"Thou shalt not follow the multitude to do evil;"
yrs,
rubato
biblical advice
biblical advice
Exodus 23:2
yrs,
rubato
yrs,
rubato
Re: biblical advice
Other than the media-generated smoke there is not much of a story here.
It came to a head last week when, immediately after the Paris bombings and shootings, Our Beloved President announced his intention to welcome at least ten thousand refugees from the same part of the world as the terrorists, mainly professing the same "faith" as the terrorists (whom the OBP refuses to label "terrorists") who acted in France. [Footnotally, one might acknowledge that the terrorists who acted in France were mainly in the second generation from Arab/Muslim countries, causing much of the Media to label them European. Bullshit].
As always, OBP's timing was impeccable.
The often-cited "vetting" process for these Syrian "refugees" may be somewhat hampered by the fact that THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT IN SYRIA that can be queried about the personal histories of the people in question. Further, it is not clear where these folks will squat during the vetting process; clearly, someplace on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean (from us) would be more than preferable.
There are more than fifty countries that are either formally or mainly Muslim, and yet these people seem all to want to come to Western "democracies." Does anyone besides me find that curious?
The United States of America, as a nation, is obliged to act like a sovereign nation. That is, it MUST be the authority which decides who gets to immigrate, and weeds out those who may not. It MUST use rational criteria to make those decisions, and the criteria MUST be based on the best interests of everyone already legally here in the U.S.: its citizens and legal residents. American immigration policy MUST NOT be twisted to be for the benefit of those who wish to emigrate; EVERYBODY wants to come here. So what?
The U.S. has no obligation, moral, legal, or otherwise, to accept "refugees," except to the extent that the U.S. precipitated the conditions that forced the refugees out of their home countries (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq, possibly Cuba). The U.N. may suggest that the U.S. accept some number of Syrian refugees (I understand that the number 15,000 is currently on the table for the U.S.), but it is merely that, a suggestion or a request.
The Political Left in this country, in the guise of "compassion," continually seeks the immigration of persons who will be dependent on government, knowing that they and/or their dependents will almost exclusively support the political party that most effectively distributes the benefits of the welfare state, even as we sink deeper and deeper into national bankruptcy.
Mr. Trump has tapped into the anger of middle-class, working, white Americans about this continual assault on our national sovereignty. Other Republican politicians are reluctant to take the same positions because (1) their most "generous" donors want a lot of cheap illegal labor in the country, and (2) they are afraid that they will be branded "racist" (or worse) in the MSM.
There are many historical precedents for stopping immigration from hostile countries in time of war (or the anticipation of war). No Japanese, Germans, or Austrians were able to immigrate in the leadup to WWII or during the war itself. We are "at war" with "Radical Islam," and they are definitely at war with us. There is no reason in the world why we could not, or should not, simply say, we are not accepting immigration from Arab/Muslim countries at this time. EB5 or no.
Such a move would be fully supported by a strong majority of Americans. Limiting it to gainfully-employed Americans, it would be 75%
It came to a head last week when, immediately after the Paris bombings and shootings, Our Beloved President announced his intention to welcome at least ten thousand refugees from the same part of the world as the terrorists, mainly professing the same "faith" as the terrorists (whom the OBP refuses to label "terrorists") who acted in France. [Footnotally, one might acknowledge that the terrorists who acted in France were mainly in the second generation from Arab/Muslim countries, causing much of the Media to label them European. Bullshit].
As always, OBP's timing was impeccable.
The often-cited "vetting" process for these Syrian "refugees" may be somewhat hampered by the fact that THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT IN SYRIA that can be queried about the personal histories of the people in question. Further, it is not clear where these folks will squat during the vetting process; clearly, someplace on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean (from us) would be more than preferable.
There are more than fifty countries that are either formally or mainly Muslim, and yet these people seem all to want to come to Western "democracies." Does anyone besides me find that curious?
The United States of America, as a nation, is obliged to act like a sovereign nation. That is, it MUST be the authority which decides who gets to immigrate, and weeds out those who may not. It MUST use rational criteria to make those decisions, and the criteria MUST be based on the best interests of everyone already legally here in the U.S.: its citizens and legal residents. American immigration policy MUST NOT be twisted to be for the benefit of those who wish to emigrate; EVERYBODY wants to come here. So what?
The U.S. has no obligation, moral, legal, or otherwise, to accept "refugees," except to the extent that the U.S. precipitated the conditions that forced the refugees out of their home countries (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq, possibly Cuba). The U.N. may suggest that the U.S. accept some number of Syrian refugees (I understand that the number 15,000 is currently on the table for the U.S.), but it is merely that, a suggestion or a request.
The Political Left in this country, in the guise of "compassion," continually seeks the immigration of persons who will be dependent on government, knowing that they and/or their dependents will almost exclusively support the political party that most effectively distributes the benefits of the welfare state, even as we sink deeper and deeper into national bankruptcy.
Mr. Trump has tapped into the anger of middle-class, working, white Americans about this continual assault on our national sovereignty. Other Republican politicians are reluctant to take the same positions because (1) their most "generous" donors want a lot of cheap illegal labor in the country, and (2) they are afraid that they will be branded "racist" (or worse) in the MSM.
There are many historical precedents for stopping immigration from hostile countries in time of war (or the anticipation of war). No Japanese, Germans, or Austrians were able to immigrate in the leadup to WWII or during the war itself. We are "at war" with "Radical Islam," and they are definitely at war with us. There is no reason in the world why we could not, or should not, simply say, we are not accepting immigration from Arab/Muslim countries at this time. EB5 or no.
Such a move would be fully supported by a strong majority of Americans. Limiting it to gainfully-employed Americans, it would be 75%
Re: biblical advice
I find it rather humorous that our resident atheist uses Scripture to make his point.
rubato wrote:Exodus 23:2"Thou shalt not follow the multitude to do evil;"
yrs,
rubato
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato