’ve been at odds with the middle east since the conception of this nation. Europe has been invaded by the empires of the middle east throughout history.

Do you think that all changed, that Muslims are now willing to live in peace with Europe and the West because they appreciate our benevolence? Don’t fool yourself, Warren Porter. We started out paying tribute to Muslims just to do business in that part of the world.

They will kill us if we give them the chance. To think that all we have to do is give them a home and a job, that they will make peace with us, and assimilate into our culture, is naive at best, ignorance to be sure, and stupid to say the least.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1593416/how-did-thomas-jefferson-one-of-the-u-s-establishing-fathers-respond-to-islam-in-1801/

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2015 12:04 AM
Comment #400833
Even though some of them are combat worthy, they may have their own reasons not to fight. Be they moral objections, political objections or whatever else.

The world is not populated with Democratics, Warren Porter.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2015 12:08 AM
Comment #400840

WW,

You ignore the long history of Muslim-Americans living here without incident or disturbance. Slandering 1 billion people with the words of a corsair from a 200 years ago is despicable. Over the centuries, Christendom has invaded and subjugated the Middle East many times and Islamdom has kindly returned the favor. Given humanity’s longstanding tendency towards war, this is neither surprising nor noteworthy.

The world is not populated with Democratics, Warren Porter.
I’ve never met a “Democratic”. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2015 7:37 AM
Comment #400841

And you’re ignoring the fact that when there are enough of them they start forcing demands through the use of violence and intimidation.

From Cline’s article:

Below two percent Muslims are well-behaved citizens and cause little apparent trouble for the host society.
At two percent and three percent Muslims begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.

From five percent on Muslims exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They push for the introduction of halal (“clean” by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves—along with threats for failure to comply (United States, Switzerland, Sweden). At this point, Muslims work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, or Islamic law. (England, Netherlands, Philippines).

When Muslims reach 10 percent of the population, they increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris—car burning). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam, Denmark—Mohammed cartoons, murder of Theo van Gogh).

After reaching 20 percent of a population expect hair-trigger rioting, Jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning (Indonesia, Ethiopia).

After 40 percent you find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare (Bosnia, Chad).

From 60 percent you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and jizya, the tax placed on [conquered] infidels (Sudan, Albania).

After 80 percent, expect to find state-run ethnic cleansing and genocide (Syria, Egypt, UAE).

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2015 10:48 AM
Comment #400846

And why exactly am I supposed to believe the writings of Peter Hammond? He has a background as a Christian Missionary, but I fail to see how that qualifies him to make judgement upon a billion people. In any case, his claims fly in the face of reality.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2015 2:41 PM
Comment #400849

Do I trust Obama and Hillary with immigration policy? Yes. Their values match the best part of America- both generosity of spirit and generosity in practice, with a confidence that newcomers can find opportunity and build a new life for themselves while enjoying the benefits of freedom for themselves and their children.

Conservatives, however, have gone completely off the rail. They offer nothing but fear- fear of illegal immigrants, fear of legal ones. They are afraid immigrants will be violent, or freeloaders, or both, contrary to everything our history shows us. They fear ISIS. They fear Ebola.

Yesterday, Trump came out in favor of torture. Today, Limbaugh wholeheartedly endorsed Trump on that one, because if the other side does terrible things, it justifies also doing things that are almost as bad. It is as if there is no difference between good guys and bad guys, other than bad guys torture and execute those under their power to death, while good guys usually stop short of killing their prisoners.

Today Trump doubled down, and insisted there was televised footage of people in northern NJ celebrating the fall of the towers on 9/11. Unfortunately for Trump, that never happened. Today Carson chimed in, and said he saw it on tv too.

It still never happened in reality. But this is a good example of how completely unhinged conservatives have become. It is all conspiracy theory and hatred of legal and illegal immigrants, as well as Iranians, Russians, and more. Bigotry, racism, and hatred rule the conservative roost. The unemployment numbers are fixed, economic statistics are all fraudulent, the books have been cooked to make Obama look good, Obama is a Muslim, Global Warming is a worldwide conspiracy among the world’s scientists, and it just goes on and on.

Posted by: phx8 at November 23, 2015 5:26 PM
Comment #400850

I have not paid for a subscription to the Washington Post so I cannot verify but I’m sure someone can:
Arabs Celebrating

Posted by: Watcher at November 23, 2015 5:44 PM
Comment #400851

No subscription needed.

In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.

A one paragraph blip in a nearly 20 paragraph story. Definitely not “thousands” and definitely not on Trump’s TV. I don’t think Trump is lying egregiously here; he is just a tad confused, having seen footage of Arabs celebrating overseas. Years later, he probably saw a chain email alleging that the celebrations were in New Jersey and not Jerusalem. Read this:

THE CELEBRATION THAT WASN’T

Paterson was shaken by the September 11 attacks. On that day, a report circulated on some radio stations and Internet sites that Muslims in Paterson had demonstrated in celebration.

Paterson officials promptly issued a statement denying the report, and Muslim leaders insist it was pure fabrication.

Less well known is Paterson’s real if unwitting link to the attacks. At least two of the hijackers who commandeered American Airlines 77, the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, had rented an apartment in Paterson, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the official U.S. inquiry.

“The Arabs here were sad after 9/11. Believe me, nobody in this community supports bin Laden. He is a criminal. He makes our life difficult here,” said Walid Rabah, chief editor of Paterson’s Arab Voice newspaper

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2015 6:44 PM
Comment #400852

I don’t know what the point of your link was, Warren Porter. Thank phx8 for jumping in with his pap about what he thinks Donald Trump said to distract from it. He must have thought it was off the wall, also.

I saw the video of the people on the rooftop cheering and dancing as the buildings came down. There weren’t “thousands” of them, and Donald Trump didn’t say there were thousands of them. That’s a lie phx8 is happy to spew. It doesn’t erase the fact that there were people cheering, just as he said.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2015 6:47 PM
Comment #400853

In regards to the WaPo article, here are the words of the men who wrote it:

The reporters who wrote the story do not recall whether the allegations were ever confirmed. “I certainly do not remember anyone saying that thousands or even hundreds of people were celebrating,” said Serge Kolvaleski, one of the reporters. “That was not the case, as best as I can remember.”​

Frederick Kunkle, the other reporter, added: “I specifically visited the Jersey City building and neighborhood where the celebrations were purported to have happened. But I could never verify that report.”

Someone who has researched rumors regarding Arab American “celebrations” on 9/11/2001

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2015 7:03 PM
Comment #400854

My liberal friends fear MMGW.
My liberal friends fear law-abiding licensed citizens carrying a gun.
My liberal friends fear conservatives wishing to balance our national budget.
My liberal friends fear companies without unions
My liberal friends fear states that don’t participate in obamacare.
My liberal friends fear women who speak out against aborting unborn human beings.
My liberal friends fear our Constitution.
My liberal friends fear organized peaceful religion.
My liberal friends fear effectively protecting our borders.
My liberal friends fear effective identification for persons wishing to vote in elections.
My liberal friends fear drug testing for those receiving public assistance.
My liberal friends fear abolition of sanctuary cities.
My liberal friends fear free markets and wages commensurate with the value of work performed.
My liberal friends fear American history and try to change it.
My liberal friends fear children playing cowboys and Indians.
My liberal friends fear losing power.

My liberal friends fear anyone who is not just like them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 23, 2015 7:27 PM
Comment #400855

WW,

I’m just trying to get the truth. I’m sure you remember seeing a video of people cheering. However, I am certain it was a video from East Jerusalem, not from New Jersey.

One last look at the WaPo article:

Since the time of the interview, John Chadwick of the Bergen Record has drawn my attention to an article in The Washington Post that asserts that whether or not a celebration had taken place in Paterson, one did take place in Jersey City: Arabs or Muslims “were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.” The article is by Serge F. Kovaleski and Frederick Kunkle, “Northern New Jersey Draws Probers’ Eye: Many in Area Feel Wrongly Targeted,” The Washington Post, September 18, 2001, p. A6. In an email to me on Dec. 16, 2003, Kovaleski indicated that his information had come from the Jersey City Police Department, and that he had confirmed the JCPD’s information via interviews of eyewitnesses of the celebration.
Donald Trump didn’t say there were thousands of them.
You just made a bald faced lie. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2015 7:35 PM
Comment #400856

Here is Trump on Sunday saying people in NJ celebrated 9/11:
“Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.”

Here is a link to the full transcript:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/

Most likely the video Trump was referring to was the one of Palestinians celebrating. The stories about celebrations in NJ are just that- stories. Carson has already walked back what he said.

RF,
AGW is happening. Perhaps you do not care about the well being of others once you are no longer here. That is your prerogative.

On any given day about 55 Americans die of gun violence. We have the equivalent of a Paris Massacre every three days.

“Unborn human beings.” Is that like ‘unspoken spoken words’? At least TRY to make sense!

The rest of the weird and slightly paranoid rant goes downhill from there. But it is a good example of the bizarre state of mind that grips conservatism today.

Posted by: phx8 at November 23, 2015 7:47 PM
Comment #400857

Ok, he did say thousands were in NJ. However, I did see video of people on rooftops cheering and dancing as the buildings fell in the background.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2015 7:59 PM
Comment #400858

But it is a good example of the bizarre state of mind that grips conservatism today.
Posted by: phx8 at November 23, 2015 7:47 PM

Thanks for the laugh. You rant and rave and lie about conservatives so I thought I would have a little fun at your expense.

Hmmm…are they “unborn inhuman beings”?

Climate changes…wow, what a concept. Gee, I learned that in grade school.

Perhaps “you do not care about the well being of others” when you advocate allowing un-vetted persons into our country.

Your concern about gun violence is admirable. Now…can you figure out who is doing the violence?


Posted by: Royal Flush at November 23, 2015 8:03 PM
Comment #400859

Warren Porter, be sure to thank phx8 for changing the subject. It was obvious you couldn’t back up what you were trying to convince me of.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2015 8:03 PM
Comment #400860

I’ve lived in the same town all my life and when we talk about climate change I have to say it has changed. When I was a kid I remember April Showers Bring May Flowers. Now, there is still snow on the ground in April and into May. When I was a kid the 90-95 degree heat of summer started in July and went on through August. Now, it gets up to 90 for about 2 weeks. Tornado weather used to be in spring. Now it’s in the fall. When I was a kid there were no terrorists. Now they’re all over the world.

Sure, climate changes, but I see it getting colder where I live, not warmer. I see the same weather patterns, but at different times of the year.

The global warming paranoia has run it’s course. The only reason it’s brought up is to make a political statement against the faux outrage of the month to browbeat opponents into submission.

Why do you think terrorism is being blamed on global warming, ooops sorry, climate change, now?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2015 8:17 PM
Comment #400861
It was obvious you couldn’t back up what you were trying to convince me of.

There was nothing to convince. It is merely a difference in philosophy. I do not assume animus in other people without justification. You, on the other hand, assume the worse when considering people who are different than you. You also suffer from the poison of right wing media, which commonly asserts and alleges without any evidence to back what is said.

Regarding the climate, human memory is a fickle thing. For instance, we have recently witnessed how people who watched Palestinians celebrate on 9/11/01 and confused it with unsubstantiated rumors from New Jersey. Not to mention the fact that observations from a single location do not tell us much about global temperatures.

The global warming paranoia has run it’s course. The only reason it’s brought up is to make a political statement against the faux outrage of the month to browbeat opponents into submission.

