Is Worry About Syrians Immigrating to the U.S. Un-American?

Yes, according to Barack Obama who recently said so in a press conference in Manila.

The Sensible Conservative last week labeled the President an arrogant fool.  These presidential comments only solidify that opinion.

Apparently Obama believes that humanitarian impulses to help others (certainly a hallmark of America) should cause us to disregard safety concerns.  Yet the survival instinct is a dominant guide to all humankind (with the obvious primary exception being radical islamist suicide bombers). 

Is the President’s sense of compassion for fellow Americans so deficient that he truly does not comprehend the alarm and fear – particularly in the wake of Paris – caused by the possible influx of terrorist among legitimate Syrian refugees? 

Has the White House security bubble robbed him of empathy for his fellow Americans outside? 

For a variety of reasons, U.S. screening policies for would-be immigrants from the Middle East are far from reliable and surely cannot assure the U.S. public that ISIS terrorists won’t sneak through.

[It is a simple fact that Obama’s attempt at reassuring Americans that their concerns are groundless are not believed.  The many lies of President Obama in the past seven years pertaining to Obamacare, Benghazi and red lines, etc. have irreparably damaged his integrity.  Why should anyone believe anything he says?  He will lie if he thinks it will serve his interests.]

So how is it unreasonable, or “un-American,” for people not to want to take the risk… at least not now while the terrorists are seemingly on the loose everywhere?

As an aside, why does the White House offer to accept such refugees anyway?  Wouldn’t it make considerably more sense – be more humanitarian - for Sunni refugees to be resettled in close-by countries like Saudi Arabia where they share the same religious perspective?  Saudi Arabia, in particular, is financially better suited to assume the tasks involved. 

Keep in mind that our enemies in that part of the world view us as The Great Satan.  Infiltrating terrorists into our midst is undoubtedly a top priority.  The Syrian crisis brought on by Obama’s refusal to aid in the ouster of that country’s dictator is undoubtedly seen as a ripe opportunity by ISIS to serve that purpose.  We are not obligated to make their objective easier to achieve.  But an arrogant fool might pursue policies that would do so, anyway.

                                      +                 +                 +

Americans today are more upset and afraid than they’ve been since the days after 9/11.  Recent events warn us that, despite the fact that we have not been hit by a major terrorist attack in nearly fifteen years, the U.S. is not immune.  Recognizing such dangers, most Americans want to pull up the drawbridge.  This should not be a partisan issue.  Yet polling shows a significant divide.  While Republicans and independents want to stiffen immigrant screening, two-thirds of Democrats support the White House’s opposition to such a policy.  Does that mean that, still, most Democrats remain blindly loyal to Barack Obama?  Do they, in effect, trust him with their lives?  Evidently, the President is not the only fool in his party.

Is the President an Arrogant Fool?

It’s hard to find evidence that he’s not.

Consider Barack Obama’s response to the Parisian massacres.  He calls them “setbacks”.  That’s an odd way to refer to mass killings.  “Setback” is typically used to refer to a temporary thwarting of forward progress.  A more accurate appraisal would be that Paris showed a failure of prior policies to defeat ISIS.

But, of course, our president is unable to acknowledge that.  In fact, he pledges that such American policies will remain essentially unchanged.  (Those policies left undisturbed the ISIS oil “pipeline” which helps fund the terrorist group.  It took French fighter jets to attack – a year after the White House promised to defeat ISIS.)

That’s foolish, of course, but Obama has long been wedded to the belief that what he wants to believe will, by his thinking so, morph into reality. 

To be sure the world is full of fools who are such because they refuse to learn.  Yet it’s distressing and alarming in the extreme that the president of the greatest nation on earth is so afflicted.  Even the often foolish Jimmy Carter eventually wised-up while president about the nature of America’s enemies.

 

As if Obama’s ideologically shaped illusions are not appalling enough, his plain arrogance is maddening.  He chides anyone who suggests that his policies are inadequate and need strengthening.  He singles out Republican critics (although a few Democrats are among them) for sarcasm and dismisses their objections as without any merit.

Think of it.  He attacks those who have the temerity to say that his obviously failed policies are failures.

Doesn’t he remind you of the conceited high school “know it all” whose arrogance is without justification?

Barack Obama never grew out of it. 

                                +                        +                       +

Historically, I fear America will look back on its first black president with great sorrow about what might have been.  Why did he have to be such a disaster?

We are justifiably proud of so many “firsts”.  Not this one.

Forget fairness.  The racially prejudiced and bigoted in our land will long feel warranted in pointing a finger at the abysmal failures of Obama as justifying opposition to another presidential candidate of color.  

Democrats in Wonderland

Watching the Democrats debate on Saturday night brought to mind Lewis Carroll’s classic satire, Alice in Wonderland.

A few hours after the Paris terrorist attacks, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders insisted that global warming remained, in his view, the major threat to American security.  Huh?

Hillary Clinton, asked by the CBS moderator why she avoided the term radical Islamist, said our fight is not against all Muslins so we should call our enemies “radical jihadists”.  Huh?

