As polls show Obama and the Democrats in the distinct political minority in dealing with radical Islamic terrorism, they’ve decided only one person can save them:
I guess we really all do miss W, now.
This ad is nauseating – for 8 years Democrats routinely insulted President Bush in the most disgusting terms possible. He was Chimpy McSmirk BusHitler. He was evil. He lied to get us into Iraq so that Cheney could make money. He was a war criminal. But here are the Democrats at their shameless worst – using the reasonable words of a good President to try and shore up support for the disastrously failed policies of President Obama.
We all know why President Bush downplayed the Islamic aspects of our enemies – in order that it would be easier for us to defeat those elements within Islam determined to kill us. And to this day, no wise person wants any sort of war on Islam – which is why the GOP candidates of 2016 are careful to state that our problem is with radical Islamic terrorism – not with Islam, as a thing. But Obama doesn’t see anything in Islam as a problem – he has decided that there is no problem within Islam. That Islam has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in Syria – or what happened in Paris last week. Or what may happen in the United States when the terrorists attack here, again.
It is Obama’s miserable failure in Iraq and Syria which has led the world to a crisis where half the population of Syria has been displaced and a sea of humanity is now seeking safety anywhere they can find it. In what must be some sort of pathetic attempt on Obama’s part to make up for his failure, he has decided that he’ll get 10,000 Syrians into the United States – a drop in the ocean of suffering. This allows Obama to preen himself on his generosity – while doing nothing to actually solve the problem his failures have helped to bring about. But in the aftermath of Paris, everyone is wary – everyone with any sense at all wants to have much more careful screening of refugees. This is just common sense – but as it wasn’t Obama’s idea, he wants no part of it. But the people are against him – and so this cynical use of President Bush.
I think this will go over like a lead balloon. Nothing in the past 7 years has to completely demonstrated the moral bankruptcy of the Democrat party.
Blogs For Victory 
Rusty
You make a very salient point about the difficulty vetting the refugees but you have to admit that in light of what happened in France at the hands of refugees, SOME sort of defensive action should take place. That actually IS common sense.
I think it is impossible to “screen” the refugees but it is entirely feasible during the two years they will be screened to assign more case workers to keep closer tabs than usual. One would hope that if a terrorist in refugee’s clothing were to make it in, this time we might notice when they join jet piloting classes with better scrutiny.
Rusty
You are correct that it is not proven the attacks came from refugees. However, it has not been proven otherwise (yet) and so it is prudent, imo, to be wary.
It will take additional resources to scrutinize extra these refugees but I disagree it is money better spent elsewhere. Compared to most Homeland Security expenses, hiring extra caseworkers – even a lot of extra caseworkers – is a drop in the bucket.
I do not believe any of the refugees is dangerous. I welcome additions to the American stew. But it is possible a terrorist is using the refugees as cover, and God, it would be horrible if one turned out to be.
I missed the dialogue that evidently included Rusty, but it appears that he objects to serious vetting of Middle Eastern “refugees”. You quote him referring to “children and old people” and “thousands of octogenarians” and I assume he was claiming that these groups make up the majority of refugees. Yet in every photo I have seen of “refugees” there has been a huge majority of military age men. Every now and then there are pictures of women and children, but for the most part it is young men, and in some of the photos taken in Greece there were no women or children, much less “octogenarians”.
I, too, welcome additions to the “American stew” But this means welcoming people who come here with the intent and the will and the desire to BE a part of this stew. To refer to a description from a few years ago, this nation was made great because it was a great “melting pot” of various ethnicities and cultures, and then it became less of a melting pot and more of a salad bowl—lots of distinct and different components, tossed together but retaining their own identities. In this case, not thinking of themselves as Americans but as Mexicans, Russians, etc.
Welcoming people, especially people in large numbers, whose very identity is one of resentment of America, of hatred of Western culture and civilization, is not going to make the nation greater, and in fact poses a danger. It doesn’t take much research to learn that this nation was based on the concept that all are created equal, and all have the same rights. Welcoming a large number of people who do not believe all people are equal, with the same rights, steeped in its own culture of killing those who do not share their beliefs, is more than foolish, it is suicidal.
We belong to a club, if you will. We didn’t have to apply to belong, we are legacies because our parents were already part of the club, but the club has rules and bylaws, and those who are not born to members of the club have to apply to get in. And they have to promise to obey the bylaws. Or at least they should. That just makes sense.
It’s not that hard to understand. We all agree to follow rules, to obey bylaws, all the time. To be able to post on this blog, I had to agree to a Terms of Service agreement. How many times have each of us ticked that box that says we have read the Terms of Service, and agreed to abide by them? Every time we buy an app, sign onto a web site, download a song or video, we do this, without thinking. I just did it again last night to update iTunes. But some get the vapors about demanding that people sign a Terms of Service agreement to enter the country. It’s OK to demand this of someone who just wants to share opinions on a blog, or play an online game, but it’s asking too much for entry into the country? It will take too long? It will cost too much? It will upset someone?