The world meets in Paris next month. A legally binding agreement is possible.

When I was a kid there were no terrorists.
From the Sicarii in Judea, to Guy Fawkes’ gunpowder plot, terrorism has been a part of human conflict for centuries.
Why do you think terrorism is being blamed on global warming
Typically, people have blamed global warming for droughts in Syria that destabilized the Assad government, letting DAESH fill the void. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2015 9:25 PM
Comment #400863
I do not assume animus in other people without justification.

Geesh, Warren Porter! Do you have your head stuck in a hole?
Muslims have been attacking this country for decades.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2015 10:00 PM
Comment #400864

I don’t convict one man with the actions of another. Not all Muslims are Islamists.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2015 10:29 PM
Comment #400865

I can always tell when you’ve lost a debate, Warren Porter. You get almost as vague and non-committal as Speak4all. Let me drive a few nails into your philosophy’s final resting place.

Not all Muslims are Islamists.

A woman in her head scarf stood up and told a panelist that not all Muslims are bad. The panelist responded by saying not all Germans were bad, either. But their silence, their lack of condemnation, made them just as guilty as the brutal barbarians being discussed. Their silence made them facilitators.

My father bore 5 children in 6 years. When one of his children committed an atrocity and the culprit was unknown he punished all five until the guilty party was exposed. When the guilty party was exposed justice was swift and just.

My teachers utilized this strategy, also. It was an embarrassing experience to be outed by the class and usually lead to correcting the abnormal behavior.

The military uses this strategy as well! Every Infantry Trainee will remember the order, “Half-left Face” “Front Leaning Rest Position” “Ho” Not ho, they’re not the cavalry.

Not all Muslims are Islamists.

The analogy of m&ms in a bowl and 1% of them are poison keeps coming up these days. The left, the apologists, want to tell us we can’t refuse to eat the m&ms. We must eat the m&ms. Governors can do nothing. Any reasonable objection is discounted with a broad based accusation of islamophobia and discrimination.

This mindset is prevalent in the media and in the political class. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t be having this discussion. This mindset is also why Donald Trump calls the politicians stupid. My Dad didn’t think holding a group responsible was wrong. My teacher didn’t have a problem with it, nor does the military. They didn’t have a problem with it because it was effective.

Leftists and apologists have a problem with holding the group responsible. The media and the politicians have a problem with holding the group responsible. Why?

You can’t answer that question, can you?

Many apologists on the left think they’re answering the question, but they only make accusations and call their opponent names.

Their lack of responsibility is making us, as a whole, look weak. Those 1% use that weakness against us.

Western civilization will prevail. It always has. If it didn’t we wouldn’t be having this discussion using the English language. The Leftist and the Apologists could help remedy this situation much sooner by standing aside.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2015 12:30 AM
Comment #400866

Has the Left resigned the west to a subservient status? Does it picture itself with a collar and a leash on it’s neck, obedient to a global mindset that renders the individual irrelevant?

I asked the left to define their ultimate utopia, what they expect the outcome of their efforts would be, and I got no answer.

What do you expect from these 250,000 Syrian refugees, Warren Porter? Put a dollar figure on their value to the U.S. Economy. What do they bring here that is so important that you must invite the inevitable catastrophe that will follow with them?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2015 1:31 AM
Comment #400867
But their silence, their lack of condemnation, made them just as guilty as the brutal barbarians being discussed. Their silence made them facilitators.

Except Muslims haven’t been silent. They yell their condemnation from the rooftops every chance they get. Many enlist in the Free Syrian Army and shed their own blood to defeat Islamism. In one poignant example thousands of Egyptian Muslims attended Coptic Mass in order to dissuade them from being targeted by Islamist extremists. Imagine how much be world would be different today if a thousand Germans decided to attend Synagogue on Saturday in solidarity with the Jews?

When one of his children committed an atrocity and the culprit was unknown he punished all five until the guilty party was exposed.
In the 1930s, Germany was under threat from a Judeo-Bolshevik scourge. One Jewish terrorist even torched the Reichstag! Weimar authorities were convinced Marinus van der Lubbe did not act alone, but interrogation did not reveal the names of the still mysterious accomplices. Was it appropriate for the Weimar government to take collective punitive action against all the Jews and Communists in Germany?
The analogy of m&ms in a bowl and 1% of them are poison keeps coming up these days. The left, the apologists, want to tell us we can’t refuse to eat the m&ms. We must eat the m&ms. Governors can do nothing. Any reasonable objection is discounted with a broad based accusation of islamophobia and discrimination.
A terrorist attack cannot kill this nation like m&m can kill a person. The analogy is useless.


What do you expect from these 250,000 Syrian refugees, Warren Porter? Put a dollar figure on their value to the U.S. Economy. What do they bring here that is so important that you must invite the inevitable catastrophe that will follow with them?

I expect 10,000 Syrian refugees, not 250,000. I am no economist, but a study of 598 refugees in Cleveland found a net impact of roughly $48 million or 80,000 dollars per refugee. If the 10,000 Syrians have the same impact, then we should expect an addition of 800 million to our GDP within 2 years. And this is in addition to the humanitarian rewards of welcoming refugees.
invite the inevitable catastrophe that will follow with them?

I trust our intelligence agencies to properly vet these refugees to prevent the immigration of those who seek to do us harm. Also, the tragedy that is a terrorist attack is no catastrophe in the true sense of the word. A successful terrorist attack will not halt our economy nor will it directly endanger our freedom or liberty (government overreaction notwithstanding). Thus the risk we assume is neither inevitable nor catastrophic.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 24, 2015 9:12 AM
Comment #400869

It would appear that phx8 and WP have bested WW at every turn of his pretzel like fear and hatred logic. Now he would seek to bring my comments into his pathetic rants. A wise man once said “We have two eyes and two ears but only one mouth (or one keyboard in this case) for a reason.” The logical conclusion could be that we should listen and see (or read in this case) twice as much as we speak (or type in this case). Some one has been spouting nonsense and claiming themselves a victor without any reason to do so when they should be using their powers of observation to realize they have been humiliated and beaten, WW. But carry on, for those of us who wish to read and observe, this is all very amusing.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 24, 2015 10:16 AM
Comment #400875

Speak,
Well, it is a mystery. Every so often one of the conservatives will declare a triumph over phx8 and run a victory lap. Most of the time, I can’t make heads or tails of what they said. It rarely amounts to more than ‘uh-uh.’ There is also the occasional ‘don’t change the subject’ meme, as if one conservative commenter decides what the subject shall be, regardless of whether it has anything to do with the original article, and everyone else is supposed to abide by that commenter’s decision because… because… I have no idea why.

Not much to do other than shrug.

Posted by: phx8 at November 24, 2015 3:20 PM
Comment #400877

phx8, lots of shrugs from me too. I thought your analogy about the nativity scene being under scrutiny was poignant. In fact I made a comment via email to a group that was having a holiday get together for Thanksgiving and stole some of it, hope you don’t mind. I took mine a little further than yours and said that this “nativity” group had to be rounded up and sent to Guantanamo since they could be Syrian refugees. And if DNA testing found that the baby in the group was not of direct descent from the father that was traveling with the group then a whole new set of rigorous vetting would be necessary. After all “baby Jesus” could be a terrorist in the making, right? Can’t be too careful, can we?

Happy Holidays to you and yours!!

Posted by: Speak4all at November 24, 2015 3:55 PM
Comment #400878

“The world meets in Paris next month. A legally binding agreement is possible.”

Obama by himself can not legally bind the US to what happens in Paris.

Warren wrote; “I trust our intelligence agencies to properly vet these refugees to prevent the immigration of those who seek to do us harm.”

Please explain how this will be done….if you can.

Warren writes; “Also, the tragedy that is a terrorist attack is no catastrophe in the true sense of the word.”

What a horrible insensitive comment. The loss of life and limb of just a single American at the hands of a terrorist is indeed catastrophic for that person and for those who love them.

Some apparently don’t view the events of 911 as catastrophic.

I always enjoy the atheists who write fairy tales about Christian belief. It just shows their ignorance.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 24, 2015 5:12 PM
Comment #400879

Nonsense’: Top Scientists Demolish Alarmism Behind UN Climate Summit

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/20/nonsense-top-scientists-demolish-alarmism-behind-u-n-climate-summit/

It will be amusing to read the liberals defend their precious religious-like defense of MMGW and trash the messengers in the article linked.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 24, 2015 5:21 PM
Comment #400881

Would Oobama be able to speak with two words removed from his vocabulary?

UH AND

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 24, 2015 7:03 PM
Comment #400889

The democrats have lost the battle of popular opinion over the importation 100s of 1000s of Syrian refugees, many of whom no doubt will turn out to be terrorist. Their next move ? Why gun control of course. Never mind that non citizens cannot legally purchase a gun, or that placing of US citizens on the terrorist watch list will summarily strip them of their rights without due process.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/sorry-democrats-but-there-is-no-loophole-that-allows-terrorists-to-buy-guns/

My question for my friends on the left is this, I have bowl full of 100,000 gumballs, and only 10% of them are poisoned, which of you would like a handful first ?

Posted by: dbs at November 25, 2015 7:27 AM
Comment #400893

Human beings are not gumballs. Unless you make a habit of eating Muslims. In which case the analogy works just fine. Sort of. Although… while cannibalism may be tabu, Muslims are no more poisonous than Christians or Atheists, so maybe the analogy doesn’t work after all. And I’ve never heard of anyone poisoning gumballs either. Hmmm. If you insist on pursuing this, may I suggest a Chianti and fava beans with your gumballs.

Posted by: phx8 at November 25, 2015 12:54 PM
Comment #400895

Speaks,
As for conservatives banning the display of crèches because of the message they send about harboring refugees:

“The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Leviticus

It is also worth remembering Joseph and Mary showed up at an inn with no paperwork, no documents, and no passports.

Posted by: phx8 at November 25, 2015 1:56 PM
Comment #400897

No, phx8. They were there to fill out the paperwork. You know, doing it legally.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 25, 2015 2:04 PM
Comment #400898
Human beings are not gumballs.

That is a stupid response. Absolutely no value at all.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 25, 2015 2:06 PM
Comment #400899

WW,
No. They would not ‘fill out paperwork.’ Literacy was rare at that time, and oral tradition was heavily relied upon. When asked ‘who are you,’ the answer two thousand years ago would take the form of naming ancestors. The beginning of biblical chapters may seem pointless today, but they were very important to ancient readers because they established character’s identities. There was no paperwork. No vetting.

While showing hospitality towards those in need is considered a nice thing to do today, in ancient cultures it was considered a paramount virtue. In ancient cultures, receiving hospitality could be the difference between life and death.

For today’s Syrian refugees, hospitality from strangers in strange lands can once again be the difference for them between life and death. Accepting the stranger will never be risk free. Being a good Samaritan always entails risk. But it is still the right thing to do, regardless of one’s religious affiliation.

Posted by: phx8 at November 25, 2015 2:17 PM
Comment #400900

WW,
Yes, the gumball analogy was stupid and so was the response. Stupidity works that way. You can’t fix stupid. But you can make fun of it.

Posted by: phx8 at November 25, 2015 2:19 PM
Comment #400902

They went to Bethlehem to be counted. It was a census, the law. They weren’t invited or immigrating. They were forced to go where they were to be counted.

Are you making a case for illegal immigration because the liberal school systems have made the people illiterate? They can’t fill out paperwork?

The left has even made the question “Who are you?” politically incorrect at polling booths these days!

