A President in Denial

As of this Monday morning, the governors of four states: Alabama, Arkansas, Michigan and Texas stated that they refused to accept Syrian refugees into their states because of the very real dangers of hidden terrorists in their ranks. They are putting the safety of their citizens above all else. By evening that count of rebellious governors had risen from 4 to 25. Clearly, it’s a Constitutional question, whether the states can opt out of a federal immigration mandate, but the power of the majority of the states may not, in the end,  win out over an extreme Leftist administration.

President Obama, in remarks following the G20 Summit in Turkey made it clear that he also understands the possible dangers from an influx of Moslem/Syrian refugees:

“. . . one of the challenges we have in this situation is that if you have a handful of people who don’t mind dying, they can kill a lot of people, that’s one of the challenges of terrorism. It’s not their sophistication or the particular weaponry that they possess, but it is the ideology they carry with them and their willingness to die.”

That understanding, however, is apparently not a sufficient reason for him to change his mind about accepting thousands of Syrian refugees in the United States.

He said the United States would continue to accept more refugees from Syria and elsewhere, though “only after subjecting them to rigorous screening and security checks.” Our compassionate president did not, however, acknowledge the fact that we can only screen and check out these people using current databases developed by our security professionals and those of our allies; and he certainly doesn’t want to admit to the American citizens he was sworn to protect that we will know nothing about the vast majority of the refugees he intends to accept.

Those databases that we must use to “subject refugees to rigorous screening and security checks.” will not, and Obama must also know this, will not uncover those terrorists who are in “sleeper cells,” just waiting to be activated . . . exactly the ones that will be seeking entry to the United States to wreak the havoc that ISIL, ISIS, Muslum mullahs and Iatolahs and, in fact, the Quran itself promises to inflict on “infidels.”

National Defense; protecting America and its citizens “from enemies both foreign and domestic” is the president’s most important job — but to avoid doing that job Obama is using the excuse: “That’s not American (to turn away refugees). That’s not who we are.” He then mentions this great compassion America has for the rest of the world’s citizens.

My admittedly jaundiced view of this and many past actions of Barak Obama is that he is intentionally tearing down and corrupting American values, culture, security, national defense capabilities and our countries very soverignty. I repeat, intentionally!

It has been apparent since he first started seeking the presidency in 2001 that Obama has a deep seated contempt for our country and its constitution. Specifically, he made it clear back then that he wanted a road to redistribution of wealth; he stated that the Constitution did not go far enough. His thirst for wealth redistribution clearly marked him as a Socialist, an enemy of our Democratic process. A majority of American’s foolishly elected him anyway.

Knowing what you now know about Barak Obama, listen to this 2001 radio interview on Chicago Public Radio and make up your own mind about his intentions at the time, should he win the presidency.

Yes the United States is normally a compassionate country and will do whatever is needed to help people who are genuinely seeking refuge from dictatorial/inhumane regimes around the world, but this Syrian refugee situation presents a new dimension to the situation, a dimension that forces thoughtful people to seriously consider the possibly dire consequences of compassionate behavior.

Immigration, Inequity Is Thy Name

Following is a quote from Eric Hoffer: the “longshoreman philosopher” (1902 – 1983):

“The Jews are a peculiar people: Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese–and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace.”

Ironic? Yes! Tragic? Yes! Beside the point of this post? Yes, I must admit it is not a quote that enhances the point of the text where it has been placed. It does, however, make a greater point that needs to be emphasized; ‘life is, and always will be, full of inequities.’

The Israeli and American situations are similar — but different in that, in the case of Israel the world is the unreasonable accuser and in the case of America it is a particular political class of Americans who are saying “Shame! Shame on you!” when the deportation of people here illegally is proposed.

One might say that America’s immigration problem is America’s own fault.The American ego,because of the success of Capitalism, led us to become the most charitable nation on earth; a state of mind that can only exist for a finite period of time before the eternal realities of supply and demand must kick in. Now we are at the point where more and more rational people (most Conservative Republicans, some Independents, some Libertarians and a spare handful of Liberal Democrats) have concluded that if we keep it up (“it” being our excessive spending and our reckless compassion) our economy will fail. That failure has already begun.

I know the term I used “reckless compassion” may seem cold and even “un-American” but that is exactly what it is when a country, or even an individual, opens up the checkbook and the wallet to those who appear genuinely needy without regard for it’s/their own essential legal and financial obligations.

Sometimes in the life of every individual, organization and government entity, ‘feel-good’ charitable behavior must be curtailed to meet obligations. In some cases, charitable behavior may be nothing more than the enabling of irresponsible or thoughtless behaviors but, granted, in most cases it is probably a valuable help to the recipient. That aside, in every case, real spending beyond genuine hard limits is irresponsible.

This does not even take into account the fact that with virtually uncontrolled immigration, the United States is losing its very sovereignty.

Presidential candidates in the Republican Party are pretty much unanimous in their realization that we have to do “something” but, as with most issues, the “what” proposed by each candidate is quite different from all the others. The ultimate solution, as proposed by Donald Trump, is so bold that it not being seriously considered by many Americans or by the other candidates. Mr.Trump is proposing that all 11.5 million illegal immigrants (probably more like 13 or 14 million) either be deported or, having been denied access to the generosity of the government and the community, they will leave with no incentive to stay.

In my view, with a single-minded determination at work, the Trump ‘endgame’ is the only solution to the problem; how we get there is another matter. With the strict denial of government handouts and the illegal immigrant’s inability to find work, we may not even need a very large wall on the border.