Wednesday, March 23, 2016

To Obama and American Moslems : If You Are with Us, Help Us

One day before the Brussels ISIS terrorist attacks, Bill Clinton gave a prophetic analysis during a speech supporting Hillary's presidential candidacy. Clinton blamed an influx of refugees from the Middle East for causing "terrible stress" in Europe. He described the disaster caused by the massive surge of migrants into Europe, saying : "Things are going better in America, the European Union is under terrible stress because of all those migrants...many [Europeans] are moving to the right and becoming much more afraid of diversity even as we embrace it." Bill was expressing the Progressive view that Europe and the US should not fear Middle East Moslem migrants, but take as many as possible into western countries. Hillary has been calling for a global effort to do more to aid and welcome these refugees. And then the Brussels attacks turned the Progressive Clinton argument on its ear. ~~~~~ From the American religious leader, the Reverend Franklin Graham, came a renewed call Tuesday for halting Moslems coming into the US until proper vetting procedures are in place. Reverend Graham, son of famed evangelist Billy Graham, said : "our country is trouble....We have a void in leadership...Islamists have told us we will see more of these attacks and we have to take their threats seriously. I have long supported a temporary halt to immigration, especially for those coming from Moslem countries, until we have a vetting program that works and we can know who these people are. If we can't get an accurate background check, they don't come in. It's as simple as that. What happened in Brussels...will happen again inside our borders unless something changes, because the current administration has lowered the standards and our President even refuses to acknowledge this as Islamic terrorism." ~~~~~ After the Brussels attacks, GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz adopted Donald Trump's long-held position. On Wednesday, Cruz repeated his Tuesday call for increased surveillance on America's Moslem neighborhoods. Appearing on TV, Cruz said : "What I'm talking about is focusing law enforcement and national security resources on areas, on locations, where there is a higher incidence of radical Islamic terrorism." ~~~~~ Cruz's call for increased surveillance was roundly criticized by Moslem Americans and civil rights groups, who call Cruz's proposal unconstitutional and counterproductive. General Michael Hayden, former CIA Director, said the US has a "cultural bent" toward assimiliation that is a strategic and operational advantage that makes America safer than Europe. American Moslems continue to say they share the same values as other Americans. They reject the idea of surveillance of Moslem community neighborhoods, arguing it will send a message that Moslem Americans are not a part of American society. The question is : are they patriots? ~~~~~ Dear readers, President Obama on Wednesday sharply rebuked Senator Cruz for his call to enhance US Moslem community surveillance because of the Brussels attacks. In an Argentina press conference, Obama called it “wrong and un-American,” saying it would undermine the US campaign against Islamic extremist groups. But, candidates of both parties are calling for tougher security in the US and demanding a more aggressive Obama stance in fighting ISIS. Obama said he would not make significant changes to his anti-ISIS strategy, "simply because it's political season." US journalist icon Tom Brokaw got it right : "The reality is that we did have that attack....It was unnerving to us, it was devastating in Europe. But...the symbolism is that the President stayed at the baseball game all day long where you would have thought he would have said, 'Look, we've got more business that I have to deal with, I wish you well'....There's a real urgency about it, and he has got to convey that, not just to the American people but to the world." It is high time for patriotic American Moslems and Obama to take heed. If you are with us, help us.

3 comments:

  1. We have a hard time processing the world where random bombs go off and kill peaceful travelers in airports or subway stations because it threatens our equilibrium and sense of personal well-being. This discomfort has intensified in our era of 24-hour global news, whereas just a few generations ago our ancestors simply didn’t know about all the trouble in the greater world. The world seems more dangerous today – but is it really?

    It’s human nature to want reality to agree with our personal worldview or ideology. And the problem starts there, it doesn’t agree at all anymore. Conservatives generally advocate a more rigorous prosecution of the “war on terror” as the solution to Muslim terrorism, accompanied by the dilution of civil liberties as needed to assist that in prosecution. Progressives generally advocate humanitarian aid, open borders, and greater assimilation of Muslims by making countries more tolerant and multicultural (i.e., the same welfare/education/housing arguments they make to address homegrown criminality). Both of these approaches reflect certain inherent biases which are fundamentally incorrect, to put it mildly. Libertarians also stand accused of trying to fit real-world events into their ideology, rather than the other way around.

    The argument seems reasonable enough, at least on its face: terrorism, and the specter of groups like ISIS, demonstrate the need for coordinated action by governments. nobody blames government agencies or government police when terrorist acts are not thwarted. If anything, state actors are rewarded with increased budgets, personnel, and powers when horrific things happen on their watch. After the 9/11/2001 attacks in New York, for example, whole new federal agencies and departments were created. Federal intelligence agencies were vastly expanded. State and local police went on buying sprees for new militarized equipment.

    My point is not to blame anyone other than the actual malefactors involved in this latest Brussels. Islamic terrorism is a very real problem, but so is American and European foreign policy. If we had better, more honest, adhesion to Rule of Law within our Foreign Policy then we would start to solve the problem of worldwide terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Our presidential politics are about( today anyhow) whose feelings got hurt and safe spaces and who said what on “Saturday Night Live.”

    Our politics is increasingly about slippery thumbs on Twitter, where voters are unwittingly herded by sarcasm and fear of shaming into easily harvestable camps.

    But the thumbs that terrorists care about are the ones on the ungloved hand, the thumbs that press the triggers and set off their bombs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Back in 1953 & 1957 (I believe) two “fiction” books were published dealing with reality. Had a respectable percentage of the population read these publications and not been taken in by reviewers vision that the author had no idea what she was talking about (after she was a women), that she was considered to be an arm of Russian Communism propaganda, and lastly the reader was required to read between the lines and grasp what “Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged” written by Aye Rand was all about.

    It was all about personal choices in dealing with terrorism. Terrorism recognized as early as 1953. 20 plus years before the Munich, Germany Olympic murderous attack on the Israeli summer Olympic team by Muslim terrorists, long before the bombing of the Cole, before 9/11, and every attack in-between and after 9/11.

    With the Progressive Liberals action plan was to cave in and throw more money in aid packages, while the Conservative approach was to crank up the war machine and spend trillions upon trillions of dollars fighting an enemy they neither understood nor could identify, long before that a loud and strong voice from Russia was speaking out for responsible libertarian viewed action against just what she had lived through in Russia in her childhood and younger teenage years.

    And yet today FOREIGN POLICY POLITICS is still divided between the Liberal and Conservative Foreign Policy views. These views haven’t worked well in WW II, Korea, Middle East, Afghanistan, etc.

    But yet the free western world is still riding that horse that died (if it ever lived) years ago and they (the decision makers) cannot see the truth right in front of them. Even with Europe now closer to total defeat than ever before.

    A question friends …”what does the free world do without a Europe?”

    ReplyDelete