Any stupid little reason to distract from the problem of illegal immigration, right phx8?

People aren’t gumballs. Nobody has been poisoned by gumballs. What a dumb statement. Haven’t been listening to the news around Holloween, have you phx8?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 25, 2015 2:59 PM
Comment #400903

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/why_kids_cant_read.html

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 25, 2015 3:45 PM
Comment #400904

WW,
There was no census in the year zero. Only two traceable dates are given for the birth of Jesus- if he was born during Herod’s reign, it would have been in 6 BC. If he were born during the census of Quirinius, it would have been in 6 AD. Furthermore, the census was for Judaeans. Joseph came from Galilee, not Judaea, so he would not have participated in the first place. And finally, people did not travel 70 miles to register. People did not go to one central place. That should be obvious. It makes no sense. The census takers went from town to town.

“Are you making a case for illegal immigration because the liberal school systems have made the people illiterate? They can’t fill out paperwork?”

I have no idea what you are talking about.

“People aren’t gumballs. Nobody has been poisoned by gumballs. What a dumb statement. Haven’t been listening to the news around Holloween, have you phx8?”

Oh. Pardon me. Have it your way. People are gumballs. And people are being poisoned by gumballs at Halloween. Uh huh.

You are a nut job.

Posted by: phx8 at November 25, 2015 4:02 PM
Comment #400905

phx8, Mary and Joseph were both desended from David and had to go to the city of David which was Bethlehem. The books of Mathew and Luke give you a family history.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 25, 2015 4:20 PM
Comment #400906

Name calling. The Democratic’s last resort.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 25, 2015 4:41 PM
Comment #400907

And Yea! It’s ok if I do it!

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 25, 2015 4:43 PM
Comment #400909

“Human beings are not gumballs.” Wisdom from Mr. Dumb

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 25, 2015 5:03 PM
Comment #400911

Did you notice he took an analogy and made it a fact and then said it was stupid?
Democratics seem to think it’s a winning argument to change the meaning of what someone says and then dispute it.

I wonder if Warren Porter has finally thought up something that will make him think he’s right about illegal immigration and trying to convince us that all Syrians are Democratics and clean and pure as the wind driven snow. phx8 and Speak4all are getting tired of holding his water.

I can tell, they’re babbling incoherently.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 25, 2015 5:42 PM
Comment #400914

WW,
Here is an analogy that actually makes sense and applies for the current situation:

Question: Suppose you had a bowl with 100,000 gumballs in it, and none of them were poisonous. Would you take a handful?

Answer: Yes.

Because the fact is, gumballs are not poisonous, and refugees fleeing war in Syria and Iraq are not dangerous to us either.

Posted by: phx8 at November 25, 2015 6:21 PM
Comment #400915

And you are 100% certain that they are phx8? So if something happens with 1 of the Syrian refugees to blame, it will be your fault because you said they are not dangerous

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 25, 2015 6:34 PM
Comment #400916

phx8 “…refugees fleeing war in Syria and Iraq are not dangerous to us either.”
Posted by: phx8 at November 25, 2015 6:21 PM

Mr. Wisdom knows something that no one in our government security agencies will acknowledge. Can phx8 get OObama to say there is no “danger”? Will Oobama resign if he is wrong?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 25, 2015 6:36 PM
Comment #400917

” In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, more than half of the nation’s governors have declared they will not accept new Syrian refugees into their states, and a new poll shows that a majority of Americans disapprove of President Obama’s plans to accept increased numbers of Syrian refugees. The latest NBC News/SurveyMonkey online poll shows that 56% of Americans disapprove of allowing more migrants fleeing violence in Syria and other nations into the country, while 41% approve and the issue divides sharply across party lines. But overwhelmingly, Americans say the U.S. and its allies are losing the war against ISIS and the poll shows bipartisan support for sending additional ground troops to fight the Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria.

The president’s approval rating is at 43%, down 3 points from last month, and his lowest approval rating measured in the NBC News/SurveyMonkey online poll this year.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-majority-americans-oppose-accepting-syrian-refugees-n465816

Apparently Mr. Wisdom believes that refugees with no background to check can be properly vetted. Please explain to us mere mortals how that is possible.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 25, 2015 6:49 PM
Comment #400918

“Only a “very small proportion” of the refugees the United States accepts are unaccompanied adult males — usually survivors of torture, LGBT individuals, or those with disabilities…

“Under the current system, if there is any doubt about whether an applicant would pose a security risk, that individual will not be admitted to the United States as a refugee,” Kerry and Johnson wrote.

… Administration officials outlined the security steps now taken:

Candidates are first interviewed by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to determine their eligibility for refugee status — whether individuals have been persecuted based on political opinion, social group, race, religion, or nationality.

The State Department then takes over the process, through contracted resettlement support centers that conduct further interviews. The State Department performs background checks using a variety of terror, law enforcement, and intelligence databases.

The US Citizen and Immigration Services and the Department of Homeland Security conduct further reviews and interviews. The process includes vetting biometric information, such as fingerprints, for those between the ages of 14 and 79.

US Customs and Border Protection conducts more checks. Finally, the State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services determine the appropriate city where a refugee will be resettled.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/11/23/john-kerry-outlines-syrian-refugee-vetting-procedures-letter-charlie-baker-and-other-governors/uEMgaj4nzGY0DDjYL8a2uK/story.html

Refugees with no backgrounds to check may be denied entry.

So it would be fair to say that not only are the Syrian and Iraqi refugees not terrorist threats, they are likely to be safer than the background US population. Remember, these are people fleeing war, and facing waits of 18 - 24 months. Most of them are women, children, and heads of family.

Posted by: phx8 at November 25, 2015 7:10 PM
Comment #400919
And you are 100% certain that they are phx8? So if something happens with 1 of the Syrian refugees to blame, it will be your fault because you said they are not dangerous

As long as you live your life outside a bubble, there will be no way to guarantee safety 100 percent. Life has its risks, we do our best to mitigate them, but we never eliminate them. I may not leave a woman I love in the company of a rapist, but I certainly would leave her in the care of my brother. Now, I cannot guarantee 100 percent certainty that my brother will not rape her, no matter how much vetting I do of my brother, but that is a risk I am willing to take.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 25, 2015 7:33 PM
Comment #400920

Interviews equals verifiable records? How cavalier.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 25, 2015 7:38 PM
Comment #400921

Well at least 1 lefty W.P. is at least willing to say there is a risk. phx8 is still in LALA land.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 25, 2015 7:52 PM
Comment #400922
“The world meets in Paris next month. A legally binding agreement is possible.”

Obama by himself can not legally bind the US to what happens in Paris.


Yes, but he can present legally binding agreements for Congressional approval.
Warren wrote; “I trust our intelligence agencies to properly vet these refugees to prevent the immigration of those who seek to do us harm.”

Please explain how this will be done….if you can.

This has already been done in MichaelMear’s thread. Please see my extensive documentation there. I’m not going to waste my time repeating myself. The process is long and exaustive, involving first the UN and then many different US agencies. We compare these people with extensive databases of persons known to be dangerous and we conduct several interviews to detect if the refugee’s claims are believable.

Warren writes; “Also, the tragedy that is a terrorist attack is no catastrophe in the true sense of the word.”

What a horrible insensitive comment. The loss of life and limb of just a single American at the hands of a terrorist is indeed catastrophic for that person and for those who love them.

Some apparently don’t view the events of 911 as catastrophic.

I always enjoy the atheists who write fairy tales about Christian belief. It just shows their ignorance.


Sure, the loss of a life can be catastrophic for the individuals who loved that person dearly. However, it is not a catastrophe for the whole nation in the sense that it does not pose an existential threat of any sort. We may certainly feel emotional remorse for the loss of innocent human life, but emotional loss does not translate to physical loss. I know it is craven, but it is the cold truth. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 25, 2015 7:58 PM
Comment #400923

Warren writes; “We compare these people with extensive databases of persons known to be dangerous…”

And pigs can fly. Who has databases on those “not known to be dangerous”?

In March of 2014 Washington told the Syrian government to immediately suspend its diplomatic and consular missions in the United States.

Please inform us of how we obtain Syrian records of proposed refugees.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 25, 2015 8:06 PM
Comment #400926

“Human beings are not gumballs. Unless you make a habit of eating Muslims. In which case the analogy works just fine”

“Yes, the gumball analogy was stupid and so was the response. Stupidity works that way. You can’t fix stupid. But you can make fun of it.”


The fact that you can’t wrap your head around that analogy only serves to prove your second statement which is correct. You can’t fix stupid. LMAO !

Posted by: dbs at November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
Comment #400928

RF,

Please inform us of how we obtain Syrian records of proposed refugees.

I guarantee you the source is classified. Needless to say, I don’t think we should be surprised that our intelligence services maintain lists of dangerous people in Syria with links to DAESH.

Who has databases on those “not known to be dangerous”
If someone is not known to be dangerous, then they should be eligible to resettle in the US provided they pass all other requirements including a battery of rigorous interviews.

dbs,

My question for my friends on the left is this, I have bowl full of 100,000 gumballs, and only 10% of them are poisoned, which of you would like a handful first ?

Please see my response to WW above regarding poisoned m&ms.

Reasons the analogy is flawed:
-DAESH affiliated people do not constitute anywhere near 10% of refugee applying for resettlement in the US. Would you eat a gumball from this bowl if fewer than 10 out of the 100,000 were poisoned? Honestly, I’d be willing to risk those odds if the gumball was delicious enough to boost our economy as much as an upstanding American citizen does.

-Also, the analogy is poor because poisoning presumably kills its victim. Terrorism cannot not destroy the US in the same manner. It the worst outcome of consuming a poisoned gumball was merely a few days’ illness then the risk is much more palpable.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2015 12:36 PM
Comment #400930

Warren,

Many of the claims from the right on this subject lose their veracity when you remember that most of the sphincter clutching fear is being propagated by those same pundits that crapped the bed over the Ebola scare.

Frankly, seeing that these mass shootings have become a weekly part of the American landscape, I’d say we probably have more to fear from some gun toting, domestic nut job than from any of these refugees.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 28, 2015 2:05 PM
Comment #400931

Warren wrote; “I guarantee you the source is classified. Needless to say, I don’t think we should be surprised that our intelligence services maintain lists of dangerous people in Syria with links to DAESH.”

Squishy answer Warren. Your guarantee is not sufficient.

“Honestly, I’d be willing to risk those odds if the gumball was delicious enough to boost our economy as much as an upstanding American citizen does.”

Another squishy answer Warren. I don’t believe you. Warren, your comments are becoming mentally lazy.

As Oscar Wilde wrote; You are “not young enough to know everything.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2015 3:39 PM
Comment #400932

Rocky,
Absolutely.

RF,

Squishy answer Warren. Your guarantee is not sufficient.

Too bad/a>.

I don’t believe you. Warren.
I picked those numbers for a reason. Tell me, would you eat a gumball from a bowl if fewer than 10 out of the 100,000 were poisoned? Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2015 3:59 PM
Comment #400933

From Warren’s link:

“CARRP’s categories of national security threats, the ACLU wrote in its 2013 report, “cast extremely wide nets, rely on discriminatory profiling, and yield imprecise, inaccurate, and often absurd results that disproportionately impact [Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian] applicants.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2015 4:27 PM
Comment #400934

Warren wrote; “I guarantee you the source is classified.” Next he gives a link that informs us of the source and the content. Hmmm…makes one wonder.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2015 4:37 PM
Comment #400935
informs us of the source and the content.
It is described as “secret”. Secret = classified in my book.
yield imprecise, inaccurate, and often absurd results

The ACLU is complaining about type I errors, but today we are discussing of type II errors.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2015 5:08 PM
Comment #400936

Spin away Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2015 5:16 PM
Comment #400937

RF,

So you agree with the ACLU and we should do away with the CARRP vetting process?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2015 5:29 PM
Comment #400938

I agree that there is no effective way to determine the background of most Syrian refugees as the vast majority of them have no information for us to review. Interviews yield no hard information.