If someone is not willing to spend a couple of hours discussing the bylaws of this country, and its Terms of Service, and agreeing to abide by all of them, then that person doesn’t really want in at all—-or, worse, wants in without the requirement of at least agreeing to treat the country with respect and not kill its people. If someone will not agree to live under United States law, and not Sharia law, that person should not be allowed into the country. If that person has a hard time agreeing to live under our laws, seems to be struggling with having to promise to do this, that person should not be allowed into the country. If a person has a hard time with agreeing to live peaceably with people of different races and religions, that person should not be allowed into our country. If someone is from Nudistan and can’t agree that here in the United States he won’t be allowed to run around naked, he should not be allowed in the country. If someone has grown up thinking it is a noble goal to kill Jews, and is not willing to commit to abandoning that goal if he lives here, he should not be allowed into the country.
The Left freaks out at the idea of sitting every “refugee” down and saying “We’re willing to help you out, give you a safe place to live, let you share in the American Dream, but there are a few conditions. You have to learn to speak English, you have to obey the laws of the United States and accept that Sharia Law is not acceptable, you have to respect our customs even if you don’t choose to follow all of them, you have to agree to live peaceably among many different cultures and religions, you have to agree that you will not strive to undermine or overthrow this government….” and so on.
A Lefty might agree to a probationary period at a new job (those of them who work, anyway) where the slightest infraction can cause them to be fired, where they have to prove that they deserve the job and will be good at it, but he will get the screaming heebie jeebies at requiring a probationary period for refugees as a condition of entering the country.
I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this, but Lefties don’t really make a whole lot of sense.
Due to the blog policy of not allowing trolls to get their noses under the tent Rusty’s posts are deleted but he is arguing that we should not do any additional vetting of Syrian refugees because it might cost too much. He is arguing that nearly all are toddlers or grandparents and that all anyone would have to do is lie. What it comes down to is that to people like Rusty there is no reason to stop anyone from coming into the country and it would be wrong to make it harder for them to come in. // Moderator
Rusty
I’m not blithely dismissing the costs. But you must admit that a cost in the hundreds of thousands or even millions is but a drop in the bucket of Homeland Security expenditures.
Also, I heard the “children and old people” part when you first said it. Describing “thousands of octogenarians” just makes it look like you are puffing up your argument.
In the end, I think we agree that normal screening is likely to be all that happens, and it is enough. I just wish in an environment of fat Homeland budgets, maybe just a little more were spent on this unique case.
Why CAN’T we screen “refugees”? Why can’t they all be asked certain questions? OK, it’s a given that terrorists and others who harbor anti-American feelings will lie, but a good screener can often tell when someone is lying.
What is wrong with asking people how they feel about freedom of religion, the fact that to live in America one HAS to live among people with many varying beliefs? What is wrong with making it clear that the United States is not under Sharia law, never will be, and that many of our laws conflict with Sharia law–and requiring a signed statement to agree to follow and be bound by the American rule of law, under penalties that range from imprisonment to deportation? What is wrong with making it clear that a decision to live in the United States includes, depends on, a promise to do nothing to undermine American laws or government? What is wrong with demanding loyalty to this nation, in exchange for being allowed to live here?
For a movement that bleats/screeches about the absolute sanctity of CHOICE as one of its foundational beliefs, the Left is awfully squeamish about demanding that people make a CHOICE when they ask us to take them in, to make clearly defined choices of how they will live their lives if we allow them to join us in this country.
This article says it all. My favorite line:
They have determined that we should henceforth refer to the artists formerly known as Islamic State by the name “Daesh.”
This paragraph however sums up the problem we face:
Meanwhile, modern civilization itself faces a similar set of choices. We have, for generations, been under siege by progressive authoritarians, a faction that openly rejects the notions of liberty and self-determination that were once the great promise and hope of modernity. Their numbers grow, their boldness deepens, as generation after generation of “normal, decent people” tell themselves the tyrannical spirit doesn’t represent who we really are. Yes, unfortunately, it does. We have ceded our identity to a political philosophy that despises liberty, abhors self-determination, and sees the individual human being and his aspirations as at best tools to be manipulated for the benefit of the ruling class, at worst disposable obstacles to the dream of a unified castelike social hierarchy. We have stood by passively (or worse), as our fanatics have effectively ended the institution of private property in the name of justice, entrenched greed and mutual disrespect under the guise of a social safety net, and used the levers of legislative compulsion to ensconce themselves and their fellow travelers as a systemically protected ruling elite in the name of equality.
Progressive Americans are weak, overly sensitive, under educated, and far too susceptible to group think, and they have become a danger to us all. This article is a must read.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/isis_renamed_climate_change.html
Cluster
I don’t apgree that liberals “openly reject the notion of liberty.” They differ is how far that freedom extends and they feel it is the responsibility of government to enforce limits but I think they enjoy liberty as much as any othe American.
