Is there room?


Is there room to fight jihadists, and I mean to the death, while also feeling concern, even compassion, for refugees? Is it an either/or situation or a both/and situation?

I’m about as fed up and pissed off as the next guy or gal with Islamists and with those in our government who want to coddle them… and yet… I do see pictures of frightened women and children, fleeing from danger, who I think deserve the West’s prudent help.

I think the analogy that comes to mind, and it’s not original with me, is an analogy to gun rights… we rightfully argue that a minority of those who use guns for nefarious reasons should not as a result infringe upon the rights of those who do not… why wouldn’t that principle apply to the Syrian refugees, meaning that a minority of them are staining all of them, potentially denying the truly needy the basic right to existence … it’s something I’m seriously, very seriously, struggling with.


Crossposted at Brutally Honest.

Republicans and Climate Change
Fundamental Questions on Fundamental Issues
  • Commander_Chico

    On the one hand the refugees are destabilizing the European Union, closing borders and placing a lot of strain on land and maritime border enforcement and social services. They can’t absorb a large number of people who can’t speak the language and may not have any skills to work in Europe.

    On the other hand, Europe has directly contributed to this crisis by destabilizing Libya and Syria, so it’s the chickens coming home to roost and they are reaping what they sowed. Same thing with the USA, although there’s an ocean between us.

    The priority has to be to back Assad help him and the Iraqis destroy ISIS and restore stability to those countries.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      This is sort of a replay of our discussion earlier on the now dead thread.

      • Oops… which thread Walter?

        • Walter_Cronanty

          No need for an “oops.” Chico and I had a discussion at the very end of “We have contained” ISIS…” [196 comments] which loosely mirrors our two comments on this post.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Is the Bible, and more specifically the New Testament, a suicide pact, or does it allow for self-defense? If it’s a suicide pact, then end of discussion.
    If it allows for self-defense, to what degree – that is, if you choose to take chances in order to help the refugees and that decision puts you in mortal danger, then that is your decision. If however, you have the ability to protect/defend innocents but choose instead to help refugees which puts the innocents in mortal danger, I think that is another question.
    If it is possible to help the refugees without putting innocents in mortal danger, but it places severe economic hardship on the innocents to clothe, feed, educate, provide medical care, etc., do you side with the refugees?
    Would it not be safer, saner and more economical in the long run to remove that which is causing people to leave their country in the first place – in this specific case, ISIS? This option, of course, leaves Assad, who has gassed his own people, in power.
    Should you choose to take out both ISIS and Assad, then you will, as our history in Iran and Libya [and to a lesser extent, Iraq] has taught us, end up with even worse barbaric savages in charge – which speaks volumes about the Islamic religion.
    Which then leaves us with the option of taking out ISIS and Assad and imposing our own, or our “allies” [[Russia?] government on the people at great cost of both our lives and our money.
    Is their a Biblical answer to all of this?

    • Commander_Chico

      Except for the part about “Assad gassing his own people,” I agree with you.

      There is substantial serious evidence that the gassing was a false flag by the jihadis themselves.

    • No easy answers… wisdom is needed. Badly.

      • jim_m

        What an epic cop out. Even Francis says that in this case military action is justified and you can’t bring yourself to agree with him.


        • You Jim define patheticism as evidenced by your inability to read. I support decimating ISIS, I consider this fight just and necessary. My angst here is that which is best explained by the Scripture verse you should by now be familiar with. You do know that verse do you not Jim. Something about the least of these… you do know that one don’t you Jim?

          • jim_m

            Innocents get hurt during war. That is why you conduct it swiftly and surely and not through half measures like has been done in the ME due to left wing demands for bullshit mercy

          • Is mercy ever anything but bullshit with you?

          • All too often is is pathological altruism.

          • jim_m

            Mercy,when it obstructs delivering real relief for the stated aim of reducing harm to civilians while resulting primarily in only prolonging the harm is BS. Most left wing demands have the only effect of making it worse and making it last longer.

            Mercy that only helps the persons giving that mercy is as merciful as a parasite is to its host.

          • fustian24

            I don’t know how to tell the difference between a jihadist and refugee.

            Even worse is that refugees often turn into jihadists.

            I don’t remember us trying to decide which Nazi’s were the good ones. Whether we like it or not, we are in a war. Seems to me like we need to be much more circumspect about who we allow to enter this country.

  • yetanotherjohn

    Is the war against ISIS a “just war”? If so, then we should turn to it with all of our might. The faster ISIS is defeated, the faster the ordinary people caught up in it can be helped.

    Germany and Japan were defeated in a “just war”. Many of their people were fanatical and you can put SS atrocities (especially on the Eastern front) and Japanese atrocities up against ISIS (and arguably ISIS comes up third simply based on scale). There were terrorist attacks (look up “werewolves”) in Germany well after the end of the war. But for Germany and Japan, there defeat was so complete that when we started to help the people up after the war, they did not immediately turn back to former ways.

    Looking at it another way, if things go on, what would make you think that Europe won’t turn back to concentration camps to handle the Muslims within their border? We had internment camps for Americans of Japanese decent (supported by the Supremes based on war powers). What do you think happens if ISIS uses a dirty bomb (not fission, just radioactive material spread across a populated area) that kills a few hundred thousand? Given the current trajectory, is there any reason not to think that or something like that (chemical, biological, etc) wont kill so many innocent civilians, that the backlash would “justify” concentration camps?