No American life should be put at risk because allowing individuals who can not be properly vetted into the country makes some liberal feel better.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2015 5:36 PM
Comment #400939

Tell us Warren; in what universe does supposed compassion trump inviting possible terrorist into our country?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2015 5:45 PM
Comment #400940
the vast majority of them have no information for us to review

Where the heck are you getting this nonsense from? It certainly isn’t James Comey, Jeh Johnson or Frank Rasmussen.

From the Associated Press:

As for concerns about potential refugees lacking documents to prove who they are, the administration officials said Syrians as a population tend to provide extensive documents involving their day-to-day lives. They often arrive with family histories, military records and other information that can be useful for American authorities investigating them.
No American life should be put at risk because allowing individuals who can not be properly vetted into the country makes some liberal feel better.
I agree absolutely. Which is why Obama and his team have implemented an extensive vetting process that combs these applicants as much as is humanly possible to detect who intends to do us harm.
in what universe does supposed compassion trump inviting possible terrorist into our country?
If 10% of the applicants were terrorists, as insinuated by dbs, then I would agree with you. The issue is that the chance of these people being terrorists is so astonishingly small. As has been said before, ISIS already has hundreds of members who are European nationals. These are the people who conducted the attacks in Paris earlier this month and any of them could have just as easily bought a plane ticket to JFK and stepped off the plane and onto American soil with basically zero vetting whatsoever. This is the threat that keeps *me* up at night. ISIL would have to be batshit crazy to go through the effort of sneaking in through the back door when we leave the front door unlocked and already open. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2015 7:48 PM
Comment #400941

warren

“Tell me, would you eat a gumball from a bowl if fewer than 10 out of the 100,000 were poisoned?”


Nope.


“Reasons the analogy is flawed:
-DAESH affiliated people do not constitute anywhere near 10% of refugee applying for resettlement in the US.”


So what is an acceptable level of terrorists to allow into this country ? How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice in order to show the world how tolerant you are ? Would you still feel as generous if you knew a member of your family would be among those unlucky enough to draw one of those 10 in 10,000 short straws ?


Posted by: dbs at November 29, 2015 7:49 AM
Comment #400942

warren

“-Also, the analogy is poor because poisoning presumably kills its victim. Terrorism cannot not destroy the US in the same manner. It the worst outcome of consuming a poisoned gumball was merely a few days’ illness then the risk is much more palpable.”

Discrediting an analogy through obfuscation. Bravo !

Posted by: dbs at November 29, 2015 8:00 AM
Comment #400943

dbs,

There huge, gaping flaws in your logic. Warren has pointed them out at least half a dozen times in this thread alone and you guys still don’t get it.

Why on earth would anyone go through the rigmarole of applying for refugee status when, for the price of a plane ticket, they could waltz in here with little or no scrutiny at all?

How is it you guys do not understand that concept?

It’s got to be the Nigel Tufnel effect.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 29, 2015 8:02 AM
Comment #400944
“Tell me, would you eat a gumball from a bowl if fewer than 10 out of the 100,000 were poisoned?”


Nope.

So, you don’t drive a car then?

Currently, American motorists experience one fatal accident for every 100 million miles driven. If an American drives 10,000 miles in a year, then he or she has a roughly 10 in 100,000 chance of experiencing a fatal accident in that year.

Even with our food, we take risks like this all the time. Manufacturing processed food is never perfect and 3000 Americans died of food poisoning in 2012 and many more were stricken with a food-borne illness. Undoubtedly, some of these incidents are the result of negligence at the consumer end, but many are the result of sloppy procedures on the producer’s part.

So what is an acceptable level of terrorists to allow into this country ? How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice in order to show the world how tolerant you are ? Would you still feel as generous if you knew a member of your family would be among those unlucky enough to draw one of those 10 in 10,000 short straws ?
Life is full of risk, dbs. If we were uncomfortable with a 0.01% of death, then we’d spend our lives in hermetically sealed spheres, but we don’t live inside bubbles. We live our lives as we have always done and occasionally, tragedy rears its ugly face. Then, we mourn the loss and move on. That isn’t to say we don’t take meaningful steps to reduce the risks in life. We inspect automobiles for safety and enforce laws that mandate that only licensed drivers operate motor vehicles.

Likewise, we put refugees applying for resettlement through a rigorous vetting program. We interview different members of the family separately and if the stories do not match, the applicant is not admitted. We compare their name with an extensive database of people suspected of involvement in terrorism and if a flag is raised, they don’t come here. Jim Comey admitted that on occasion, there is an applicant who may be dangerous, but whose name does not appear in the database because he or she has “never created a ripple on the pond”. That would be the type I error that we fear, but as has been demonstrated the chances are tiny.

As has been said many times, the risk of a terrorist coming here through the visa-waiver program by posing as a European tourist is many orders of magnitude greater. Fix that problem first and worry about the refugees second.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2015 8:39 AM
Comment #400945

warren

“Life is full of risk, dbs. If we were uncomfortable with a 0.01% of death, then we’d spend our lives in hermetically sealed spheres, but we don’t live inside bubbles.”

So rather answer my question, you choose to obfuscate again.


I have a need for food. I have a need to drive. I have no need to admit of 10s of 1000s Syrian refugees. People take risks everyday, but those risks have benefits that outweigh those risks. In no way does admitting these people benefit this country. We don’t need them, so the risk is not justified.

It would appear you are blinded by your ideological trust of a man who cares nothing for this country. If you truly believe it is possible to do adequate screening on all of these people, you are dangerously naïve.

Posted by: dbs at November 29, 2015 10:38 AM
Comment #400946

Warren Porter is only demonstrating his being a lapdog for Obama by saying the risk is acceptable, by saying our country can’t be destroyed. If George W. Bush said he’s willing to put up with “a few days illness” he’d be clamoring for his head on a pike.

It’s not our country that will be destroyed, Warren Porter. It’s our way of life. Our way of life would die the death of a thousand cuts. I don’t want to be searched every time I go into a grocery store. We shouldn’t have to take off our shoes and get groped to get on an airplane or a bus.

We can’t control immigration, and you champion turning loose refugees into the population?! It is clear you are blinded by party loyalty and have no concern for your, or your fellow citizen’s safety and security.

Have another gumball, Warren Porter. Set an example, one way or another.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2015 11:38 AM
Comment #400947
I have a need to drive

No, you don’t. Driving is a choice people make.

I have a need for food.
But you don’t need industrially produced food. If you were concerned about the risk of food-borne disease, you would only eat what you grew yourself or bought from a local seller who you could trust.
I have no need to admit of 10s of 1000s Syrian refugees. People take risks everyday, but those risks have benefits that outweigh those risks. In no way does admitting these people benefit this country. We don’t need them, so the risk is not justified.
Every time one of those refugees becomes an upstanding American, we all benefit. Refugees are an entrepreneurial lot, and many will become the job creators of tomorrow. These benefits outweigh the minute chance of an attack.
It would appear you are blinded by your ideological trust of a man who cares nothing for this country. If you truly believe it is possible to do adequate screening on all of these people, you are dangerously naïve.
Obama has been wrong before and I have never been afraid to voice my disagreements with him when the occasion occurs. I am quite sure that I am not the one being blinded by ideology.

I trust men who have demonstrated excellent leadership. Obama has safely guided this nation out of economic misery, and has aggressively pursued those overseas who wish to do us harm. DAESH, Al Qaeda and others are cowering in fear. DAESH is losing territory in Syria every day and Assad’s days are limited as even Russia’s support is unable to help him.

Bottom line: we are screening people well enough. A 100% guarantee is impossible, but we are as close as humanly possible. It is your hatred for our President that clouds your mind and prevents you from seeing the facts staring you in the face. Neither FBI Director Comey, DHS Secretary Johnson, nor NCTC Director Rasmussen have ever expressed any doubts about the adequacy of the screening process. Show me a quotation from of those men where they state a lack of faith in the system and I will reverse my position.

If George W. Bush said he’s willing to put up with “a few days illness” he’d be clamoring for his head on a pike.
Ridiculous. If GWB had the sense to evaluate the risk of terrorism in a rational manner, he would easily have earned my support. It was precisely his inability to make decisions without resorting to emotional reactions that soured my opinion of the guy in the first place.
I don’t want to be searched every time I go into a grocery store. We shouldn’t have to take off our shoes and get groped to get on an airplane or a bus.
I agree. Let’s end the security theater tomorrow and resume our normal lives. Doing this would be the biggest FUCK YOU to DAESH & Al Qaeda imaginable.
It is clear you are blinded by party loyalty and have no concern for your, or your fellow citizen’s safety and security.

My position would be identical if a Republican supported the same things. In fact, it was President Bush’s inability to treat things like this in accordance with American values that motivated me to oppose him in the first place.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2015 12:59 PM
Comment #400948

“No, you don’t. Driving is a choice people make.”

Driving is not a right, but it is a necessity for many people. That is if they choose to conduct daily business, and go to work.

“But you don’t need industrially produced food. If you were concerned about the risk of food-borne disease, you would only eat what you grew yourself or bought from a local seller who you could trust.”

Again, nothing more than an attempt to overcomplicate an issue which is very simple and straight forward.

“I trust men who have demonstrated excellent leadership. Obama has safely guided this nation out of economic misery, and has aggressively pursued those overseas who wish to do us harm. DAESH, Al Qaeda and others are cowering in fear. DAESH is losing territory in Syria every day and Assad’s days are limited as even Russia’s support is unable to help him.”


Put down the bong Warren. You’re obviously not seeing the world through a clear set of eyes.

Posted by: dbs at November 29, 2015 2:26 PM
Comment #400949

Warren, thanks for the link to the AP article on Syrian refugees. Rather proves my point I believe.

Fix that problem first and worry about the refugees second.
Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2015 8:39 AM

Really Warren, prioritize threats that leave us vulnerable?

How about using the same logic on criminals and gangs with guns. Get the criminals and gangs guns first and then worry about the nut cases. How about really closing our borders and then worry about illegals here already. In typical leftie fashion you’re getting your priorities mixed up.

Warren, I am really disappointed by your comments comparing the risk of driving and eating commercially available food with terrorist. What in the hell has happened to you? Sure hope you have a speedy recovery.


Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2015 3:55 PM
Comment #400950

More crazy MMGW ideas.

“Chatham House says cutting down on meat-eating can prevent global warming by 2 degrees by the end of the century, declaring that the cultivation of animals is responsible for about 15 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-meat-tax/2015/11/28/id/703802/?ns_mail_uid=5919126&ns_mail_job=1644706_11292015&s=al&dkt_nbr=mmzm2yql

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2015 4:10 PM
Comment #400951

dbs,

It comes down to this: Risk is a part of everyday life. The risk from automobile accidents or food-borne illness is small enough that we do not worry about it very much. It would be possible to reduce that risk further, but you recognize that it would be too much of an inconvenience or too expensive for it to be worthwhile. The same is true with admitting refugees. We could bar the entry of refugees that pass the vetting process for fear of a bad apple slipping through, but the expense and inconvenience is not worth it.