My lord I suck at typing on a phone.
The article didn’t mention “liberals” as the problem. It correctly identified “progressive authoritarians” as the problem and they are a lot different than your run of the mill liberal.
Bob,
I’ll say that liberals do, indeed, reject the notion of liberty – and, indeed, always have. Liberalism got its start in the so-called “Enlightenment” of the mid-18th century. A commonality of the liberals was that they desired an “enlightened despot” who would knock heads together and force those stupid common folk to change their ways. They were enamored of Frederick the Great (started wars of aggression) and Catherine the Great (also started wars of aggression and, additionally, reduced the Russian peasantry to complete slavery). They are called “Great” because Enlightenment intellectuals threw themselves at their feet – but the sum total of their reigns were complete disasters for their people and, indeed, for the world. Meanwhile, Maria Theresa is not called “Great” because she defended Christian civilization, fought to preserve her people from the rapacious Frederick the Great and instituted reforms which eased the burdens on her people. On and on it goes like that over the past 250 years with liberals.
Liberals have always been in favor of some sort of allegedly enlightened elite who will come along and manage everything for the best – and the desires of the people be damned. Even when you find some liberal in the past speaking sweet words of liberty, it always winds up in the long run as the liberty of the powerful to command the powerless. What liberals don’t want is the person and the family to just be left alone in enjoyment of the property they earn by hard work. There is always an angle in liberalism…always a transfer of wealth and power to a presumed elite which knows better.
Mark
I’m not sure what liberals you talk to but I’ve seldom had Frederick or Catherine, the Greats, come up in conversation. I’ve found that most liberals differ from me in their view of the role of government but they do not view government as an elite dictator, just as a bureaucratic entity.
The bureaucratic entity is staffed by elites – who know better than us and so should control our lives. Big Government is liberalism, writ large. I brought up Catherine the Great because I wanted to illustrate just how far back in liberalism’s history the hankering for dictatorial control goes. Liberals have always been for tyranny, when you get right down to it. One just has to be freed from the Narrative to understand that. What happened during the “Enlightenment” wasn’t an opening of the human mind, but a closing of it.
Bob, it has been my experience that Libs, at least the ones I know, not only do not see the government as a “dictator” they vehemently reject the notion that it represents any tyranny or loss of liberty at all. However, at the very same time they think the government (meaning the federal government) should be “responsible” for pretty much everything, that we are owed certain things ranging from nice houses to cell phones and it is the responsibility of government to provide it.
The disconnect we often discuss here is that they don’t realize that the more power the government has, the less freedom we have. They do not see regulations as impinging on liberty, for example, because they see them as absolutely necessary to rein in what they think might be “unfair”, and/or to enforce “equality”.
Libs seem really happy to diminish any advantage held by anyone else, in the interest of “leveling the playing field”, and they are really happy to give government as much power and control as it wants if they think this will achieve some vague idea of what is “fair”, or will achieve “equality”. They see one side of the scale going up, and ignore the fact that the other side is going down. They see a gay couple being able to buy a wedding cake at a specific bakery, though there are dozens of other bakeries available, as an example of “fairness” and “equality” and don’t see a diminishment of the liberty of the bakers who are forced to violate their religious beliefs or be severely punished.
Libs tend to see Obamacare as an increase in “fairness” and “equality”, or at least they did for a while, because to them it was “fair” to take away the freedom of Other People to make their own choices about how to pay for their healthcare. They simply did not see the heavy hand of government power forcing people into buying something they did not want as an imposition on the liberty of those people, because they focus only on the other side of the coin, the belief that this has somehow been more “fair” to others, and made everyone “equal”. Even now, it has taken being harmed by this erosion of liberty, having to pay more to get less, to get their attention, because they are infinitely comfortable with the diminishment of Other Peoples’ liberty/rights/fortunes.
“they feel it is the responsibility of government to enforce limits” but they seem to lack the ability to see these limits as infringements upon liberty. All “limits” are infringements upon absolute liberty—-every law limits the ability of people to act in certain ways. But Libs are happy with much more vigorous government intrusion into what we can and can’t do. Because right now the limits imposed by our government tend to limit actions most Libs don’t like, and impose demands Libs think should be imposed, they are fine with that.
A comment on the “elites” .
“The problem isn’t elitism per se. The problem is that at Princeton and Yale and in Washington and New York, our elites are rotten — the rotten fruit of dying institutions and an unmoored culture whose commanding heights are populated by people who no longer believe in the values at their foundation. That is how we have come to conflate quality and celebrity and to spurn the life of the mind for the life of the hive. Order ultimately will reassert itself, and it will be uncomfortable.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427466/elitism-conservatives-anti-elitism?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt11232015&utm_term