    I think I understand your dilemma. How can Christians not respond to the plight of the refugees? We live in a broken world. Jesus himself said that there would be wars and rumor of wars. If the war is “just” then the most humane thing to do is fight it fully and quickly. Our current path of a prolonged perpetual war that cost more in the long run and seems to be more “humane” in the long run is like putting cool cloth on a patient that needs an amputation or they will die of gangrene. Dithering may ease your conscience in the short term, but not if you are honest with yourself in the long term.

    • I’m not for dithering, not sure how you came to that conclusion… I believe fighting ISIS is just and think the only way out of all this is to decimate them. My struggle is not with defeating ISIS but with rejecting the refugees, the legitimate refugees.

      • yetanotherjohn

        But the “legitimate refugees” are being used as a means to infiltrate those who would kill us. How many “legitimate refugees” per terrorist would you allow? If the answer is a positive number, then that is how many “legitimate refugees” ISIS will create per terrorist they want to infiltrate.
        We didn’t worry about how many “innocent civilians” were killed in bombing Japan and Germany. We didn’t accept mass migration of people from Japan and Germany during the war despite how horrible their situation was. If we had, I can guarantee that the war would have taken longer and cost many more lives.
        Defeat the enemy, decisively, then think about a “Marshall plan” to rebuild from the rubble. That is the humane thing to do, not to let the short term issues of the refugees endanger us.
        You might want to look at some of the Bible verses about civil authority. The state bears the sword to keep the peace. Putting down the sword is not peaceful.

        • Again, I agree with the state in this instance bearing the sword, why is that so difficult to understand with you people?

          I think we can do both. Conduct war on ISIS, and help legitimate refugees.

          And oh by the way, we should apply heavy pressure on Arab states to take some of them in. Heavy pressure.

          • jim_m

            Help legitimate refugees closer to their homes so they can go back when it is over.

          • I think we should reinvigorate the War Refugee Board

          • yetanotherjohn

            The War Refugee Board (at least based on its original model) would be about taking in Yazidi and Christians refugees from areas occupied by ISIS. It is a position rejected by Obama as not being inclusive enough. I doubt you would get many objections to that from the commentators here.

            I tell you why we can’t get both, but you see only slights and not the argument. The Syrian refugees is the symptom, not the underlying cause. You have to treat the cause.

            What would your plan be to letting Syrian refugees in with out endangering us? You start with excluding military age males? What is that? 12 to 60? ISIS is recruiting females, so lets also exclude those also. Now we have the young and the elderly. Exactly how do you plan on caring for them?

            The closest model of this working that I know of was the “children trains” out of Czechoslovakia. Except that was Jewish children being sent to England by their parents because they figured that there was very little hope for them when Hitler invaded. Not quite an analogous position. That was also individual families taking in the kids with the government doing no more than allowing the visas. The funds to bribe the Nazis to let the trains pass and pay for the trains was all private.

            It would be wonderful if there was an answer that allowed both helping the refugees in the short term and removing the threat in the long term. I don’t see it. But removing the root cause will alleviate the refugee problem in the long term. Sometimes that is the best we can do in a broken world.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Excellent comment

          • Despite the evidence of the Security and Law Enforcement Agencies that they cannot adequately vet such refugees.

      • jim_m

        Why do you never suggest that their closest neighbors, people with whom they share language,culture and religion with, that those people should help the refugees? Why is it that you must ask the people who have been most aggrieved by Islamic aggression who are asked first?

        • See my response to Yetanotherjohn before you posed the question… sheez…

  • jim_m

    Fine to take your argument agaibst gun rights: We already forbid people who have histories of violence or mental illness from owning guns. We also know that only a small fraction of them will ever commit a crime with a gun, but we forbid it anyway.

    We know that only a fraction of muslims will actually be terrorists, but since, like with guns, we cannot tell which ones, we ought to ban them all.

    As many have said: radical islam is something only the muslims can solve. Make them syay and solve it. Stop letting them run away from their responsibility.

      • LiberalNightmare

        One small difference, the Jewish refugees weren’t killing Christians on their way out the door.

        • I don’t think that’s exactly what’s happening…

      • jim_m

        Are you fucking nuts?! Or are you just claiming that wwii was a Jewish conspiracy?

        • I’m claiming that the same mindset that didn’t want to take in Jews during WWII is the mindset prevailing today…

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I think you are wrong.
            The issue isn’t, as LiberalNightmare, put it, Muslims killing people as they go out the door, the issue is that there is a percentage of Muslim refugees who want to annihilate us once they get in our door.
            I know of no similar sentiment attributed to Jewish refugees in WW II.

          • fustian24

            A better question might be whether we ought to have taken in large numbers of German Nazi’s.

            You know, as long as they were vetted.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            A better question, given the comments I posted below, is: While we were unable to vet immigrants in WW II, should we have taken in large numbers of German immigrants, when 31% of them opposed, with 11% strongly opposed, to our efforts to destroy the Nazis in Germany?

          • Brucehenry

            Many opposed admitting Jewish refugees because, it was claimed, they were likely to be anarchists or Communists.

          • [citations required]

          • Scalia

            I think that’s already been addressed here, Bruce. If you can show any poll showing 30% of Jews favoring a group bent on destroying us and evidence that Jews were posing as refugees to commit mass murder, your analogy might be relevant.

          • Brucehenry

            The poll doesn’t show anybody “favoring a group bent on destroying us.” The poll shows a large number opposing Western militaries making war in their homeland. There is a difference.