That is if they choose to conduct daily business, and go to work.
I conduct daily business and go to work each day, but I never drive a car. People CHOOSE to live far away from their work place. People CHOOSE to live in communities built around the automobile. None of these CHOICES are necessities.
Again, nothing more than an attempt to overcomplicate an issue which is very simple and straight forward.
The truth is, if you cared as much about food-borne disease as you did about terrorism, you would alter your eating habits accordingly. But you don’t, because you aren’t actually concerned with making rational decisions to reduce mortality. You are concerned with emotional reactions to perceived insecurity.
Put down the bong Warren. You’re obviously not seeing the world through a clear set of eyes.

Ask Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden about how much Obama cares about securing the USA. Ask DAESH about all the territory they’ve lost in the past few months. It’s an organization on the run and the attack in Paris is just a sign of their increasing desperation.

RF,

Really Warren, prioritize threats that leave us vulnerable?

For the umpteenth time, the vulnerability posed by Syrian Refugees is negligible. Those other examples are cases where the difference is far less stark.

My job here isn’t to impress you.

Tell me, how is a death due to a terrorist attack more tragic than a death due to a food borne illness?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2015 5:02 PM
Comment #400952
thanks for the link to the AP article on Syrian refugees. Rather proves my point I believe.

You mean this?

Syrians are subject to additional, classified controls, according to administration officials, who briefed reporters this week on condition that they not be identified by name to publicly discuss confidential details about the process.

Look, I understand that Comey and others do not view the refugee admission process as risk-free, but this is not the same as “the vast majority of them have no information for us to review”.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2015 5:14 PM
Comment #400953

Warren…it is futile to argue that some risk with allowing Syrian refugees into our country is better than no risk with keeping them out.

Weep, cry, or whatever makes you feel better about yourself Warren, but sanity still reigns in this country among the populace and many of our state governments.

Tell me, how is a death due to a terrorist attack more tragic than a death due to a food borne illness?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2015 5:02 PM

I would not anticipate such a question from a thinking conscious human being as the answer is so obvious. Check with the families who have experienced both. I Pity you Warren, but I can’t help.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2015 6:12 PM
Comment #400954

Perhaps Warren can tell us why the death of a ten year old girl at the hands of a rapist, is no more tragic than dying from food borne illness. What kind of twisted mind sees no difference?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2015 6:23 PM
Comment #400963

Warren Porter, you lost this debate a long time ago. Quit digging.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2015 1:42 AM
Comment #400964

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

Daniel Webster

It would appear that Mr Webster could see the future.

Posted by: dbs at November 30, 2015 7:25 AM
Comment #400968

Although there are concerns to be reckoned with regarding the Syrian refugee issue, I have to make an observation.

The uproar over the Syrian refugee issue seems to be the latest in a long list, here’s just a few:

PPACA, Fast and Furious, Obama’s birth certificate, Obama’s education records, Obama’s gun grabs, Supreme Court same gender marriage decision, Benghazi, Obama’s golfing, Obama’s vacations, Mt. Denali renaming, Cuba, Ebola, Planned Parenthood, The debt, The deficit, Iranian nuclear treaty and many, many more too many to list here.

The problem is some of these are valid issues to discuss, debate and decide on. Others not so much and could even be described as inconsequential. But we have the same level of outrage generated by these issues, as it seems to me. I am finding it increasingly difficult to adhere to concerns when every issue gets turned up to eleventeen million on the outrage meter of conservatives and republicans. President Obama has handled this a lot better than I would have, I am sure of that. I am uncertain how Hillary Clinton would handle this but she does have experience with that.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 30, 2015 12:01 PM
Comment #400970


I think what we are witnessing in our conservative friends is an outbreak of the “Dunning–Kruger effect”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

(No, really this could be serious)

I think it would be wise not to engage with the conservatives here at Watchblog until we can establish they are not contagious.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 30, 2015 12:38 PM
Comment #400973

Rocky Marks, you do realize the Dunning Kruger effect can apply to both Democratics and Republicans, don’t you?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2015 2:21 PM
Comment #400974
Warren Porter, you lost this debate a long time ago. Quit digging.

I don’t come here to “win”. I come here to learn.

it is futile to argue that some risk with allowing Syrian refugees into our country is better than no risk with keeping them out.
Except keeping them out isn’t “no risk”. It would be a tremendous propaganda coup for DAESH’s recruitment. And, we’d be completely defenseless against European nationals traveling here under the visa waiver program.
I would not anticipate such a question from a thinking conscious human being as the answer is so obvious.
I already have an answer for that question that reflects my own personal philosophy. What I am interested in knowing is what YOU think.

S4A,
10 days later and nothing has changed.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 30, 2015 3:03 PM
Comment #400976

Willie,

“Rocky Marks, you do realize the Dunning Kruger effect can apply to both Democratics and Republicans, don’t you?”

Why am I not surprised that you, of all people, would have that response?

Nothing gets past you, does it Willie.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 30, 2015 3:44 PM
Comment #400977

WP, yes but while I don’t expect “change” I do expect at some time to be able to return to normal discussions regarding differences we may have about politics. It is difficult to be concerned about something if everything is portrayed as the “worst thing that ever happened”. It could be that my interpretation of outrage that I see is on a different scale for each of the issues I enumerated but when the discussion as a whole has no room for understanding or leeway towards another person’s point of view, it is difficult to make that assertion. This thread has seen many of us intimate that we don’t disagree with the uncertainity and risk of allowing refugees entrance to our country but we see no temperance from those that would disparage our feelings of immigration being the true meaning of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness that our country is built upon. Your analogies regarding driving, eating processed food or even being out in a storm would seem to bring evidence that we live with risks everyday that could be much more of an endangerment to us than the risks of giving immigrants asylum.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 30, 2015 3:57 PM
Comment #400980

I drive to work and accept that risk. I don’t drive to work with my eyes closed. What choice does a person living on the 14th floor of a 20 story building when it comes to growing their own food to eat. To say we “choose” to eat processed food, for some, is preposterous.

Why are you changing the name of ISIS to DAESH? Are you surrendering the battlefield to ISIS by renaming it? Are you accepting ISIS by creating a splinter group called DAESH?

They’re not IMMIGRANTS! Ben Carson, by going to Syria, has found they don’t want to come here. Are you in favor of dragging them here, kicking and screaming, to satisfy your do-gooder mentality?

To be honest, I don’t know why this discussion is even taking place. Obama doesn’t give a shit what states or what the people in those states think. He’s going to bring them here regardless of what we want or expect. That’s obvious. He’s been leading with the opinion of one for a very long time. He’s “got more flexibility” now that he’s in his second term. We should call it his “Fuck You” term instead of his second term

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2015 5:11 PM
Comment #400982

And the outrage meter just pegged eleventeen million again! Congratulations.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 30, 2015 5:20 PM
Comment #400983

I really don’t see the logic in inviting people here who say they are at war with us. It just doesn’t make sense. To think we are going to win a war by inviting the enemy into our midst is insane.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2015 5:34 PM
Comment #400984

I don’t see the logic in surrendering our country’s principles of offering life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to people because someone has an inordinate fear. These people who fear so much are spoon fed information that is meant to scare the bejeesus out of them and is not based in any factual information but rather rhetoric and unprovable assertions.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 30, 2015 5:44 PM
Comment #400987
I drive to work and accept that risk. I don’t drive to work with my eyes closed.

Great! We can accept that risk by allowing fully vetted Syrian Refugees to resettle here. Driving with your eyes shut is akin to allowing people to come here absent any vetting, but no one is proposing anything like that.

What choice does a person living on the 14th floor of a 20 story building when it comes to growing their own food to eat. To say we “choose” to eat processed food, for some, is preposterous.
There are plenty of ways for people in urban environments to obtain unprocessed food. Community gardens, farmer’s markets and CSA programs abound in cities across the country.
Why are you changing the name of ISIS to DAESH? Are you surrendering the battlefield to ISIS by renaming it? Are you accepting ISIS by creating a splinter group called DAESH?
No, DAESH is an initialism standing for لدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام, which is Arabic for “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”. Unfortunately for the Islamists, DAESH makes for a very rude pun in Arabic. So rude, that they have threatened to cut the tongue out of anyone who uses the term. As one who is proud to do whatever he can to undermine this despicable organization, I gladly embrace a name that mocks and disparages them.
They’re not IMMIGRANTS! Ben Carson, by going to Syria, has found they don’t want to come here. Are you in favor of dragging them here, kicking and screaming, to satisfy your do-gooder mentality?

People who leave their homeland and resettle in another land are, by definition immigrants. Ben Carson met a few people in Jordan who would rather wait in the temporary camp until it was safe enough to return to Syria. Great, they can choose to do that. However, others prefer to resettle, even if they constitute a minority of all refugees, there is no reason why we shouldn’t afford them the opportunity to come here. The risks are small and the potential upsides are large.

I really don’t see the logic in inviting people here who say they are at war with us. It just doesn’t make sense. To think we are going to win a war by inviting the enemy into our midst is insane.
When did Syrian refugees say they were at war with us? These people are out allies, not our enemies. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 30, 2015 6:49 PM
Comment #400988

The Left shows the lunacy of their policies frequently and in many diverse ways.

One Leftie proudly proclaims that death at the hands of a terrorist is no more tragic than dying from a car accident.

This very same “great thinker” contends that we should allow Syrian refugees into our country; as denying them entry would be a victory for ISIS. He is so full of himself that he uses terms such as “DAESH” to prove scholarship and stuns us with Arabic writing. How AWE-ful.

His denial is so profound that he writes of the great financial benefits of allowing refugees into our country. I suppose that agrees with the billions of taxpayers dollars necessary to fund their presence here.

He implies that there are good Syrians and bad Syrians and we know how to tell them apart. How do we tell good from bad? Easy…we ask them.

Good Syrians left Syria, and that makes them our “allies”.

Somehow, walking across a border makes them worthy of American residence.

Another Leftie writes that to honor our Founding Documents we must bring suspect refugees into our cities. We can’t possibly believe in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness unless we bring 10,000 refugees here to the US. Absolute nonsense from an absolute idiot.

Is the Left more compassionate, more caring, more giving than other Americans? What is their goal, what is their game? Do they really have a plan to help mankind with their unselfish ideas?

Simple answer is NO! They aren’t and don’t.

I have written this before and will write it again. The only way to understand Liberalism as practiced today in the US is to treat it as a mental disorder.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 30, 2015 8:02 PM
Comment #400989
These people are out allies, not our enemies.

The whole thing in a nutshell is, you don’t know that. You don’t know who these people are. You may try to make us believe there is no danger with your braggadocio “I’ll take that risk eating the gumball” comments, but you know as well as I do that you wouldn’t if you didn’t have to.

You don’t believe you or your loved ones will suffer terror at the hands of these refugees running loose in our country. Do you really want to be responsible for that terror being visited on others if or when it does happen?

Keep in mind these are refugees, not immigrants. They have nothing but what they can carry with them. Do you really think the risk their entry brings to this country is worth what meager parcels they have in their posession?

Also, consider the damage just one could do in an instant and compare it to what benefit the many would take years to accomplish. It’s just not worth it.

