Pushing back against the Syrian refugee thing
According to The Hill, Senator Ted Cruz says that he’ll introduce legislation to prevent the President from importing refugees to the United States calling it “lunacy” in light of the attacks last week in Paris;
Asked what would have happened if his own father — a Cuban refugee who fled the island’s repressive Communist regime — had been told all those years ago by political leaders that there was no place for him because of security risks, Cruz said it was a different situation.
“See that’s why it’s important to define what it is we’re fighting,” Cruz said.
“If my father were part of a theocratic and political movement like radical Islamism, that promotes murdering anyone who doesn’t share your extreme faith, or forcibly converting them, then it would make perfect sense.”
Um, yeah. It seems that the president would arrive at the same conclusion without guidance from Senator Cruz, you know, because it’s the president’s job. But, of course, this is more of that smart diplomacy, image-building bullshit that has made us a laughing stock on the world stage. I don’t see any of the wealthy Gulf States stepping up to take in refugees.
Of course, Cruz’ threat of legislation is largely symbolic because if he could get it through the House and the Senate, the President would veto anything that stands in his way to prop up his legacy.
Even Democrat governor of New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan has urged the president to proceed with more caution, according to the Union Leader;
Gov. Maggie Hassan said the federal government should “halt acceptance” of Syrian refugees until U.S. authorities can assure the vetting process keeps Americans safe.
[…]
Hassan spokesman Monday morning said the governor “has always made clear that we must ensure robust refugee screening to protect American citizens, and believes that we must know more of the facts about those who carried out the Paris terrorist attacks and have strong assurances of safety from our intelligence officials before we admit refugees from Syria into the United States.”
How’s this for a solution – we just allow those women and children that the media likes to portray as the majority of the refugees, and we block the importation of military-aged men…let Germany take them.
Category: Terror War
Think his heart is in the right place.
http://www.flyheight.com/videos/dude-from-the-hood-makes-threatening-video-to-isis/
This too….*BITCHES*
(I think API or someone else posted it and I love this song*)
Blocking the whole thing is the way to go, but Jonn’s idea is a next best option if we absolutely must do something. Ted Cruz’s dad fought for Fidel Castro, an honest to God enemy of the United States; while I’m glad that we have Senator Cruz, I can’t help but chuckle at the irony.
Germany? I thought you liked Germany.
Why would you inflict those malcontents on them?
Germany already has those convenient camps set up to house lots of people on the cheap. 😉
What I don’t understand is how State Dept. can drag their feet for years and years in regards to interpreters that fought side by side with us in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet open the floodgates for people that we have no working knowledge of or documentation of. I guess it is a moot point now. The remaining terps are all probably dead by now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/23/afghan-iraq-interpreters-siv_n_3481555.html
We already are blocking the military age males.
According to the state department single males make up less than 2% of refugees being allowed into the US. And they are being vetted.
How about you provide a reputable source to back that claim, Taylor. Or is this just another talking point you heard repeated by someone at Berkeley?
Since any source I give you will dismiss how about I just give you the direct quote from he State Department spokesman?
“Military-aged males unattached to families comprise only approximately two percent of Syrian refugee admissions to date.”
That way you can google it yourself and find a source you trust, or if you prefer, find a source that “proves” the state department is lying.
You’re the one making the assertion. Accordingly, how about you provide a citation that shows you’re not making that up out of whole cloth, or (knowingly or unknowingly) repeating a falsehood. You know, just like you would do in any academic work you do at Berkeley.
Or has citing one’s sources become optional or “passe” at Berkeley these days? You do know how, right?
Well, I got tired of waiting for Taylor to cite his source for the quote above. So I Googled the exact quote Taylor provided above.
I got a total of 7 hits. Seven. Here’s the rundown.
1. The first hit – and apparent primary source – was to a “buzzfeed.com” article. That article purportedly quoted a DoS spokesman. The DoS spokesman who was quoted was not named.
2. Two other articles referred back to the “buzzfeed.com” article as their source.
3. The rest of the “hits” appear to have been references in links – likely to the original “buzzfeed.com” article – that have since aged off the pages concerned. Three of them were on the same site.