            SOME may support ISIS as an alternative to the monstrous Assad, but many others may just oppose the idea of Americans and Frenchmen and Russians blowing shit up where their remaining families still live. Some may feel that would do more harm than good, or oppose Western military intervention for any number of reasons, but in any event the question does NOT show that 30? “favor a group bent on destroying us.”

            That’s a leap.

          • Scalia

            I don’t think it’s a leap at all. If you read the entire poll, the question is one of “support.” Syrians, by a whopping 64% either support or strongly support the effort to degrade and destroy ISIS whereas 31% oppose or strongly oppose them. With the vast majority of their community opposing ISIS in spite of “the monstrous Assad,” it is perfectly reasonable to infer that they “favor a group bent on destroying us.”

            Regardless, I also mentioned Jews posing as refugees in order to commit mass murder. Your analogy is off. A fear of communism is nothing compared to the fact that terrorists are posting as refugees in order to commit mass murder. This has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

          • Brucehenry

            As I concede elsewhere on this thread, the analogy is definitely not an exact one. Walter says it’s “weak” and I’m not one saying it’s “the same mindset” but I don’t think it’s inappropriate to point it out to provoke a little thought.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I believe that “many” opposed admitting Jews because they were Jews. That has little to do with this discussion. I’m not opposed to Muslim immigrants simply because they’re Muslims.
            As I stated above: “…the issue is that there is a percentage of Muslim refugees who want to annihilate us once they get in our door.
            I know of no similar sentiment attributed to Jewish refugees in WW II.”

          • Brucehenry

            But there WAS a similar sentiment, that sentiment being that “a certain percentage” of the Jewish would-be refugees were commies who would harm us. Do you not see the analogy?

            And you are right that many opposed admitting Jews because they were Jews. As many oppose admitting these refugees because they are Muslims. Not you personally, I’m sure, but there were many calling for them not to be admitted before the Paris attacks.

          • [citations still required]

          • Brucehenry

            No, they are not required. To anyone who has read anything about that period it is common knowledge.

          • Citations would be required of you claiming it was a sunny day.

          • More evidence for you vituperativeness.

          • Says the guy who doesn’t own this thread. Go away man.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I see the analogy, but it is weak. One is an existential, physical threat, the other is a theoretical threat that at some time the person wants/will work toward the our government changing.
            If there was evidence that 30% of German immigrants were opposed to our efforts in Germany during WW II and we could not vet them, I would not be in favor of allowing them to immigrate – which begs the question, why would they want to come here? Go to Argentina for god’s sake.
            Let the Syrian refugees go to Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iran, or Turkey, or Iraq, or Egypt, or …well, you get my drift..

          • Brucehenry

            Yes and I am not one who says the situations are exactly analogous. I do support prudence and recognize the need for caution. But I’ve been seeing some ugly shit on FB. To my relief, I haven’t seen anything particularly ugly here, just honest and sincere concerns about safety which I can understand.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yeah, the real question is how do you stop the problem at its source. Chico and I had that discussion a couple of times, and I don’t see a real, possible answer that is entirely favorable. And even if it stopped tomorrow, what kinds of problems will ensue?
            Ah well, like the country song I cited to several posts ago says: “God is great. Beer is good. People are crazy.”

          • Jwb10001

            Who made these claims? I know the country had a very healthy anti Jewish faction. Were these claims made by anyone of real importance? Or were we mostly just isolationist and disinterested in European problems including mistreatment of Jews? I’m not trying to antagonize you I’m interested to know who thought Jews were likely enemies of the state ie Henry Ford etal.

          • Brucehenry

            Ford was one. Look it up.

          • You were challenged to provide support.

          • Brucehenry

            And I have responded that these things are common knowledge. I ain’t your Google. Look it up.

          • You are not a reliable source.

          • And you are?

          • More so than any of the querulous quartet.

          • jim_m

            There is no comparison between the mindset of prejudice against people because they are Jewish and concern about people who go about beheading others for laughs.
            It goes to show how tragically incompetent your are and how incapable you are of demonstrating even the most rudimentary reasoning skills. You compare refusing to take in people being murdered with refusing to take in murderers.
            Shame on you. You are an embarrassment to Christ. Stop calling yourself a Christian if you cannot even make simple moral distinctions properly.

          • Go away Jim… and take your meds. Your reasoning here would have to assume that every refugee is a murderer… they are not… and you refuse to acknowledge that prejudicial fear is driving this today as it did during WWII.

            Just go away man, and take your judgment with you.

          • jim_m

            You compared Jews fleeing genocide to Islamic terrorists. She on you for your amoral equivocation. Everyone else except for the self-righteous asses like you can tell the difference between the two situations. You are unwilling to accept that your comparison is hopelessly flawed. Your position is obviously anti-Semitic and you are too stupid to recognize it.

      • jim_m

        No, totally opposite and the fact that you cannot understand my simply laid out reasoning is not surprising since you cannot differentiate between murderers and their victims.

        • What’s not surprising is your incessant prejudicial, bigoted, arrogant and hatefully judgemental comments.

          Jim, you go back on my ignore list man. Later.

          • jim_m

            You compare Jews fleeing genocide to radical islamists and you call ME the bigot? GFY

      • jim_m

        Read this Rick, and then take your left wing, antisemitic, holocaust-denying ass and get off this blog

        The first, and most obvious, difference: There was no international conspiracy of German Jews in the 1930s attempting to carry out daily attacks on civilians on several continents. No self-identifying Jews in the early 20th century were randomly massacring European citizens in magazine offices and concert halls . . . .