19 people put this country into a recession by hitting the WTC buildings. 19 people negated the 4th and 5th amendments by bringing forth the Patriot Act and the TSA. Are you telling us there won’t be 19 people with the same motives among the 10, 60, 100, 250 thousand people this president says he will bring here? If you are then you are lying.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2015 8:07 PM
Comment #400994

We are very fortunate to have had men that helped form the documents and legislation to bring our country into fruition. These men were recent immigrants, for the most part, to this country. They were well familiar with the nationalist xenophobia promoted in Europe, and they escaped that to find refuge in what they ended up forming, The United States of America. These men understood that immigration to this country would unleash it’s potential to become the leader of the free world. Their initial work was enhanced and guided by again more men and women that were immigrants and again understood the value of immigration to this country. Their hard work and efforts will not be undone by the current crop of hair on fire, pants wetting, xenophobic people and politicians. They in their wisdom have fashioned our legislative process to assist immigration and promote that practice to include many, many more immigrants.

Now there are absolute idiots attempting to undo the work that has been accomplished in the last 200+ years. These idiots will never succeed because they don’t have the wisdom that helped put in place the legislation and encouragement to bring additional immigrants into our country. All they have is hair on fire, pants wetting rhetoric and generally speaking, most people just laugh at their foolish attempts.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 1, 2015 9:49 AM
Comment #400995

RF,

Easy…we ask them.

This flawed understanding of the vetting process reveals that you have no clue what you are talking about. Please shut up and read the information that I have provided in previous comments. We have intelligence regarding the identities of Syrians allied with DAESH. If the refugee matches one of those people, we don’t let him in. We interview the refugee and his family separately and independently. We ask a battery of questions on a variety of topics. A Syrian with malicious intent is liable to make a mistake and contradict the answer supplied by a spouse or child.

The process is very involved and we never take a refugee’s claim at face value. Only the most foolish of terrorists would choose to take this route* to enter the US. As has been stated many times, the risk posed by European nationals travelling under the visa waiver is umpteen times greater. Yet, there is hardly any outrage on that issue. It’s hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Is the Left more compassionate, more caring, more giving than other Americans? What is their goal, what is their game? Do they really have a plan to help mankind with their unselfish ideas?

No. Compassion is but a side effect of admitting refugees. The biggest motivation is how it undermines DAESH and to a lesser extent, Assad. DAESH claims to be a revival of the Caliphate of old. Accordingly, there is propaganda saying it is the duty of every Muslim to abandon his nationality and join dar al Islam. Large numbers of Syrian Muslims leaving the Middle East and heading to the West weakens this narrative.

Also, the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) still hasn’t recovered from its pre-recession high. Much of this has to do with demographics as the retirement of baby boomers means the share of Americans who are of working-age is significantly lower than normal. Allowing the immigration of working-age people, such as Syrian refugees, will help us in this regard.

*Unless they intend to spark a backlash against innocent refugees.

WW,

You may try to make us believe there is no danger.
Again, the issue isn’t that there is no danger. The issue is that the risk of danger is small enough to be tolerable. Everytime I leave my home, I expose myself to danger, but risk is a part of life and I cannot afford to be paralyzed by paranoia.

you know as well as I do that you wouldn’t if you didn’t have to.
Except, I do it all the time. As I have mentioned above, food borne disease kills thousands of Americans each year. Eating any gumball in this country contains a tiny risk death. Yet, I am certain you and I would gladly buy a fresh package of m&m’s, gumballs or whatever other commercially available food product we may fancy without thinking twice.
The whole thing in a nutshell is, you don’t know that. You don’t know who these people are.
Do I personally know? No, but our intelligence agencies who are experts do know who these people are. I trust them to adequately screen and vet these people to mitigate the risks.
Do you really want to be responsible for that terror being visited on others if or when it does happen?
Is the person who dies of a food borne disease responsible for his or her own death merely because he or she chose to eat an apparently ordinary, but infected gumball bought from the corner store?
Keep in mind these are refugees, not immigrants. They have nothing but what they can carry with them. Do you really think the risk their entry brings to this country is worth what meager parcels they have in their posession?
Refugees are a subset of all immigrants. Like with any immigrant, sometimes they come with material possessions and sometimes they don’t. Regardless, I do not see the point of arguing over these semantics. The “parcels” these people may or may not bring is not our concern. The most important asset these people bring is their human capital. Many are university educated and bring many valuable skills to the workforce.
Also, consider the damage just one could do in an instant and compare it to what benefit the many would take years to accomplish. It’s just not worth it.
The benefits are 100% guaranteed. The damage is a very tiny chance.
19 people put this country into a recession by hitting the WTC buildings
The recession started in March 2001.
19 people negated the 4th and 5th amendments by bringing forth the Patriot Act and the TSA.
It’s not the terrorist’s fault that Congress is full of cowards. They should’ve followed Russ Feingold’s lead and voted against the legislation.
Are you telling us there won’t be 19 people with the same motives among the 10, 60, 100, 250 thousand people this president says he will bring here?
First of all, it is 10 thousand people. All the larger numbers are bogus. Secondly, the vetting process will screen out nearly all applicants with ties to terrorism. Thirdly, the fact that the vetting process isn’t perfect means there is a tiny nonzero chance that someone malicious slips through the cracks. However, the onus is on people like you to demonstrate that this miniscule nonzero probability is significant enough to be worth sacrificing the benefits of 10,000 additional upstanding Americans. Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2015 11:07 AM
Comment #400996

http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/u-n-sending-thousands-of-muslims-to-america/

WND reported in September that Syrians would make up the next big wave of Muslim refugees coming to the U.S., as resettlement agencies were lobbying for the U.S. to accept at least 75,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years.
The State Department announcement makes it clear that the 9,000 refugees represent just the beginning of an extended program to accept more Syrians.
The cost of resettling 70,000 refugees comes to just over $1 billion per year to the U.S. government, according to a State Department report for fiscal 2015. This includes running the program and issuing federal grants to the nine resettlement agencies. The $1 billion figure does not include the cost of the unaccompanied alien children program, supplying food stamps, subsidized housing, interpreters, Medicaid, WIC, temporary assistance to needy families (TANF) and educating the children, much of which falls to states and localities.
That also does not include the potential cost of security risks. WND reported in September that 22 Somali-Americans brought in through the refugee program have been documented by the FBI to have left the country to fight for Al-Shabab, a terrorist organization in Somalia, while several others have gone to fight for the Islamic State, also called ISIS, in Syria. Dozens of others have been prosecuted for sending money or other material support to terrorist organizations.
Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2015 12:00 PM
Comment #400997

Oh my, we have another World Net Daily user. It is no wonder that there is so much misinformation and outright lies being attempted to be propagated. Consider the source?

Posted by: Speak4all at December 1, 2015 12:05 PM
Comment #400998

Even so, there is nothing in the WND article that supports WW’s claim regarding the “…60, 100, 250 thousand people this president says he will bring here?”. The President has said nothing other than 10,000 and to continue to claim otherwise is a bald-faced lie.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2015 12:33 PM
Comment #401003

“We interview the refugee and his family separately and independently. We ask a battery of questions on a variety of topics. A Syrian with malicious intent is liable to make a mistake and contradict the answer supplied by a spouse or child.”

And on this we rest our safety and security. Mental defect.

“Large numbers of Syrian Muslims leaving the Middle East and heading to the West weakens this narrative.”

Large numbers of Syrians staying in their country to change their government with the help of others should be encouraged. Syrian refugees in the US help no one.

“Oh my, we have another World Net Daily user.”

OH MY, we have another Leftie analyzing the source and not the content.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 1, 2015 1:26 PM
Comment #401004

RF,
Once again, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Educate yourself first before you continue to spew your nonsense.

You have continued to fail to provide a reason for why preventing a death due to terrorism deserves more resources than preventing a death due to other causes. I conclude that you have no rational, utilitarian justification. You are letting emotion to guide your thinking.

Large numbers of Syrians staying in their country to change their government with the help of others should be encouraged. Syrian refugees in the US help no one.
Fine. We encourage Syrians to join liberal rebel groups already. Some people aren’t interested in fighting, so they have fled to Turkey/Jordan/Lebanon. Those three countries are hurting to feed millions of people. Permanent resettlement is the optimal solution for the ones who would rather to become Americans.

Only 28.7% of refugees registered with the UN are males between 12 and 60 years old.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2015 1:42 PM
Comment #401005

Warren, not admitting Syrian refugees costs nothing.

“Some people aren’t interested in fighting…” Fine, that certainly is no reason to bring them here.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 1, 2015 1:47 PM
Comment #401006

This source?

Not worth analyzing. Needs to have substance in its content in order to analyze. Lies and misinformation are not considered substance.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 1, 2015 2:16 PM
Comment #401007

Not admitting refugees costs a lot:

—Lost opportunity to increase the American labor force

—Lost opportunity to undermine DAESH propaganda

Once again, the chance of a terrorist attack from a refugee is minuscule, much smaller than these benefits.

My great-grandfather originally came to this country as a refugee. He was also a member of a minority religion fleeing persecution in a war overseas. Coreligionists of his had been implicated in terrorism both in the US and overseas. Letting him into this country was a risky move on the US’s part. In fact, it is easy to find contemporaneous editorials and articles stating exactly that. Nonetheless, this country took a chance and admitted him and his family. After a few failures, my great-grandfather began a successful small business. My grandfather, 18 years old at the time of his immigration, became a successful engineer with many patents to his name.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2015 2:26 PM
Comment #401008

Warren wrote; “Not admitting refugees costs a lot:

—Lost opportunity to increase the American labor force

—Lost opportunity to undermine DAESH propaganda”

Really Warren?

“The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.”

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet

Hundreds of thousands of applications for legal immigration are waiting their turn to become Americans. And yet, Warren claims we need 10,000 refugees who can not be properly vetted to help increase our Labor Force.

Folks, I rest my case. Mental deficiency.

“Lost opportunity to undermine DAESH propaganda”

Folks, I rest my case. Mental deficiency.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 1, 2015 3:17 PM
Comment #401010

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3243517/TV-news-wars-heat-Hillary-Clinton-s-Sunday-interview-MSNBC-anchor-insists-textbook-planned-scripted-CBS-News-insists-wrong.html#v-4498184908001


Yea, consider the source. Hillbilly said she wants to see 65,000 Syrians in the U.S.

Get your head out of the sand, Speak4all. If you don’t know what you’re talking about pick another subject, like slap-jack or tiddley-winks. You know, something you can understand.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2015 4:05 PM
Comment #401011
provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants

A policy which is completely boneheaded.

who can not be properly vetted
What makes you think that repeating this lie makes it true. There is not a shred of evidence that the vetting process is improper.

RF, you are proposing a very foolish solution to the situation. Jordan and Turkey are our allies and they shouldn’t be shouldering the burden of millions of Syrian Refugees by themselves. They will remember this when it comes time for us to ask them for a favor.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2015 4:22 PM
Comment #401012

I understand that President Obama has said that 10,000 refugees are scheduled to be granted asylum. If and when President Hillary Clinton changes that I will be sure to take notice. Until then let’s just stick with what is actually happening and not what your hair on fire nonsense is attempting to portray.

Speaking of where your head is at, it would seem as though you are susceptible to the cranial rectal feedback loop. I posted a link to this affliction a while back for RF, he has this affliction also. I can re-post that for you if you need a reminder.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 1, 2015 4:34 PM
Comment #401013

“Jordan and Turkey are our allies and they shouldn’t be shouldering the burden of millions of Syrian Refugees by themselves.”

