Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread

Post 0

Monday, November 16, 2015 - 4:21amSanction this postReply
I have always felt that extending free speech and democratic values to those who are not ready for it or those who do not appreciate these values is a very dangerous and counter-productive thing. I am reminded of Charles Bukowski's famous quote - “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”. In the modern world the free speech and objective thinking western societies are under attack from stupid - narrow thinking middle eastern philosophy.The mass migration of refugees carrying this confident middle-ages narrow thinking ideology into Europe is only adding fuel to the fire. Real social integration is not possible if there is a massive difference in the basic ideology of free speech and democratic values. Do you think its blunder on the part of European leaders to offer the luxury of Free speech and democratic values to the refugees who come with a heavy baggage of narrow thinking values.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Monday, November 16, 2015 - 3:33pmSanction this postReply

Refugees don't commit atrocities.

Post 2

Monday, November 16, 2015 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply

On the "Refugees do not commit attrocities" article.  It is nonsense.


One of the advocates for accepting the refugees dismisses the Syrian passport found on one of the Paris terrorists assuming it is fake, assuming that it belongs to the dead terrorist it was found next to, assuming that it has nothing to do with the refugee movement.  Really?  They have a match on a fingerprint taken by the Greeks as some of that herd of Syrians that moved through there.


They say that this terrorist, if he came from Syria, was just exploiting the refugee flow.  Duh!


And they seem to believe that the UN has the capacity to tell the difference between two Syrians standing in front of them.  One a 20 some year old with no papers, and the other a 20 some year old with no papers (but one of them is from ISIS).  Gee, it is so unfair that they aren't properly marked, maybe with a tatoo or something so we could tell them apart. (sarcasm)


The article makes a big deal out saying that "U.S. refugees don't become terrorists."  Well, we haven't yet taken in 100,000 a year from Syria after ISIS said they would use that refugee stream... have we?  And they seem to come over here in other ways: The Boston Bombers for example.  The 911 group for example.  Which is important: How they come over in the past, or whether or not we stop them from coming over at all?


About 7 terrorists in Paris killed or wounded about 500 innocent civilians.  That is a ratio of about 75 victims per terrorist.  If only one terrorist gets in with each 9,999 good refugees, that works out to be about 3 Paris-like incidents ever two years in the states.


I've heard someone talking about Hillary Clinton's number of 65,000 Syrian refugees per year (maybe that was Martin O'Malley?), saying that compared to the U.S. population that would be like putting about 6 refugees in a large football stadium.  After Paris, didn't he think before saying that?  If 6 people are wearing suicide vests, what would that do to a stadium full of men, women and kids?  That was a really dumb way to try to minimize the impact of the number of refugees.


Terrorism kills very few American each year and anyone can say that we ought to focus our attention on drunk drivers, or cancer, or something that kills larger numbers.  But we can't forget that this threat from terrorism is spreading like a cancer, and it is killing our liberty.  This is already not the country I grew up in.


People have said that we have a moral obligation to help - either because we share some responsibility for what has happened to Syria, or because the refugees are in such dire need.  I'd reject both of those claims.


Neither the constitution, nor the proper, defense purpose of a government can justify bringing in a mass of refugees that will undoubtedly contain some terrorists and others who can be easily radicalized... and doing so at great expense.  This is nuts!


Look at the security screening steps:


1. In most cases (note that it doesn't say all), the UN decides if the person actually is a refugee.  All that this means is that the person claims they are from a country where they would have a well-founded-fear of returning to.  An ISIS jihadist can say that, true or not.


2. The UN, or a U.S. Embassy or some Non-Governmental Organization refers the person for settlement to the U.S.   That doesn't sound like it will vett out the ISIS warrior claiming to be a refugee.


3. A NGO contracted by the U.S. Dept. of State gathers the refugees' personal data and background info.  Please note that if they have nothing but their verbal statements, there is no way to vett them.


4. The names (which might be made up, or the names of people who have never been in trouble in the U.S., or with Interpol and aren't on a terrorist watch list are run through the databases.  Again, this will be of no use since we can't get into any Syrian databases and we have no proof that is their name or that it is a name we can say is safe.


5. If they have passed the ineffectual steps listed above, they may or maynot be run through U.S. law enforcement databases.  Again, no help.


6. Fingerprints are taken and run against various databases.  Again, no help exposing the Syrian jihadist.


7. This is the in-person interview.  If we are going to bring in the 100,000 per year that Obama says he wants, this is a job that would take many hundreds of man-years per year.  We are talking about a full-time staff that would number in the neighborhood of 5,000 to 10,000 (if it was done with private company efficiency).  Do we put them up in the European equivalent of the Holiday Inn in the meantime?  This step says that on occassion the DHS interviewer flies to the country of asylum to conduct the interview.  Hungary, France, Turkey, Denmark, Greece... certainly won't be Syria will it?  More nonsense. 


8. DHS approves and paperwork is sent to State Department.  But before this, just after step 6, the applicant is given "conditional approval"


9. Medical screening.  Got to make sure they are healthy - terrorist or not.


10. They are matched with a sponsor agency.  (Preferably in a sanctuary city?)


11. They are offered cultural orientation classes.  (Doesn't seem like screening to me.  But it will be helpful for any terrorists in blending in a bit better, and for the rest to understand how to apply for welfare - unless that is automatically a part of the process.)


12. A second check of the info is made to see if there is any new info.  (Aka: Cover they Buearacratic behind)


13. Addmission to the U.S.  Do they have all of their paperwork we and the NGOs have generated?  Is it the same person that (ISIS or non-ISIS) that started this process?  Yes?  Turn him loose in the U.S.


If it takes as long, and is as thorough as it sounds then it is amazing that 900 or more are already running around in Lousiana.  If it isn't, then this is a bunch of paper-form nonsense that is politically driven and as disconnected from reality as much of what the Federal government under Obama does.  Does anyone really think that this government can get this right?

Post 3

Tuesday, November 17, 2015 - 5:53amSanction this postReply

The discussion inspires me to write a blog post, but my current client takes a lot of time - and I spent over 2 hours a day on the road to and from...  but I will get it done this weekend in the mean time, allow me to offer these observations and thoughts.


"Now that I am in, I want to shut the door," say the anti-immgrationists.   Unless you are a Native American, you came here from somewhere else. Unless you are African-American, that journey was by choice.  If you came to America before World War I, you came without a passport because they were not invented yet. Papers and such go back thousands of years. Graduate with a doctorate in law, theology, philosophy, or medicine from a medieval university and you got a "diploma" a "two-fold" that told 1000 local lords, mayors, and bishops that you were above local politics.  But we all know that "touring the Continent" was an English thing for hundreds of years. Shelley, Byron, and Keats did not have passports.


Things were a bit different in Germany. There, after police forces were invented (in London 1829), local police required visitors to register. Usually, your hotellier took care of that for you, or the cops would come by and read the guest register.  


Mostly, most people in most times and places just went wherever they wanted. That is how America was settled.


But the English of Boston were aghast when the Irish showed up. "They live in slums, they breed like animals -- and they breed crime," said the better people of the time.


An anti-immigrationist could point out that after the 1848 revolutions in Europe Jew intellectuals came here with their liberal and communist ideas. The self-defined "Americanist" would point out that we got labor unions, strikes, and progressivism as a result of the influx.


Chinese and Japanese and other Asians could not even become citizens - not even after their homes were "annexed" when the USA seized Hawaii - a fact noted with bitter irony in Justice John Marshall Harlan's "great dissent" over Plessey v. Ferguson.  Asians who could not become citizens could ride in the same train cars with Whites, while Negroes who were citizens could not.


Of course, some "libertarian realists" still attempt to claim that you can't let Coloreds mix with Whites because they are not like us.


By "us" maybe I cannot mean "me" since my ancestors came from Sicily and Hungary.  Sicily has been a genetic dumping ground since Odysseus slew Polyphemus; and the Hungarians only arrived in Europe from Asia about 950 AD.  The anti-immigrationists would say that if you let people like that in in 1900 then you will have people like me living here in 2000. And I point out that the Sicilian Mafia and the Italian anarchists who bombed Wall Street certainly give credence to the claim that immigration opens the doors to criminals.  


And it does.  Just ask any Native American. 


It is a fact that "crime knows no neighborhood." In other words, we know for a fact that no place is special for criminal activity. No peoples, no group, is especially criminogenic. Syrian immigrants or Mayflower Descendants, people are people, always have been, and always will be.


(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/17, 5:57am)

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Tuesday, November 17, 2015 - 9:25amSanction this postReply

Syrian immigrants or Mayflower Descendants, people are people, always have been, and always will be.

What a pithy bit of wisdom that is.  It sums up Marotta's post in this thread about the proposed Syrian Refugees coming to the US despite the fact that some will be terrorists.  But he makes no mention of Islamic terrorism.  Why am I not surprised?


Marotta is fairly clear (in his fuzzy, round-about way) that if you aren't willing to accept a few Islamic terrorists as part of the deal, well, then you must be anti-immigration and probably a racist. 

Post 5

Friday, November 20, 2015 - 2:54amSanction this postReply

Great maybe 15 or 20 can be housed at MEM's house.

Post to this thread

User ID Password or create a free account.