        On a related note, the sympathies of Syrian Muslims are more diverse than those of Nazi-era German Jews. A recent Arab Opinion Index poll of 900 Syrian refugees found that one in eight hold a “to some extent”-positive view of the Islamic State (another 4 percent said that they did not know or refused to answer). A non-trivial minority of refugees who support a murderous, metastatic caliphate is a reason for serious concern. No 13 percent of Jews looked favorably upon the Nazi party.

        Third, European Jews in the early 20th century were more amenable to assimilation than are Syrian Muslims in the early 21st. . . .

        Finally: Jewish refugees — for example, those in the SS St. Louis — were coming from Germany (or Nazi-controlled Austria or Czechoslovakia), but most Syrian refugees seeking entry into the United States have already found refuge elsewhere. . . .

        Your unoriginal assertion is sourced from anti-semites. You have demonstrated a tendency to source ALL of your comments from the farthest of left wing authors and sites and you regurgitate their poisous hate without questioning it or thinking twice about it.

        Such behavior is not Christian, as Christ tells us to think about what we are told and to test it. You never do.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Off Topic – Our President is a complete wanker:

    ” The two-term Democratic president repeatedly insisted that his strategy was working and scoffed at demands to change his plan to confront and defeat ISIS.

    “What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people and to protect the people in the region who are getting killed and to protect our allies and people like France,” Obama said. “I’m too busy for that.”

    Not interested in “pursuing some notion of … America winning.” Diane Feinstein agrees: “ISIL is not contained, ISIL is expanding.”

    • One hopes that is not a news flash for you…

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Not a news flash, but some of things he says are just so stupid and counter-productive it’s breath taking.

    • Commander_Chico

      Pat Buchanan of all people is defending Obama and ripping Romney and Christie, I read this today:

      Among the presidential candidates of the Republican Party and their foreign policy leaders on Capitol Hill the cry is almost universal:

      Barack Obama has no strategy for winning the war on ISIS.

      This criticism, however, sounds strange coming from a party that controls Congress but has yet to devise its own strategy, or even to authorize the use of U.S. military force in Syria.

      Congress has punted. And compared to the cacophony from Republican ranks, Barack Obama sounds like Prince Bismarck.

      The President’s strategy is to contain, degrade and defeat ISIS. While no one has provided the troops to defeat ISIS, the U.S. is using Kurdish and Yazidi forces, backed by U.S. air power, to degrade it.

      And recent months have seen measured success.

      The Kurds have run ISIS out of Kobani, captured much of the Turkish-Syrian border, and moved to within 30 miles of Raqqa, the ISIS capital. Yazidis and Kurds last week recaptured Sinjar in Iraq and cut the highway between Mosul and Raqqa.

      The terrorist attacks in Paris, the downing of the Russian airliner in Sinai, the ISIS bomb that exploded in the Shiite sector of Beirut, are ISIS’s payback. But they could also be signs that the ISIS caliphate, imperiled in its base, is growing desperate and lashing out.

      Yet consider the Republican strategies being advanced. . . .

      • The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy, nothing more.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        I think he makes some valid points.

        • Commander_Chico

          The road to solving this thing is through Moscow. As Pat says, if the Russians and Iranians are willing to fight alongside us against ISIS, let’s do it.

          The question is: are we really against ISIS, or just pretending to fight them? Since Putin got in, yes, I think we are fighting them. Before that? Not so much, and funneling arms to them by the hapless policy of sending arms to the “Free Syrian Army” and other bogus groups.

          Obama will have a lot to answer for at The Gates, for pouring gasoline on the Syrian fire three years ago. As it is, we’re going to have to back Assad, because he’s the only non-jihadist alternative, and all those people died for nothing.

  • Try asking the Right Question.

  • LiberalNightmare

    I’m not sure that you are making the correct comparison.

    You think the issue is that some of the refugees might be bad eggs, and that in the name of helping the rest, its worthwhile to take the risk that some might have bad intention.

    Problem is you are only considering the plight of the refugees.

    What about the rest of the people that will be affected? Is it worth the risk to them?
    One hundred and twenty nine people had to pay the cost of that risk Friday night. Not including family members of the dead. How many more in the future?

    Its more than just lives at stake, you can read dozens of stories about small towns being overwhelmed by the number of refugees and watching their homes and way of life vanish – no self respecting liberal would allow Wal-Mart to do that to a small town, why do refugees get a free pass?

    The easy answer is to take in the refugees, and let the risk fall on the little people, but like all easy answers, a little more thought complicates things.


    • Actually, I’m arguing that the easy answer is completely rejecting the refugees… we’re Americans… we do hard things, particularly when they’re right things…

      I don’t have problems with rejecting younger, single males of fighting age… honestly, I don’t… it’s the women and children and the aged… I think it’s right to help them, and again, I think it’s right to apply heavy pressure on Arab states in the region to take some of them in.

      • LiberalNightmare

        Then Im down with you.

        Shut the door, pull the drapes, turn off the porch light.
        Let them sort their own shit out.

  • I’ve admittedly not fact checked all of them but thought these were worth checking out and pondering.

  • How many of your fellow citizens lives are you willing to spend to feel better, Rice?