How about countries in the region Warren?

“The Saudis claim they have taken in 2.5 million Syrian refugees, although this is vehemently disputed by the likes of Amnesty International, who assert that none of the Gulf states – Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates – have taken in any refugees at all.

“The Gulf States have accepted zero refugees registered with the United Nations and administered through the U.N. resettlement program. They have accepted zero,” Geoffrey Mock, the Syrian country coordinator for AIUSA, told the Daily Caller recently.

Human Rights Watch concurs with Amnesty International that Saudi Arabia hasn’t taken in any refugees, with HRW’s deputy director Nadim Houry labeling the inaction “shameful”.”

http://www.infowars.com/saudi-arabia-complains-about-hostility-towards-refugees-while-taking-in-zero-refugees/

Poor Warren, when confronted with facts resorts to calling US immigration policy “boneheaded”.

If we have hundreds of thousands of people from around the globe waiting to enter the US and become citizens why do we need 10,000 mostly illiterate and unskilled people from Syria who can not be properly vetted?

Warren insist we need these 10,000 to bolster our economy. What a farce Warren. Mentally deficient liberal belief.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 1, 2015 4:37 PM
Comment #401015

How many South Americans do we have in this country that haven’t been properly vetted? How many South Americans do we have in this country that are now here illegally? How many South Americans do we have in this country who are violent criminals?

Answer the questions posed here, Warren Porter. If you need help ask the omniscient seer, Speak4all for guidance.


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2015 4:57 PM
Comment #401021

The Syrian refugee crisis is not something that we have to respond to, or need to respond to or even should be forced to respond to. We respond to the crisis because we can. The USA offers something that many, many people would like to have. A dream of a better life and the means to obtain that, even if it sometimes is just dumb luck that obtains that. Other countries can offer jobs, housing and some of the other things the USA can but they just don’t have that ability to see someone recognize a need, act upon that, and then become very successful through hard work and discipline to obtain that. Some of us recognize that this is special and wish to share that, some of us think we are special and shouldn’t share anything. Especially with someone unworthy. Our country offers the best of dreams, even to the unworthy.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 1, 2015 5:57 PM
Comment #401022

RF,

mostly illiterate and unskilled people/blockquote>

Citation needed.

WW,
I’m not your researcher. Go find the answers yourself and share them here if you want to make a point. What I do know is that immigrants to the US commit crimes at rates far lower than native born Americans. This is true for Latin Americans as well as other groups.

Ultimately, all the arguments you and RF make are based upon prejudice. To you, it is “obvious” that people who aren’t like you in one manner must be inferior in some way. To you, it is impossible for foreigners to be law-abiding citizens. But this belief is not only unfounded, but also very contrarian to American values.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2015 6:02 PM
Comment #401025

“Of the 18,000 referred refugees cases from the United Nations High Commissioner for possible resettlement (of which the U.S. is taking 10,000) more than 50% are 18 years of age or younger.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/state-department-only-2-of-syrian-refugees-in-us-are-militar#.df4J3A761

Are these the highly skilled and educated refugees the left brags about?

Warren and others on the Left are prejudiced against Christian refugees. I don’t recall ever reading a comment by Warren concerning their plight.

“Christians face religious persecution in more countries than any other religious group, according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center.

The embattled Christians and other minorities are now looking up to US and other Western countries to save them from annihilation.

“How much longer can we flee before we and other minorities become a story in a history book?” said Nuri Kino, a journalist who founded the advocacy group Demand for Action.

The group said the beleaguered Christians and minorities need urgent support from the West.”

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christians.in.middle.east.facing.worst.persecution.as.population.drops.sharply/60044.htm

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 1, 2015 6:43 PM
Comment #401032

My point is all the crime committed by illegals are on the head of your party. There is blood on the hands of the Democratic party.

It is your party and your support that are getting people killed needlessly. You can equate this to SOP, shrinkage, cost of doing business, whatever you want to call it, to justify it in your mind. The simple truth is the policies you support, the policies your party supports, are needlessly costing this country lives, money, property, and you have the gall to sluff it off like it’s normal, like it’s needed.

Why? Why do you allow the sacrifice of life, property, and treasure on the alter of “immigration”? Why do you and your party feel this need to import danger?

It’s not 1903 any longer! This country isn’t growing, it’s dying, and you’re killing it with these insane immigration policies that brings death and destruction into our midst. We need unlimited immigration like we need a hole in our head.

There’s no amount of research that can answer this question, Warren Porter. Why?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2015 7:35 PM
Comment #401039

RF,

Are these the highly skilled and educated refugees the left brags about

You are grasping for straws now. Children are people who gain their skills once they complete their educations. You have zero evidence that these are illiterate people.

prejudiced against Christian refugees
Excuse me? *I* am the one advocating in favor of resettlement of Syrian refugees. YOU are the one who wants to keep them out.

WW,

My point is all the crime committed by illegals are on the head of your party. There is blood on the hands of the Democratic party.

It is your party and your support that are getting people killed needlessly.

Huh? By this logic, the Republican Party could be considered culpable for crimes committed by gun simply because they oppose restricting firearm access. This insinuation that immigration leads to crime is pure unadulterated nonsense. Immigrants commit crimes at rates lower than native born Americans. Period.

The simple truth is the policies you support, the policies your party supports, are needlessly costing this country lives, money, property, and you have the gall to sluff it off like it’s normal, like it’s needed.

Here is the only solution that prevents all crime: Kill or deport everyone. With no people around, there will be no criminals to commit crimes. Obviously, this cure is many times worse than the disease. Until then, we accept that crime is a natural part of the human condition. We work to reduce crime as much as possible with good policing, restricting access to weapons and other things. Deporting illegal immigrants will not reduce crime rates in this country.

It’s not 1903 any longer! This country isn’t growing, it’s dying, and you’re killing it with these insane immigration policies that brings death and destruction into our midst. We need unlimited immigration like we need a hole in our head.
I have no clue where this is coming from. Immigrants are our past, present and future. In a day and age where the LFPR is dropping due to demographic shifts, it would be ludicrous to declare that we have less need for immigrants than 1903. Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2015 12:02 AM
Comment #401046

You’re talking out your ass, Warren Porter. We don’t need immigration any more than Mexico needs immigration, or Canada needs immigration. We certainly don’t need refugees, from countries we’re at war with, coming here under the guise of being immigrants, portrayed as helpless victims, and at the
same time being touted as an economic boon to our economy.

Quit bullshitting us, Warren Porter.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2015 2:55 AM
Comment #401047

WW,

You are right. We don’t need a prosperous nation. We can stop growing and just worry about squabbling over dividing up what is left.

Historically, waves of immigration have always benefited the US. But you and your prescience are right, this time it’s different. Unlike all the other people in the world that came before them, today’s immigrants are lazy leeches who are only interested in committing violent crime or fleecing the American taxpayer, right? And we know this to be true because they don’t worship the same God as you and I. Because everybody knows that only Jews and Christians are capable of becoming productive citizens.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2015 7:23 AM
Comment #401052

Well, the outrage meter quickly exceeded it’s previous pegging. We seem to have someone that expresses their views from a bipolar standpoint. Turn off the radio, take deep breaths and discuss this using less vitriol might help.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 2, 2015 9:48 AM
Comment #401059

In a day and age where the LFPR is dropping due to demographic shifts…” Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2015 12:02 AM

Warren is wearing his “funny” suit again today. Could there possibly be additional reasons Warren?

Because everybody knows that only Jews and Christians are capable of becoming productive citizens.
Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2015 7:23 AM

Sarcasm noted Warren. Weary never implied such a thing. Making a case for legal immigration is not necessary. Making a case that we accept refugees that are not properly vetted to bolster our LFPR is silly. We have tens of thousands of applicants, capable of thorough vetting, for citizenship waiting their turn.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 2, 2015 12:29 PM
Comment #401119
we accept refugees that are not properly vetted/blockquote> Once again you repeat this falsehood. Neither Comey, nor anyone else responsible for our security has suggested that the vetting system is inadequate.
We have tens of thousands of applicants … for citizenship waiting their turn.

Current law says that people from any nation can apply to resettle in the US if they cannot safely live in their homeland. This bypasses the normal process. Singling out Syrians for exclusion from that process likely means receiving more refugees from other nations. If you feel that refugees from any nation ought to wait their turn with all the rest, then you should worry about repealing the Refugee Act of 1980.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 3, 2015 11:40 AM
Comment #401124

How’s that vetting process going on the southern border, Warren Porter? What are they doing, vetting 11 million illegal immigrants and then just turning them loose to enter the U.S., or are they just letting them waltz across the border to the nearest freeway and hitching a ride to anywhere USA?

More like the latter as well as the former. Yea, they’re doing a great job! Let’s pay to ship them half way across the world and vet a couple hundred thousand more!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 3, 2015 4:22 PM
Comment #401135

It looks like this San Bernardino thing is going to blow up in your face, Warren Porter.

I know what you’re going to say! He’s an American Citizen! It’s homegrown! It’s Workplace violence! It depends on what “bucket” you put it in!

Don’t forget one thing, Warren Porter. Don’t forget the most important thing many of your ilk wants to forget.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/03/san-bernardino-jihadi-a-constant-presence-at-mosque-recently-memorized-koran/

http://heavy.com/news/2015/12/tashfeen-malik-syed-farook-wife-suspect-inland-regional-center-san-bernardino-shooting-suspect-facebook-page/

He is a Muslim and his wife is an immigrant!

It’s coming down to where we can’t trust the government to keep us safe. You can live in your bubble(gum) world if you want to, Warren Porter, but the simple fact is we are at war and we are importing our enemies, and you want to import more!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 4, 2015 12:32 AM
Comment #401136

WW,

How’s that vetting process going on the southern border,

We do not vet people who enter the country illegally, but we do vet people before giving them legal status as in the case with refugees.

He is a Muslim and his wife is an immigrant!
So what? People of all faiths are capable of violence. When you have a society with more guns than people, tragedies like this are inevitable. You cannot hope to stop the violence just by keeping out people who are different from you. This is a free country, not some walled garden. Posted by: Warren Porter at December 4, 2015 7:48 AM
Comment #401137
This is a free country

Um, right, sure. Tell that to the kid with the lemonade stand.

You’re blaming the gun? That’s crazy. Have another gumball, Warren Porter.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 4, 2015 9:31 AM
Comment #401152

warren

Give it up. Two muslims kill 14 and wound 12 at a company Christmas party. It’s the muslims that are the problem. A religion that is nothing more than an excuse to force people to live in a world ruled by medieval oppression.

And a moron of a president that cannot let go of his obsession with kissing muslim ass. We cannot allow these people into this anymore.

Your assertion that the problem is guns is asinine. Neither one of those two could have purchased those rifles legally, and as usual there was no one that could fight back. Gun free zone and disarming the law abiding doesn’t and will never work.

Posted by: dbs at December 5, 2015 11:11 AM
Comment #401162

You focus on Muslims at your own peril. People of all faiths are equally capable of violence. With the politicization of firearm ownership in recent decades, mass shootings are now commonplace, but you tell us it is the government’s job to protect us from Muslim mass-murderers, but not Christian ones?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 6, 2015 9:17 AM
Comment #401163

dbs,

“Neither one of those two could have purchased those rifles legally, and as usual there was no one that could fight back.”

And your source for this little tidbit is?

From all of the reports I have read the weapons were acquired legally.