The Iowa audience, presumably heavily Democratic, was silent when the three candidates, including ex-Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, pledged their solidarity with France in the war against terror.  But the applause was intense when Mrs. Clinton bragged that her candidacy was supported by a majority of women.

     *       *      *

If there is an alternate universe, liberal Democrats (is there any other type these days?) are in it.  Will the general electorate join them?  One hopes that Paris will keep them grounded.  Historically, when national security is the paramount concern, Republicans prevail.  Liberals tend to hope for the best; Conservatives are prepared for the worst.  Reality usually reflects the latter.  The battle against evil never ends.

Putin – Best Laid Plans Gone Astray

The ISIS bombing of a Russian civilian plane has thrown a hitch in Vladimir Putin’s plans for the Middle East.  As predicted here on October 4, the Russian tyrant’s intention in getting involved in Syria was to boot the Assad regime by first destroying the pro-western forces opposing the Syrian dictator.  Then, after that, move against ISIS.  And that is precisely what he has sought to do, until the terrorist attack upended the Russian time table.

Evidently, the Sunni terrorists weren’t willing to wait until Putin had decided to take them on so they struck first.

What happens next?  Expect the Russian reaction to be ruthless.  That’s their style.  They care not one whit about collateral damage or the extent of harm caused to non-terrorist elements in the vicinity of ISIS targets.  So called surgical strikes are tools of soft, overly sensitive western militaries.  Sledge-hammer assaults are more reliable in decimating any resistance.  Ask the Chechnyains of a would-be break-away province of Russia still living in the rubble created by Putin’s forces.  Undoubtedly there will be a change in Russian priorities.  That means a lessening of military pressure on the pro-western elements in Syria and any remaining in Iraq. 

Alas, the Obama Administration is unlikely to take advantage of this opportunity to significantly aid those forces.  The President has repeatedly shown a reluctance to forcefully assert U.S. interests.

It’s reasonable to expect that Putin – having long ago take the measure of Barack Obama – believes that a shift in priorities to ISIS now will not significantly impact his plan to bolster Syria’s Assad.  The American president will not effectively interfere.

Public Opinion – A Cautionary Note

Public opinion is repeatedly cited by commentators as “supporting” this or “opposing” that as if the consensus matters.

To be sure, in a democracy (used in the popular, not ancient Greek, sense) public opinion should not be ignored.

Do people support, for instance, Iran’s nuclear deal, Obamacare or money for Planned Parenthood?  The fact that public opinion is so often ignored is undoubtedly a key component of the broad electorate’s distrust of America’s politicians.

 

But it is appropriate that a person’s opinion should be worthy of respect only if it is informed and intelligent.  Do we credit the view of a person on climate change if he thinks it’s controlled by Martians?

Yes, a person can register his like or dislike of a political candidate and that certainly will be recognized in a campaign poll.  But his view of a public policy matter should be weighed differently.  Does he know what he’s talking about?  Is he informed about the subject matter? 

The truth is few respondents to polls are.  Most people don’t follow the news on TV or read newspapers.  They’d rather watch Entertainment Tonight or read People magazine.

A political philosopher can observe that a self-governing people have an obligation to be educated about current and national affairs.  Ok.  However, the practical solution is for people to select representatives to make appropriate decisions on their behalf (a republican form of government as opposed to a classical democracy).  And that is exactly what the Founders. In 1787, gave America.

Modern democracies have muddled the distinction, however.  We poll public opinion on matters of which most respondents know nothing (appropriate policy in the Middle East, for instance).  We report the results as if they should be a guide to American conduct.  Ridiculous.

An illustration on the level of public knowledge:  Is President Barack Obama a Muslim?

In 2010, two years into his presidency, nearly twenty per cent of the American populace thought him to be a follower of Mohammed.  Included in these numbers were ten percent of the Democrats and seven percent of the black population.

 

In 2015, Donald Trump is drawing support from about one-fourth of the GOP electorate - over half of his backers also believe that Obama is a Muslim.

How can people think that? 

Yes, his name would suggest that he is a foreigner (Barack Hussein Obama) with roots in the Middle East.  Evidently, for many Americans, that means that he’s a Muslim. 

But that view flies in the face of the President’s repeated proclamations of his Christian faith.  Remember Rev. Jeremiah Wright?  Obama was a regular attendee at the Christian pastor’s radical, often anti-American, sermons.

People who think that Barack Obama is Muslim haven’t done their homework.  They are ignorant and, truth be told, rather typical Americans.

NOTE:  I recognize that some on the right may infer that Obama is concealing his true religious allegiances.  As proof, they might cite his foreign policy as a thinly veiled effort to undercut the prestige, power and authority of western Christian civilization.  It’s not as if our President has developed a reputation for being truthful.  The Sensible Conservative, however, thinks his disastrous conduct on the foreign scene is far more likely attributable to his naivete and guilt-ridden liberal conscience than his being an “undercover Muslim”.