    How many random Syrian refugees have you given shelter under your own roof?

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Rick, your brothers and sisters in Baton Rouge have made their decision. Likelihood is that it’s okay in this instance – but really, you sponsor their entrance then disclaim any responsibility for keeping track of them?

    “We’re learning more details on the Syrian Refugee in Baton Rouge. Catholic Charities helped the refugee. However, we’re told the immigrant left after a few days, and Catholic Charities doesn’t know where he or she went. It’s not their job to track them. Details on WBRZ Channel 2 at 6.”

    • They should bear the liability should it end badly.

      • And what if it should end most positively?

        • Will you bear the liability either way?

          • I bear the weight of my conscious in light of Christ’s commandments Rodney. Shouldn’t we all?

          • We none of have a choice about judgment in the hereafter. My question is will you personally bear the consequences/liability in the here and now?

    • Gateway Pundit has updates… the refugee has been found…

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Please give a cite. Not doubting your word, but when I go to Gateway Pundit it says “Updated,” yet when I click on article, only the un-updated article appears.

        Please also note the poll cited in another article posted there. 31% of Syrian refugees oppose [20 % oppose, 11% strongly oppose] the effort to destroy ISIL. The question was posed as follows: “To what extent do you support or oppose the declared objectives of the anti-ISIL campaign to “degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL”?”
        Given that we don’t have the ability to vet Syrian refugees, how do we keep the 31% out?
        [EDIT] Which leads to the question – Why the hell doesn’t the 31% stay there?

        • Walter, I’m not seeing a link, just this update from Hoft:

          UPDATE: (Tuesday morning 9:30 AM) Governor Jindal’s office contacted The Gateway Pundit this morning. The missing refugee turned up out of state. The governor’s office had to do the leg work on this. The spokesman said the feds were no help. State police located the missing Syrian and said he was placed with another family or Catholic Charities out of state.

          We are waiting for an official statement from the governor’s office.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Thanks Rick.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Well, this is reassuring [via Patterico]:

    “Syria isn’t the typical country that sends over refugees, it’s a hotbed of Hezbollah militants and Al Qaeda-linked jihadists….
    Emrich’s testimony before the Senate panel comes on the heels of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Assistant Director Michael Steinbach’s revelation that the U.S. government has no system to properly screen Syrian refugees. “The concern in Syria is that we don’t have systems in places on the ground to collect information to vet,” Steinbach said. “That would be the concern is we would be vetting — databases don’t hold the information on those individuals. “You’re talking about a country that is a failed state, that is — does not have any infrastructure, so to speak. So all of the data sets — the police, the intel services — that normally you would go to seek information don’t exist.”

  • Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

    “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
    With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    • How do you propose to sort the actual refugees from the fifth column?

      • I propose we use the weight of American intellect, technology and will to figure that out.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Sort of like believing that windmills and solar power will replace fossil fuels next week.

          • Well… I don’t believe that Walter… I do believe however in the American spirit, in character, in answering the yearning for freedom every person has… including women and children from Syria.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            ” I do believe however in the American spirit, in character, in answering the yearning for freedom every person has… including women and children from Syria.”
            I do, too.
            But I’m having one helluva time having that belief trump my belief that our government’s first and foremost duty is to protect our own women and children [men, too, if they agree with me].

        • You were just informed that the FBI says they can’t do it.

          • Rodney, a digression.

            You’re over here conversing away… engaging in a back and forth… on my thread…

            Yet won’t let me respond to those asking me questions on your own.

            What’s the logic man?

          • I told you to stay away. You have not done so.

            You still have not answered:

            How many of your fellow citizens lives are you willing to spend to feel better, Rice?

            How many random Syrian refugees have you given shelter under your own roof?

          • That’s a have you stopped beating your wife question Rodney… sophistry from a sophist.

            You go away little man… back to your post that seems not to be garnering much attention.

          • As I e-mailed you, when you answer [substantively], I’ll consider un-spamming your comments on my post.

          • I’ve received no email from you.

          • Then the e-mail you registered under with Disqus is no longer valid.

          • It is… I’ve now seen it… I’ve answered the questions in my response to Scalia…

          • No, you have not.

          • Go away little man… short of completely agreeing with you, there’s no answer I’d give that would satisfy you…

            You keep participating here… and keep me from participating on your threads…

            It speaks volumes to the manifestations of little man syndrome that now characterizes your behavior.

          • Whatever helps you sleep at night (that doesn’t endanger my fellow citizens):

          • Scalia

            Although Rodney’s first question could be classified as a loaded question fallacy, the second cannot. Nonetheless, both questions can be answered. So, I’ll answer them as if Rodney asked me the same things.

            1) I am not willing to put my fellow citizens at risk. Given the fact that some terrorists are posting as refugees, and given the fact (if the polling is accurate) that a substantial number of refugees oppose our efforts against ISIS, I am steadfastly opposed to providing sanctuary unless appropriate and accurate vetting and monitoring procedures are in place.

            2) I am not willing to put my family and neighbors at risk for the same reasons.

            See, Rick? It’s rather easy. 🙂

          • The terrorists posting as refugees… I’m assuming you’re referring to the passport found on or near one of the suicide bombers that is alleged to have belonged to a refugee… but new reports (New York Times and elsewhere) are casting doubt on that story suggesting the passport was a fake and that it actually belonged to a Syrian who had died some time ago. So far, all the Paris attackers identified have been European nationals.