Warren,

We have all read the meanderings of the “Christian” writers on this blog. We have seen their righteous sense of omniscience, and their narcissistic lack of compassion for their fellow man.

The Constitution only applies to the Christians in this country.

No others need apply.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 6, 2015 10:54 AM
Comment #401165

Rocky,

It is astonishing. 240 years later, Thomas Jefferson’s words remain controversial in this country:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Apparently, these unalienable Rights are only available to Americans or Christians. Everyone else must be subhuman or something, from what I can tell.

To condemn these Syrians to a squalid life in a tent in the deserts along the Syrian border while their homeland burns is simply despicable. To deny an innocent human being his life, liberty or pursuit of happiness is the greatest violation of our Founders’ ideals. I thought this country had learned its lesson after learning the horrors that happened during WWII and promised “never again”?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 6, 2015 2:19 PM
Comment #401166

Wasn’t Thomas Jefferson the president that quit paying Muslims not to attack our merchant ships. Wasn’t he the one who quit paying ransom to those people over there that kidnapped our sailors?

Should we start paying them again, Warren Porter?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 6, 2015 3:04 PM
Comment #401167

No, we shouldn’t. The Right are the ones advocating surrender to the terrorist, not the Left.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 6, 2015 3:29 PM
Comment #401168

Why do compare these Syrians with the Corsairs of North Africa? It makes no sense. Are Syrian refugees roaming the seas and committing acts of piracy?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 6, 2015 3:32 PM
Comment #401169

Once upon a time, some Muslims once did a bad thing. Now, all other Muslims need to bear collective guilt regarding that one bad thing done long ago. Accordingly, we treat them all as we would treat the person who did the bad thing.

Does this really make sense to anyone?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 6, 2015 3:35 PM
Comment #401171

Based on what I’ve read in your comments, Warren Porter, you have already surrendered to these terrorists. You are welcoming them into our country with open arms and making excuses when someone disagrees with your capitulation.

Do you really believe this stuff you’re saying?

The Corsairs demanded subservience, just as modern day ISIS does. They’re not going to stop demanding it of us or of Europe, or of anyone else they come in contact with.

Stop being ignorant, Warren Porter. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 6, 2015 5:27 PM
Comment #401172
You are welcoming them into our country with open arms and making excuses when someone disagrees with your capitulation.

Nope. I want refugees, not terrorists to enter this country. This is why I demand a proper and thorough vetting of anyone wishing to resettle. If Jim Comey or other national security experts say such scrutiny is impossible, then I don’t think we should admit anyone.

The Corsairs demanded subservience, just as modern day ISIS does.

By refusing to admit properly vetted refugees, subservience is exactly what you are giving our enemies.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 6, 2015 8:00 PM
Comment #401173
By refusing to admit properly vetted refugees, subservience is exactly what you are giving our enemies.

You should start using your old moniker, Warped Reality, because that’s what you’re dealing with.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 6, 2015 9:43 PM
Comment #401174

YOU are the one who is advocating that we surrender and give DAESH exactly what it wants not me.

My original pseudonym was a reference to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which states that gravity acts by bending spacetime, thereby warping the very fabric of the universe.
The truth is that reality is indeed warped, even when emotion or common sense claim it isn’t so.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 6, 2015 10:07 PM
Comment #401175

Did the president call ISIL daesh? You capitalize the word like it’s an acronym. Who are you referring to, or deflecting from, Warren Porter?

Nowhere in the link is a daesh referred to. Why do you insist on creating a group? Are you marching lockstep to the Democratic’s way of confusing the issue so you don’t have to face the facts?


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 7, 2015 3:40 AM
Comment #401177

WW,

Stop pretending to be stupid. You know exactly what I mean.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 7, 2015 7:55 AM
Comment #401183

WP, I don’t think he is pretending. The USofA has already proved proficiency in completely destroying an indigenous population, the native American Indian. This practice could easily be carried out against DAESH. You really don’t need to identify the enemy or fight them. You just occupy the territory and use unspeakable decimation of the population. Only refer to them as savages and show no concern for their spirituality and in fact degrade that every chance you get. Make them endure forced marches to nowhere and then turn around and march them back, starve them while you do this. Infect supposed aid for them with horrible communicable diseases. Make the general population so incredibly fearful of us that they abandon any allegiance to the warriors among them. And when you do have to put down a village uprising kill everyone and everything in sight, men, women, children and livestock. We did this during the American Indian Wars.

I am not advocating for this type of campaign. I just point out that we as a country have done this. Our civilization and morals don’t allow that today. Perhaps we just aren’t designed to defeat such ruthless characters as DAESH now. Or perhaps we, through our civilization and morals, recognize that sure we can do the unthinkable and prevail but at what cost and can we live with the outcome?

Posted by: Speak4all at December 7, 2015 10:59 AM
Comment #401202

You’re right, Speak4all. We did what you say and we won’t lower ourselves to that today. That was war. We don’t fight wars these days. We do peace keeping and containment.

However, look at the actions of these 2 in San Bernardino. They, and those like them, are waging war. They’re using the tactics you described. Do you know why? Because they are at war with us. They want to destroy and decimate, make us fearful and abandon our allegiance. They want to kill everyone and everything in sight they can’t subjugate. They have proven it time and time again.

I don’t know how or why you ignore it. You insist we bring them over here along with those who provide them cover. You admit they can’t be sought out and identified, but hey, we can’t punish an innocent, so we must endure the slaughter when it comes.

It’s an insane policy. It’s a suicidal policy. Eventually they will push the limits of the world. Then they will be pushed back into their dusty tents in the middle of the desert they came from just as the west has done again and again throughout history.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 7, 2015 1:20 PM
Comment #401209

WW, no one has insisted anything beyond your insistence of conflation of this discussion. WP, myself and others here supporting the Syrian refugees have suggested proper vetting and due diligence in determining the viability of their entry into our country. You on the other hand are just ranting over and over again that we should not allow anyone of them into our country. You conflate the San Bernadino couple as part of that group, they are not. You are not looking at this objectively and just want to use your emotional response to terrorism as a justification to stop long held and respected ideas regarding refugee placement and vetting in our country. I am beginning to think that you might be doing this intentionally but I am willing to offer this. What would it take for you to overcome your emotional response and objectively decide if any of the refugees should be allowed entry into our country?

Posted by: Speak4all at December 7, 2015 2:34 PM
Comment #401212

The administration and many others have said they cannot properly vet these people. They do not have access to the information needed to determine these people’s intent. It has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread and your side has repeatedly ignored it.

You’re also equating refugees with immigrants. They are two different subjects. Immigrants should be able to support themselves, have sponsors in this country, renounce any loyalty to the country they are leaving, and pledge allegiance to the United States.

Refugees from that part of the world should stay in that part of the world. I’m all for contributing financial support to the countries in the region who will keep them safe, but they have no need to come here to the U.S. proper. I’m also in favor of keeping some in Gitmo. It’s been done before and can be done again. I know Gitmo is a dirty word for you guys but if the asset is available, use it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 7, 2015 4:02 PM
Comment #401213

WW, you are using fallacy to support your contentions. This administration has re-iterated that it will work to properly vet and screen refugees prior to allowing them entry into this country. That you contend otherwise is unproven and fallacious.

The rest of your comment is no different than the rest of your emotional outbursts in regard to refugees and their entry into our country. What you wish is up to you but keep in mind that if it is contrary to the laws and morals of our country then you will be ignored.

Just think, 74 years ago today the formulation of Japanese internment camps was probably being discussed in a rudimentary fashion. Your allusion to Guantanamo seems similar to that catastrophic blunder.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 7, 2015 4:14 PM
Comment #401215

They don’t have to come here, Speak4all. Also, we didn’t invite any Japanese to come here in the middle of WWII. To bring that up is ridiculous.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 7, 2015 4:52 PM
Comment #401216

And how did that vetting go with the new wifey, there Speak4all?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 7, 2015 4:53 PM
Comment #401219

WW, you again conflate the vetting of the wife of the shooter in San Bernadino with the vetting of Syrian refugees. Two very separate and distinctly different processes. I don’t think you want a serious discussion about this. You would rather just go on and on about how fearful you are about anyone coming to our country, that you don’t approve of. Your unfounded fears based on xenophobia are nothing that I am concerned about. I for one look forward to seeing Syrian restaurants, markets and school children entering our society and contributing to our society. I will leave the trembling in fear to you.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 7, 2015 5:09 PM
Comment #401221

You’re the one conflating refugees and immigrants. The wife was legal. They let her waltz right in and she helped kill 14 people. Nice job, Speak4all.

Now you expect to do the same with 200,000 more of them and you think everything will be hunky dory! You’ve got your head in the sand because your political party tells you to put it there. That must be the case because there is no other logical explanation as to why you would expect all of us to take the chance of ending up like those 14.

It’s not an unfounded fear, Speak4all. Ask the families of those 14 people.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 7, 2015 5:45 PM
Comment #401222

The wife of the San Bernadino shooter was not vetted or processed in the same manner as the Syrian refugees. It doesn’t matter that you don’t understand that but it is not the same no matter how much you say it is.

Back to that inflated 200,000 number again? We all know where your head has been and is now (google cranial rectal feedback). We take a chance on refugees because of the great bounty they have afforded our country in the past, now and in the future. You cannot discuss this rationally and have to use such obvious falsification as to make it impossible to follow.

Since you seem to be someone who likes cartoons all I can say is, this.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 7, 2015 5:54 PM
Comment #401224
The wife of the San Bernadino shooter was not vetted or processed in the same manner as the Syrian refugees.

Is that an excuse?
Obama is going to fold on this, just as he has folded on gun control, his healthcare boondoggle, Gitmo, you name it he’s screwed it up.

It’s too bad this is going to cost people their lives. Congratulations, Speak4all. Party over country. Democratics over safety.


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 7, 2015 6:47 PM
Comment #401228

WW,

A logical reform would be to give K-1 visa applicants the same treatment that refugees get. Apparently the refugee vetting is too tough for terrorists to get through so they are resorting to other means.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 7, 2015 8:09 PM
Comment #401230

What makes people from that part of the world so special to your party?

This whole illegal immigration thing is your party’s fault. The Democratics have instigated illegal behavior by handing out giveaways and lax border control and scoffing at existing laws. Obama has sent out an open invitation to anyone who can get across the border and then tell us we should just ignore those that come here and kill and maim and rape and steal. Even when they’re caught they let them go again.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. There’s blood on the hands of the Democratic party. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting them.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 7, 2015 8:23 PM
Comment #401233

Weary Willie,

Republicans support giving visas to the unvetted fiances of Americans. One such visa holder killed over a dozen Americans in San Bernardino. Is there blood on Republicans’ hands?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 7, 2015 9:01 PM
Comment #401236

I only hear Republicans speaking out against this madness. If I heard as many Democratics as I hear Republicans I would revisit my position. But when you have people like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Guetieras and many more Democratics leading the charge in this lawlessness at the border, who ignores people being killed by illegal criminals harbored in Democratic sanctuary cities, I have to place blame where blame is due.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 7, 2015 9:11 PM
Comment #401241

Do Democrats support lawlessness at the border? Of course not. They just support increasing legal immigration.

Also, I would stop connecting the threat posed by Islamist terrorists and the problems posed by illegal immigration.

As has been stated ad nauseam, it is FAR EASIER for a terrorist to come here as a tourist than as an immigrant. Until that loophole is closed, grandstanding on these issues is counterproductive.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 7, 2015 10:38 PM
Post a comment