That’s it. Google turned up nothing on the DoS website containing that quotation – supposedly from a DoS spokesman. That kinda makes me stop and go, “Hmm.”
So, to recap: a total of seven hits; one primary source for the quote; two other hits that refer back to that primary source; and some now false hits due to aging. The “primary source” purports to quote a “DoS spokesman” but doesn’t name the individual – making verification of the quote difficult if not impossible. And the quote in question doesn’t seem to appear on DoS website.
Bottom line: I have my doubts about the accuracy of the quotation beyond saying that it appears in a single “buzzfeed.com” article and is attributed to an unnamed DoS spokesman. The actual speaker is not named, and so far as I can tell the quote cannot be otherwise verified.
Ball’s in your court, Taylor. Looks to me like you’ve spouted what appears likely to be BS as fact once again, but perhaps you’ll prove me wrong.
Q: How do you tell if State Dept. is lying?
A: Their lips are moving.
Since I can do more than you can in identifying the source we will just have to wait for a follow up.
It appears relatively few refugees have been allowed in so far and their is a great deal of partisan attention on this issue so I suspect the 2% is probably close to accurate right now.
Larsie-pinky-candy boy, have you realized yet that you are as well liked here on TAH as warm beer, rotten pussy and Jane Fonda are liked by Grunts? Just sayin’, little boy!!
This was only yesterday and since it was an unnamed state department source the DoS is likely getting a lot of inquiring on it right now.
The immigration issue is also a searing hot political question as well.
I suspect the DoS is crafting a careful response to this issues with the details.
IF people choose not to believe them than that is another issue.
So, you admit you simply repeated what you heard without doing any form of due diligence fact-checking. That’s what I thought.
DoS crafting a response is indeed one plausible reason nothing is on their web site yet. However, the fact that “buzzfeed.com” seems to be the sole source to have reported this also yields another plausible explanation: the quote was either (1) inaccurate or (2) fabricated.
I have no idea which is correct, if either; there may well be another plausible explanation or three that simply don’t come immediately to mind. But I’d be much less suspicious if any other source out there independently confirmed buzzfeed’s story.
I don’t generally get much of a “warm and fuzzy” from stories carried solely by a single source that are based on a quote from an anonymous “agency spokesman”.
Since Lars claims to have a background in the gathering and analysis of intelligence, you’d think he’d better understand the value of verifying his information and vetting its source.
I seriously doubt he was allowed to extend after his initial obligation was up, even the NG gets rid of intolerable shit-for-brains critters like “Pinky” Lars!!
We had over thirty years to do something about Ebola before the massive outbreak — during the outbreak was NOT the time to try and develop a vaccine. The same thing with this situation. Now that wave upon wave of refugees are headed for our shores, a politician gets up and starts squawking about ‘legislation’ to ‘prevent’ it? We’ve had years to do things so as not to face a crisis like this. You’re not only tone deaf, Senator, your timing stinks.
Previously, PN, it wasn’t generally necessary. Most past US Presidents had some degree of common sense – with the possible exception of Carter. And as I recall the “Mariel Boat Lift” happened on Carter’s watch.
Essentially if you are a male and not with accompanying wife and/or children and you do not have a valuable job skill or personal wealth you are very unlikely to get in.
You’re more full of shit than a cargo ship load of Christmas turkeys!
If you say ISIS is contained, and you’re never wrong, why is it necessary to bring ‘refugees’ to the US?
Mr. President?
Maybe he will erect a tent city for them on the White House lawn.
Then he and his family can throw them a picnic.
They ARE his Family….
“can throw them a picnic”
. .. using the vegetables that Moochelle grew in the WH garden.
They can build a fire, roast hot dogs and marshmallows, and sing songs that chase away the giant alien cockroaches.
Apparently, you do not know what the word “contained” means.
Apparently, you don’t either.
“Contained” means that their advance has been halted and they are no longer making any net territorial gains.
