SYRIAN REFUGEES -- HIGH RISK


RISK OF GIVING REFUGE TO TERRORISTS IS TOO HIGH TO IGNORE

SYRIAN REFUGEES: A few weeks ago the question of the Daily Press Newspaper (Tribune) to the Saturday morning DP Buzz contributors was, “SHOULD WE BRING REFUGEES INTO THE USA OR NOT? My answer was, and remains, “Emotions cry out (scream) to give them refuge, but analytical, objective and logical thinking says that, since America is the major target of radical Islamic terrorists, our government cannot justify admitting them and still uphold the major constitutional obligation to provide security for Americans. Rather, we should assist in placing them in places not subject to terrorism. It should be the Middle East nations, but at this time it is probably too late. There is now too much evidence of masses of young men without women and children seeking refuge to ignore terrorism aspects of this mass movement of people.

And by the way, it is totally unacceptable for “President” Obama to politically chide opponents of giving refuge as not wanting to protect women and orphans. His commentary is more reprehensible with event or action.
SYRIAN REFUGEES: A few weeks ago the question of the Daily Press Newspaper to the Saturday morning DP Buzz contributors was, “SHOULD WE BRING REFUGEES INTO THE USA OR NOT? My answer was, and remains, “Emotions cry out (scream) to give them refuge, but analytical, objective and logical thinking says that, since America is the major target of radical Islamic terrorists, our government cannot justify admitting them and still uphold the major constitutional obligation to provide security for Americans. Rather, we should assist in placing them in places not subject to terrorism. It should be the Middle East nations, but at this time it is probably too late. There is now too much evidence of masses of young men without women and children seeking refuge to ignore terrorism aspects of this mass movement of people.

And by the way, it is totally unacceptable for “President” Obama to politically chide opponents of giving refuge as not wanting to protect women and orphans. His commentary is more reprehensible with event or action.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AMERICAN AIRLINES -- MORE ABOUT UNIONS AND CH 11

I apologize for the structure of the post below, with no segmentation, but the system refuses to do it my way. To my post yesterday re AMR's chapter 11 filing relating my experiences over many years flying with AA, an AA pilot wrote a thoughtful comment that caused me to think a bit more about the precursors to conditions of their bankruptcy. Frankly, I have what is perhaps too much experience with trade unions and their excesses, but know less about others such as the airlines. After learning more about the negotiations of AA with their unions, I now think it's justifiable to post the comments below. I've seen too many industries destroyed by union excesses coupled with management incompetence in caving to excess demands. Start with coal (dead for many years), steel, textiles, shoes, electronics manufacturing, and more.  The Detroit 3 (once the big 3) deserves special mention. As their costs rose to $72/hour (fully loaded) and costs in the southern industry w
Read more

LEFTIST MIND-SET OF TODAY -- REFLEXIVE, THOUGHTLESS SUPPORT FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

"Trying to persuade a prejudiced mind is as Sisyphean as trying to open a closed mind is Quixotic." Mann, May 2012 In a blog post herein below on May 1, 2013, I outlined what we who manage people and enterprises know as absolutes about performances of people who are put into management and supervisory positions for which they haven't requisite qualifications. For those who have progressed through several jobs to their level of incompetence, this is known as the Peter Principle as defined by Laurence J. Peter. In all likelihood, all who have managed people for any length of time have seen this principle played out. While Peter's observation applies to progression through multiple job levels, if a person is put into any job for which he is unqualified, the concept is also valid. Elective political positions is where I see this most often played out. The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is the most significant example of this in my lif
Read more

ETHANOL -- The worst mandate ever gets even worse

When politicians get control of science and the inept or dishonest scientists, nothing good comes of it. There are many examples -- global warming (aka climate change) is the most prominent. The ethanol mandate, although a part of the climate change mania, stands on its own as arguably the most ridiculous mandate of all time. President Jimmy Carter, who was influenced by a misguided college professor, can be charged with the mistake of promulgating the ethanol mandate.  Of course, Al Gore is the politician who played the global warming issue like a drum and has benefited financially from it. Use of ethanol in motor fuel is not a net positive either in costs or in impact on the environment.... enormous hype to the contrary notwithstanding. Ethanol does not have the positive effect on the environment as touted. It has only about 60% of the specific energy of petroleum fuel, which begs use of more fuel to achieve the same energy as petroleum fuel. And, so it does. I have my own experie
Read more