            The poll (I saw it linked at GatewayPundit) is certainly troubling but the fact is that a majority of the refugees do indeed support our efforts against ISIL. And it would have been interesting to see the demographic breakdown. How many women with small children opposed efforts to destroy ISIL? Those are the refugees I particularly want to see helped.

            As to Rodney’s questions… of course I don’t want to see any of my fellow citizens harmed and of course I don’t want to willingly and blindly put my family and loved ones in harm’s way. What I do want to do is answer God’s call to help the least of these… and that doesn’t necessarily mean bring them here (which is why I earlier referenced reinvigorating the War Refugee Board and why I said heavy pressure should be put on Arab countries to take some of them in).

            Here’s an interesting related story Scalia… tell me what you think.

          • Scalia

            The passport bomber isn’t the only one. The linked story shows that five others were picked up posting as refugees. Now, Rick, they were caught. How many others got through and were not caught? As I said, I don’t object to helping legitimate refugees, but without proper vetting and monitoring, it would be irresponsible to proceed as the Obama administration is doing.

            As to the poll, nobody is saying that the majority of them support ISIS! A substantial percentage of them oppose our efforts, so that should heighten our efforts to protect our citizens. If there’s any doubt, we can send aid to neighboring ME countries to facilitate them.

            My posts to not object to assistance, carte blanche.

          • I thought you were referring to the Paris attackers, my bad.

          • Perhaps you should refrain from posting and commenting from a position of ignorance.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            What an odd thing to say to a colleague. Why would he stop posting on the site, because it bothers you?

            You banned him from your posts and now you visit his and ridicule him (on something that he posted)?


          • Why am I un-surprised that you would argue in favor of Posting and Commenting from a position of ignorance?

            I know. Because you comment from that very position without exception!

          • Brucehenry

            Well I oppose Unnecessary Capitalization, what do you Think about That?

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Well played.

          • Scalia

            Ok, Buster, do you support opening our borders to Syrian refugees without adequate vetting and monitoring? Yes or no?

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            I have the occasion (and misfortune) to read correspondence from younger people in my industry and improper capitalization is very common. I had to ask why they do it and more than a few indicated they do it for “emphasis”.
            Funny, I thought that was done with ALL CAPS.

          • Scalia

            “All caps” is for yelling, so I guess it would be a form of emphasis. Anyway, are you going to answer my question?

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            As far as all caps? Never.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            “The terrorists posting as refugees… I’m assuming you’re referring to the passport found on or near one of the suicide bombers that is alleged to have belonged to a refugee… but new reports (New York Times and elsewhere) are casting doubt on that story suggesting the passport was a fake and that it actually belonged to a Syrian who had died some time ago. So far, all the Paris attackers identified have been European nationals.”

            Wrong, Rick – he really was a new arrival. The fake passport argument is a red herring:

            “The ‘right-wing freakout’ is unjustified if the bomber merely posed as a new arrival by carrying someone else’s (fake) passport. He didn’t. He really was a new arrival. Those are his fingerprints on the passport that was used to enter Greece in October as a refugee. What does it matter whether his ruse, that he was there to resettle after fleeing persecution and not to murder people, involved a fake passport rather than a real one? One of the core arguments all along against the EU opening its borders to huge numbers of refugees is that the sheer volume was bound to make it impossible to tell the real refugees from the posers, be they migrants looking for better work or jihadis looking to kill some French concertgoers. What this story confirms, horrifyingly, is that EU authorities can’t tell a fake passport from a real one. In which case, how the hell do they have any confidence that there aren’t more attackers among the many thousands they’ve already admitted? Exactly how many fake passports are out there?”

          • Scalia

            Yes, it is interesting, and I’m certain that the majority of the refugees are perfectly harmless. That’s not the issue, but since we are in substantive agreement, there’s no need to repeat myself.

          • Commander_Chico

            More proof a free market prospers while Stalinism fails.

        • Jwb10001

          There has been ample congressional testimony that we can NOT properly vet these refugees. We don’t know who the bad guys are. You should catch up with the latest news.

  • Commander_Chico

    Since we have all these refugees, I wonder where our foreign aid is going:

  • Commander_Chico

    "Probability of a Terrorist being a Muslim is 95.3%, the probability of a Muslim being a Terrorist is only 0.0007%"— Galymzhan Kirbassov (@GalymKZ) November 17, 2015

    • Liars do figure, you damn liar.

    • Jwb10001

      Then the 99.0003% of non terrorist Muslims need to do us a favor and rid their religion of the .0007% terrorizing the rest of the civilized world.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Holy crap, are right! These mythical moderate Muslims are as useful as the moderate, non-Nazis in WW II

      • Commander_Chico

        White man, what are you doing about the .00005% of your people that are psycho killers?

        • Jwb10001

          Oh so that’s today’s moral equivalence. Here’s a clue I don’t share a religion with them.

      • Commander_Chico

        Hayek: “the skillful demagogue welds together supporters based on the hatred of an enemy…the common fight against those outside the group.”— William Easterly (@bill_easterly) November 16, 2015

        • Jwb10001

          What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you implying that I’m now a demagogue since your chickenhawk slur doesn’t work on me? What do you call a guy that thinks the vice president of the US sent anthrax through the mail, reasonable, logical, connected to reality? What a joke you are.

  • Scalia


    My Christianity Is Better than Your Christianity

    Imagine a scenario where a Christian watches arsonists burn down a neighbor’s home, then demands that you house the neighbor as their house is in smoldering rubble.