It does not mean the people in ISIS occupied territories are not still under ISIS control and it does not mean they are safe from being victimized by ISIS, nor does it mean they would have no desire to escape ISIS controlled territory.
You can be a smart ass all you want but I know exactly what is meant by the word “contained” in this context.
Kennan defined it somewhat differently, actually. And the situation for which he coined the policy was not at all the same as we have regarding ISIS today.
Kennan also later admitted a number of problems with the strategy, and at least partially renounced it.
Let me know if you need me to define “Kennan”.
Academics give definitions in their work and their theories to avoid confusion in reading their work precisely because there is no single agreed meaning.
So if the situation is different Kennan’s definition is not relevant. He was taking about containment strategy more than a half a century ago in a bipolar world.
Obama used the word “contained” in a conversational setting during an interview. He was not using a academic definition of the word (of which there are likely dozens or more depending on the paper or theory you are reading).
Here is his quote, in it he makes it very clear what he means when he say “contained”.
“What is true, from the start our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq and in Syria they’ll come in, they’ll leave. But you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain.”
I am getting pretty tired of the pedantic, nitpick debates with you, Hondo.
When you are quibbling over the definitions of words that have a very clear definition explicitly stated in the context it was used by reading back to a mid century theorist you are just being a pedantic pain in the ass.
Kennan didn’t develop his containment policy proposal as an “academic”, Taylor. He was a rather high official in DoS at the time – Deputy Chief of Mission to Moscow, to be precise. He was proposing early Cold War US policy towards the USSR, not advancing some academic theory.
Here, you appear to want us to believe you’re infallible, and we should take everything you say as Gospel. Yet you routinely fail to provide backup for your assertions; those assertions often are shown to be personal opinions masquerading as fact that later turn out to be wrong, if not deliberate misrepresentations; and when challenged, you routinely ignore those who point out to you that you’re full of it or change the subject. Finally, you resort to attacking your opponent.
Those tactics don’t play well here. Here, it’s “put up or shut up”. You rarely “put up” – and you don’t have the common sense (or willpower) to shut up when doing so would be in your best interests.
Am I being pedantic in arguing with you? Perhaps. But based on your past “stellar performances” here, your comments here deserve nothing less than a full-service deconstruction and exposure as the naive idiocy they are.
In short, as Truman put it: “If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”
So you’re saying Paris is within the containment area imposed by POTUS on ISIS in Syria and Iraq?
Can I see that map please?
Let me know when ISIS captured Paris.
So you can celebrate?
Are you ok with what happened because they did not “capture” Paris?
No, you are just changing the definition of the word “containment” as it was used in the President’s statement. I responded with a scenario involving Paris that would actually show that the President’s statement was false.
Then perversely and bizarrely twisted that to imply I hope Paris is captured.
It shows severe comprehension issues.
If anyone in the discussion gains from the capture of Paris it is you, because then it would prove that you were right and the president was wrong that ISIS was contained.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc1ifhVSciU?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360%5D
I should be honored to have elicited a response from Lars, the so-called liberal.
So the POTUS is bringing ISIS to the US so he can keep better track of them? As suggested above, how about the White House Lawn?
That is nonsense. That is not what is happening.
Wait, yes it is…I’m dumb.
OH. MY. GOD.
We finally got the truth out of Lars.
He said (and I quote) “I’m dumb.”
At long last, he finds that confession IS good for the soul. It is cleansing. It is purifying. It is….
Oh, sorry! I fell of my chair, laughing.
According to Dictionary.com, the definition of “Contained” is: adjective 1. showing restraint or calmness; controlled; poised.
Another definition is: to keep under proper control; restrain.
Do either of those definitions sound like our situation with ISIS today?
That is not all the uses of the word contained. For instance, here is ONE operational definition of the word “contained”
“To stop, hold, or surround the forces of the enemy”.
But that does not matter either, this is the quote, in it the president makes it very clear what he meant by contained:
“What is true, from the start our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq and in Syria they’ll come in, they’ll leave. But you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain.”
And that is in fact generally how it is used operationally. With armies and with forest fires. There are academic definitions that apply to specific theories, specific context, and specific papers and their are different dictionary definitions of how it is usually understood to be used in English communication (which is how definitions are documented).
But none of that matters because the use of the term in this instance had a very clear statement of the meaning it was intended to convey.
The Scrotum Shaver;s public statements mere hours before the Paris attack were foolish. Parse the definitions all you want but John and Jane Q. Public took away from that message that ISIS was restricted and, thus, less of a threat. Then Paris and the WH regarded the attack as a setback–which, as we know, means he was talking about territory again, more specifically property boundaries, right?
It was foolish to say then only because the attack occurred and they can be taken out of context and spun to make the president look foolish.
But what he said was absolutely accurate. ISIS has lost significant ground in the last year.
The only legitimate criticism of Obama’s statement is ISIS having recently gained some ground due to Russia bombing some militant groups that are fighting both ISIS and Assad allowing ISIS to seize the some ground these groups held.
Though their net gains is starkly negative.
Tell ya what Lars. I say we take in the refugees. Just as soon as Putin takes in ten thousand.
But you see Sparks, it’s the United States of America that Lars hates, not Russia.
And Saudi takes in half a mill. All that space in the Empty Quarter!
So, it wasn’t a setback either? I mean, if what you say is true, then how could the attack have been a setback? And, of course, one needs to isolate oBaMa’s words and not consider anything else he has said over the past few years regarding ISIS/ISIL/Whatever.
Just read this, 2/17 Air Cav.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=62841&cpage=1#comment-2725708
“Though their net gains is starkly negative.”
Sure. Tell that to the Russian airline victims over Egypt and those affected by the Mumbai-like attack in Paris.
My definition of “contained” includes Operational Reach. Seems these charming fellows still have a smidge left.
Don’t you mean operational reach-around, Lars?
“Pinky” Lars, “contained” is what your Daddy should have done with the wad that made you, you’re a walking, blithering advertisement for condoms!!
I was listening to NPR this morning and some expert on the Mideast said the Gulf states couldn’t afford to contribute anything because oil prices are low. So it’s all our fault again…
You lost me at “listening to NPR”. /smile
(Actually not a bad idea to know what the other guys are up to…but we have Lars so don’t need NPR)
People say we’re a nation of immigrants and we have always let them in.
True – but we’ve ALWAYS had rules. We still have quotas limiting the numbers of certain people in. And many seem to forget that Ellis Island was actually used to quarantine new arrivals. If you had certain illnesses you were not allowed in.
So yeah, if we’re going to let immigrants in like we “always” have, I say we use the same rules. Quarantine them to ensure they have no illnesses like terrorism or criminal tendencies, and sent them back if they do. Gitmo would make a nice, new Ellis Island.
I was thinking perhaps we could work out an arrangement with France to use Devil’s Island instead.
I sorta like some of the Spratlies – I gather they are a coupla feet underwater
Le Chateau d’If is still intact, has plenty of oubliettes for accommodation.
They could go through there.
“It is a moral, legal, and national security imperative for the United States to lead by example in addressing the world’s worst refugee crisis of our time.” So reads, in part, a May 2015 letter signed by 14 United States senators (all Democrats, of course) urging Scrotum Shaver to take tens of thousands of more refugees from Syria. FYI: Senators Richard J. Durbin, Amy Klobuchar, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, Patty Murray, Robert Menendez, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeanne Shaheen, Al Franken, Chris Coons, Ed Markey, Sherrod Brown and Mazie Hirono.
A few months later, 76 members of the House (all Democrats, of course) signed a letter to Scrotum Shaver (cc John “Jungle Stroll w/ Camerman” Kerry!) urging something similar but upping the refugee number to 200,000, with half of them Syrian!
I think a few of them are looking down about now, shuffling their feet, and wondering whether maybe those letters were not the best of ideas, especially given the testimony given by FBI Asst Dir Steinback regarding the, um, difficulty vetting and tracking refugees, not to mention the Paris attacks.
Per the mid-day news, 27 states are now refusing to accept refugees from Syria.