    That is basically why we have a Syrian refugee crisis. A group of Christians and secularists demanded we do nothing while ISIS sacked, raped, and pillages across the Middle East, displacing millions of Syrians. Now, we are supposed to take them all in.

    Truthfully, I have been very willing to take in Syrian refugees and, to the extent they are women and children who can be vetted, I’m still not completely opposed. But, in addition to doing nothing as the situation worsened in the Middle East, the President has consistently refused to provide arms to Christian militias in the Middle East — Christians eager to protect and defend their homeland.

    Now we have a refugee crisis and the American left and some vocal Christians are loudly proclaiming that their Christianity is better than our Christianity because they still want to let in Syrian refugees.

    It is some sort of modern insanity that we cannot look at events in Europe and consider we might need to rethink things. We now know for certain that ISIS affiliated terrorists have masqueraded as Syrian refugees. We also know for certain that the Obama Administration cannot or will not vet Syrian refugees and consistently monitor them in this country.

    If we could do that, we should let them in.

    And if not, then NO!

    • He’s got me at…

      I have been very willing to take in Syrian refugees and, to the extent they are women and children who can be vetted, I’m still not completely opposed.

      And I’m not attempting in the least to say I’m a better Christian than any other Christian. I’m trying to give reason for my personal passion on this.

      • Jwb10001

        But you ignore the reason of people that point out that our government can not meet the requirements you’ve put forth. WE CAN NOT PROPERLY VET THESE PEOPLE! What do you not understand about that. Obama’s team is telling congress they can’t vet them what else do you need? What if you use a bit more reason and a little less passion on this issue?

        • My understanding it that there is a vetting process in place… that needs to be improved for sure in light of what has taken place… but a process that actually takes up to two years or more to clear before being allowed in country.

          • Jwb10001

            There was congressional testimony today and Obama’s team disagrees with you, there is no process to vet these refugees. It was pointed out that in Iraq we have 10 years of involvement and have collected a lot of data, not so with Syria.

    • Brucehenry

      What “Christian militias” did Obama refuse to arm?

      • Scalia

        Common knowledge. Look it up.

        • Brucehenry

          Bullshit. You know and I know (and anyone who has read anything about the period and the subject knows) that Jews in the 1930s were quite commonly assumed to be Communists and that it was often said about them that they couldn’t be trusted, they were in league with those who would harm us, etc.

          On the other hand, it is not common knowledge that there even EXISTS any “Christian militias” in Syria. I found an article about ONE — apparently the only one that exists — and there is no mention in the article about any US refusal to fund it, or indeed any request for US funding.

          • Scalia

            It’s common knowledge to those who inform themselves of the situation in Syria. There are actually several “articles” about it. I can’t help it if your searching didn’t yield any more.

            Native Christians, whose communities have lived peacefully with Muslims for 2000 years, are fighting for their homes and their lives. They have been begging for help, to no avail.

            So far, no matter how intense our debates have been, we’ve kept things respectful. You were asked several times for a citation. If it is really common knowledge, you would have no problem producing what you allege. I simply fired back with the same answer. That doesn’t justify your BS bomb. One more profanity and I’m out.

          • Brucehenry

            Ok sorry about the BS bomb.

            In any case these Christian militias are tiny (as are the communities from whence they come) and the writer on your link implies that if only Obama would give these tiny groups the funding he has allegedly has “consistently refused” to give there wouldn’t be a refugee crisis…or something.

            In the articles I did find, there is no claim of them “begging for help, to no avail.”

          • Scalia

            There are a lot of anti-Semites today, so I don’t doubt there were quite a few back in the ’30s. I would, however, like to see a poll where 30% of Americans opposed the immigration of Jews because of a fear that they might join a Fifth Column or would destroy our government due to their communism. Were there people who believed that? Yes (as you said, that’s common knowledge), but I’d like to know what the evidence is that a substantial number of Americans believed that. That’s substantively what this side discussion is about (the Syrian support for ISIS).

          • Brucehenry

            I never claimed any number and as I have conceded the analogy is definitely not an exact one.

          • Scalia

            Fair enough.

          • E. G. chicka puta.

          • Brucehenry

            Also, if there HAS been a reluctance to arm these groups, this Wikipedia article may help explain why. They may be allied to Assad,


          • Scalia

            After reading that article, I just shook my head. My first thought was essentially, “Who wrote such a shoddy piece?” If you’ll click the “Talk” tab of the article, you’ll see that my initial suspicions are confirmed: The articles is rated “Stub Class” which means, at best that it is substandard. All poor-quality articles in Wikipedia are rated that way.

        • Well played.

  • A friend of mine, former Marine, wrote this on Facebook a short time ago:

    President Andrew Jackson was fond of saying, “Never take counsel of your fears.” Gen. Stonewall Jackson and Gen. George S. Patton admonished their men, “Do not take counsel of your fears.” All three lived the rule. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan incorporated the phrase into his State of the Union address, “Where others take counsel of their fears, we follow our hopes.” It has also been written that in the lead up to WWII, “defensive concerns made Europe’s statesmen take counsel of their fears, and submit to the tyranny of events.”

    Are we mice, or are we men? For me, I’ll stick to the advice of my fellows above.