Hmm… this is a growing movement. Could this be a revolt? Are you guys stocked up on popcorn, pizza, ham, cheese, beef, veggies, etc.? Oh, beer! I almost left adult beverages off the list of comestibles.
Philly cheesesteak egg rolls. I know it sound unusual, but you got to try it.
Either way if the robe starts to slip off zeros’ back, it will be extremely ugly in so many ways.
Cheesesteak, yes, but eggs?
Look, he’s had an interview already with GQ. He’s in the process of losing that robe now. He doesn’t give a crap what happens or to whom it happens, he’s done with the whole thing and it isn’t even Thanksgiving Day just yet. If he stuck around long enough to see the next person in that job, I’d be extremely surprised.
Eggroll=Chinese fried dough. Usually filled with veggies and ocassionally one stretched out “shrimp”.
Until an American chef stripped out all of the veggies, the “shrimp” and filled with a Philly cheesesteak sans bread.
Should be standard fare in all MREs from this point on.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/
A Berkley professor? BwaHaHaHaHaHa. Stop, sides hurt, can’t catch breath….
His co-conspirator, er, fellow author stated “All someone would have to say to criticize it is that all this(Syria’s problems) would have occurred without the drought,” Seager says. “That may well be true. This regime was tremendously unpopular to begin with.”
Then Seager goes on to say, right at the end of the article, “(T)hat’s not how events unfolded. The drought increased the risk that the country would unravel, and climate change was almost certainly a factor in the drought”.
Well, hell, if globull warming was “almost certainly” a cause, let’s junk the cars, tear out all of the A/C, and give all of our money to the IPCC.
Meanwhile, ships get stuck in Antarctic ice, which, while shrinking daily, is expanding and getting thicker.
Excuse me, UpNorth, but isn’t Syria essentially a region that is subject to desertification, anyway? It’s not exactly in the part of the world that gets monsoonal rains on the order of India and Pakistan.
Now that you mention it, Ex-PH2 – yes, it is.
The region encompassing much of southern Syria, eastern Jordan, western Iraq, and northern Saudi Arabia has a name. It’s called the “Syrian Desert”.
Well, see – there you go! It only requires a modest amount of research, a modest knowledge of the region, and a modest knowledge of the vagaries of weather in that region.
And if drought is the problem, why those very rare three tropical cyclones that made landfall in October on the Arabian peninsula and did a LOT of damage should solve that problem, shouldn’t they?
You see, there is plenty of physical evidence in the deserts, both on the surface and proven by SLIR imaging, that the deserts in that entire region have been green, wet and fertile in the past. And that past was not so very long ago.
There is a reason it was called the Fertile Crescent.
As paleontologists recently found, there is physical evidence in the Amazon region of South America that a great deal of the jungle had been cut down long before South America was invaded by European explorers.
Nothing is permanent, not even the desert.
>cites a professor at the college he says he went to
>on a heavily conservative leaning board
Dude, I’m already two dimes short a greenback posting here, but you just took the whole damn deficit. You’re really gonna invite that kind of backlash here by citing someone you might have been taught by? Man, having you around makes me ashamed to call myself a liberal.
OH, you quote one of your idols, a pot-headed Berserkely prof that has never lived or made a living in the real world!
You lose yet again, child!
Can someone explain something to me, and no I’m not being a jerk, history and I don’t enjoy good company, as hard as I try. I was told a while back by one of you if I had questions I could always come here. There’s the left, the right, and the truth. I hope to find some of the latter here. Some of these questions are why I found myself trolling here today and the last few days given Syria, Beirut, and Paris. How can the President legally bring these people into the country? 1) how can he pay for this? Congress must approve the budget/spending so how is he or who is paying for this? 2) is the agreement they leave and we send them back? Again at our expense. 3) if there is nothing in place to prevent a massive influx of foreigners at a single leaders will, then what is to prevent someone from bringing in swarms of miscreants and overthrowing the country? My gut says somehow our forefathers did something to prevent this… And prevent a kingdom again. 4) where will these people be housed, how will we contain them, how will they be housed, eat, clothed, etc? Who is going to pay for this and how? 5) if they are to be assimilated into society how the heck can we do so when so many are out of a job as it is? I haven’t found suitable work in TWO years! I work temp jobs and part time, so I dont count. My mother gave up. My brother is working a temp job, so he doesn’t count! The numbers are screwed. 6) why can’t we just open up the bases overseas instead of creating camps here? Not that I want them in any more danger but they’re trained, I’m not and don’t we want to keep the fight on their turf not ours? 7) would they be put into camps like the interment camps of Japanese Americans during WWII? Will we then be liable to pay out the Syrians like we did the J-A of… Read more »
Thought I’d pass along this writeup. I think he does a pretty good job of explaining some of the issues. http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230905
Thank you. It fails, however, to cite any true fact, instead opinion of its writer. Appreciate the info though.