    He’s a supporter of helping the refugees.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Is it fear when you believe what your enemy says, or is it just rational thinking? I don’t “fear” radical Islamists as much as I “fear” a feckless asshat as President. The US could take care of this situation very quickly with rational rules of combat.
      To allow 100,000 [or whatever the number is today from our Emperor] people in our country when we cannot vet them and 31% of them oppose us and our way of life is insanity.

      • I have the same “fear” as to the feckless asshat… whom I hold responsible for this entire mess, rightly or wrongly.

        Again, I don’t want them all in Walter. Women and children should be the focus. And again, the notion of a War Refugee Board I think has some merit and would include applying pressure on other Arab states to take some of them in.

        • Jwb10001

          So do you trust the feckless ass hat to set up a refugee board that would actually function properly? How has he done with Heathcare exchanges? What intelligence are these boards supposed to use to actually determine who is a legit refugee and who isn’t? Are they supposed to depend on the feckless asshat’s national security team, on the feckless asshat’s intelligence team? You agree the government is run by a “feckless asshat” but then want to trust his team to vet refugees? Well that makes prefect sense.

          • I trust that they are decent people out there involved in all of this that think this President is a feckless asshat.

          • You finally got something right.

          • Go away Rodney… try to get some people to comment on your posts man… rather than hang here.

            Oh yea… you don’t let people comment who disagree with you… only those participating in the echo chamber.

            Of course.

          • Jwb10001

            Hell of an assumption you’re making there, ask the folks that were targeted by the IRS how these decent people act.

    • Scalia

      What’s that supposed to mean in light of the current discussion? All I’m hearing from those who object is the legitimate concern that we may be importing a threat. Since there’s nothing wrong or unchristian with prudence for safety, nobody’s taking “counsel of [our] fears.”

      • He’s once again taking refuge in some better man’s (a low bar, I know) words instead of dealing with the issue himself.

        • Or… I recognize good and decent things said by others… and sophistry said by you.

      • The answer to that question would rightly be answered by me Marine friend.

        I continue to believe that irrational fear is keeping us from helping women and children who need the help.

        • Scalia

          Nobody here, Rodney included, has expressed any irrational fear, so my question remains, what has that got to do with the current discussion? Since you apparently agree that we should be prudent and careful who we let into the country, then we’re on the same page.

          • If by we you mean the we that would be willing to help women and children, then yes, I agree that we’re on the same page.

            But many seem unwilling to do even that… and that, in my mind, can only be explained by taking counsel of our fears as my marine friend explained… or by what I might call irrational fear… fear that overrides goodness and decency.

          • Take as many into your home as you can feed, clothe, and supervise.

          • Jwb10001

            You’re unwilling to accept that these people would not hesitate to use women and children to achieve their ends. All anyone is saying women and children can not be exempted from the vetting process that we currently can not actually do. If and when (and I suspect it’s a very big if) we can actually properly vet these refugees then fine we should help but I think our efforts might be more productive to find better solutions that don’t involve moving them half way around the world.

          • And I’ve partially agreed with that by saying at least three times that I would endorse a War Refugee Board that in part would apply whatever pressures are necessary to get Arab countries to participate in an assistance program.

          • Jwb10001

            Great have at it, but since you’re the only person I hear even talking about that, what do we do in the real world?

          • Cower in fear apparently.

          • Jwb10001

            Well that’s a thoughtful and insightful reply. I guess you really don’t have any idea beyond some refugee board that doesn’t exist.

          • You’re asking the wrong question of the wrong propagandist.

          • Scalia

            Well, I think I’ve read every post in this thread, and I don’t see the same thing. France just had at least 129 people slaughtered, and it’s being implied that we’re somehow unchristian or bigoted against Muslims because we want to stop RIGHT NOW Obama’s open arms, no vetting invitation to the refugees.

            You haven’t come out and said that, but it’s implied by your assertion that some of us are exhibiting irrational fear or are “cowering” in fear. I see nothing of the sort.

          • My references to fear are in response to my Marine friend’s admonition that we not take counsel of our fears… that we don’t let those fears rule over us… and in the context of my continually saying that let’s at least help women and children. Many here want to do absolutely nothing, and some are suggesting that the women and children would be weaponized.

            The existing vetting process, which I think and I’ve got to believe you’ll agree, is going to improve, takes 2 years or more of processing before a refugee enters the country. 2 years. And I’ve not yet seen evidence that Obama’s open arms mean absolutely no vetting. It might mean lousy vetting with gaps but… it still takes two years before a refugee can get in the country… so I think the no vetting invitation reference is flawed.

            Here are a couple of links to that vetting process, all rather recent.

            The Week.


          • Scalia

            Thanks for the link, but I think the author overstates the case, because the “challenging” remark wasn’t made in a vacuum. Moreover, it’s not merely vetting, it also includes monitoring. This is a big country, huge compared with Syria, so once people get here, they have a lot of latitude. Besides, what good does a counter-terrorism profile do if there’s nothing in the file? If ISIS wants to send members to the U.S. to join a sleeper cell, they certainly won’t pick somebody who has a record.

            Yes, screening procedures are in place, and they certainly have gaps, especially the monitoring part.

            By the way, your first link returns the following:

          • Cut and paste error on the first link Scalia… just fixed it.

            Sorry about that… multitasking error… 🙂

          • Scalia

            Gotta scoot for now. I have appointments to tend to. Thanks for the dialog.

  • Grass seed is an ill educated dolt owned by his emotions.

    • What does that even mean? And why are you now arbitrarily deleting your own comments from this thread?