Well I think the assertion that is is a federal matter is fact, not opinion.
It may very well be true, but even if it is a federal matter, how does he have the authority to single handedly bring in swarms of non-citizens circumventing all policies in place. How is it legal? He does not get to just say so. This is what I don’t understand. How is it even possible?
The Executive Branch has the reins on immigration issues per the Constitution. Then there is the Refugee Act of 1980. I think this article explains it pretty well with case law cites, etc.. PS- I don’t like it, but it is law … apparently.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/16/3722628/no-state-governors-cant-refuse-to-accept-syrian-refugees/
Good article. Ok, so my problem is 1) court, even SCOTUS, doesn’t make law. They can be re-litigated, ergo Roe v. Wade.
2) fed may have control over immigration law but no law states a state they have to accept those the feds bring in; again, SCOTUS does not make law, only opinions.
3) I have not read the refugee act, so that may change 1 & 2 above.
I still cannot see how he can get the funding. He may want to and agree to, but without funding, or a place to put them, barring federal land, he is dead in the water. No?
🙂
This is our hope for the future of Islam. The key is the secular education of women.
Know what they think.
BOTH of those videos are going to bruise Lars the backseat drive-in car accident’s TAINT!! 😀
Not all the people that really dislike the attitude of recent immigrants are former Muslims.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3321962/If-don-t-like-country-f-did-come-Impassioned-speech-Muslim-decries-ISIS-terrorists-trying-impose-Sharia-law-West.html
Yeah, that’s a largely overlooked point nowadays. The LEFT (i.e., progressive/marxist/commie bastards) like to point out that all but a smidgen of Muslims are lovely people. Lurking in the background, popping up now and then, is that sharia law monster. It’s a nasty thing, wholly incompatible with our civil and criminal law, not to mention the Constitution, and decency..
Cross Post …
BREAKING NEWS – White House:
President Obama said today, “regardless of the position of any of our Nations 57 Governors, I will use my pen and phone to ensure 10,000 Syrian refugees entered this country regardless of the potentiality of a few criminals slipping by, it is the right thing to do”.
HOAP!
I am surprised that throughout this whole comment thread, Lars hasn’t yet invoked the basic human right to migrate. Neither has he lectured us about the economic necessity of unskilled labor. I’m worried about that boy.
He has pretty eyes.
But can he squeal like a pig?
Well, he was waging an unholy war all day nearby. Although he is a glutton for punishment, even he must have his limits. Don’t worry. Tomorrow, if not later tonight, he will be back to instruct us again–and to take the beating he seems to relish.
I think he needs a friend, someone he can commune with, lying flat on his back.
I think the boy is OCD and occasionally falls off his meds. When this happens, he sits and spins around like a cheap chinese firework pinwheel, flinging sparks and shit until he eventually runs out of “the juice”. Then the men in white coats (think Chevy) come in, clean the excrement off of him, and tuck him in for a few days of chemically induced rest. Sweet dreams Lars.
Hear the voices of the Islamic reaction to the Paris killings. Islam is a disease of the mind. Turkish Soccer Fans Chant ‘Allahu Akbar’ During Moment of Silence for Paris Victims
Gosh. I hope during one of our American football games, the fans don’t chant “Fuck Islam”. We’d be playing right into their hand if we did that. I read it on the internet.