Thursday, March 30, 2017
ILLEGAL Immigration
A friend posted a link to a piece by Victor Davis Hanson over on FB. It's called the Civic Cost of Illegal Immigration and is published by the Hoover Institution. You can read it here. As usual with Mr Hanson, the article is well written, logical, and presents a case that is pretty difficult to contradict.
As I've stated previously on this blog, immigration is something we have royally screwed up. Because of President Trump's focus on securing our borders and bringing immigration under control, it is getting a lot of attention. Unfortunately, a lot of the attention is wild and crazy hyperbole by the Democrats. And that is because, it seems to me, they are violently and passionately opposed to anything that President Trump is for so they will say and do anything to subvert is plans.
So if you want a calm, reasoned discussion about illegal immigration, check out this article. It's mostly about illegal immigration, but that is an aspect of the whole immigration issue that we have royally screwed up and need to come to grips with.
I'm going to copy and paste the whole thing below so you don't have to follow the link if this is easier.
The Civic Cost Of Illegal Immigration
by Victor Davis Hanson
via Defining Ideas (Hoover Institution)
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
The arguments for ignoring illegal immigration are as well-known as the self-interested motives that drive it.
In the abstract, open-borders advocates argue that in a globalized culture, borders are becoming reactionary and artificial constructs. They should not interrupt more natural ebbs and flows of migrant populations.
More concretely, an array of vested interests sees advantage in dismantling the border: employers in hospitality, construction, food processing, and agriculture prefer hard-working low-wage immigrants, whose social needs are often subsidized by the government and who are reluctant to organize for higher wages.
The Democratic Party welcomes in impoverished immigrants from Latin America and Mexico. It hopes to provide generous social welfare assistance and thereby shepherd new arrivals and their offspring into the salad bowl of victimization and identity politics—and thereby change the electoral map of key states from red to blue.
La Raza activists see unchecked illegal immigration as useful in maintaining a large pool of unassimilated and poor foreign nationals who look to group leaders, thereby ensuring the continuance of what has become an industry of ethnic activism and careerism.
Mexico—which is now offering advice to illegal immigrants on how best to avoid U.S. federal immigration authorities—has the most to gain by porous borders. It envisions the United States as a relief valve destination to export its own poor and desperate rather than to have them agitate and demand costly social services from Mexico City.
Mexico enjoys some $25 billion in annual remittances, predicated on the unspoken assumption that its poor and hard-working expatriates can only afford to send such vast sums out of the United States through the magnanimity of the American social welfare system that helps subsidize families to free up hard-earned cash. Mexico has learned that its own expatriates are loyal proponents who romanticize Mexico—the farther away and longer they are absent from it.
Yet lost in this conundrum are the pernicious effects of illegal immigration on the idea of citizenship in a consensual society. In the Western constitutional tradition, citizenship was based upon shared assumptions that were often codified in foundational constitutional documents.
The first pillar of citizenship is the idea that the nation-state has the sole right to create and control its own borders. The duty of all Western constitutions, dating back to those of the Greek city-states, was to protect their own citizens within clearly defined and defensible borders. Without a finite space, no consensual society can make rules and laws for its own, enhance and preserve commonalities of language and culture, or raise a military to protect its own self-interest.
Borders are not normally artificial or post-colonial constructs, but natural boundaries that usually arise to reflect common bonds of language, culture, habit, and tradition. These ties are sometimes fragile and limited, and cannot operate on universal terms; indeed, they become attenuated when borders disappear and residents not only have little in common, but lack the mechanisms or even the desire to assimilate and integrate their migrant populations.
When borders are fluid and unenforced, it inevitably follows that assimilation and integration also become lax, as society loses a sense of who, or even where, their residents are. And the idea that the Bill of Rights should apply to those beyond U.S. borders may be a noble sentiment, but the practical effect of such utopianism is to open a Pandora’s box of impossible enforcement, affronts to foreign governments, endless litigation, and a diversion of resources away from protecting the rights of citizens at home.
Residency is also confused with citizenship, but they are no more the same than are guests at a dinner party and the party’s hosts, who own the home.
A country reverts to tribalism unless immigrants enter it legally—often based on the host’s determination of how easily and rapidly they can become citizens, and the degree to which they can benefit their adopted country—and embrace its customs, language, and habits.
The Balkans, Rwanda, and Iraq remind us that states without common citizen ties, affinities, rights, and responsibilities become fragmented and violent, as their diverse populations share no investment in the welfare of the commonwealth. What plagues contemporary Iraq and Syria is the lack of clearly defined borders, and often shifting and migrating populations that have no stake in the country of their residence, resulting in competing tribes that vie for political control to aid their own and punish the Other.
A second pillar of citizenship is the sanctity of the law.
What also separates Western and Westernized nations from often impoverished and unsecure states is a notion that citizens entrust their elected representatives with the crafting of laws and then show their fealty by obeying the resulting legislation.
The sanctity of the entire legal system in a republic rests on two important corollaries: citizens cannot pick and choose which laws they obey—either on the grounds that some are deemed bothersome and not in their own self-interest, or on the pretext that they are minor and their violation does not impair society at large.
Citizenship instead demands that unpopular or unworkable laws be amended or repealed by the proper legislative and judicial branches of government, not by popular neglect or violation. Once immigration law goes unenforced, there are pernicious ramifications. First, citizens question why all laws are not equally subject to nullification. If the immigrant is excused from obeying immigration law, is the citizen likewise exempt from IRS statutes or simple traffic laws?
Second, the immigrant himself adopts a mindset that obeying the law is unimportant. Currently among illegal aliens, there is an epidemic of identity theft, forged government affidavits, and the use of fake social security numbers. Open-borders advocates do not disagree that these violations undermine a society, but instead argue that such desperate measures are needed for impoverished illegal aliens to survive in the shadows. Perhaps, but equally true is that once an illegal resident discovers that some of the laws of the host are not enforced, he then assumes others will not be either.
In truth, illegal aliens lose respect for their hosts, concluding that if Americans do not care to enforce their own laws, foreign nationals need not abide by them either. In reductionist terms, when an immigrant’s first act when entering the United States involves breaking the law, then all subsequent violations become only that much easier.
Besides secure borders and respect for the laws, a third tenet of citizenship is the idea of equal applicability of the law. Citizens in modern Western societies are assured that their laws are applied in the same manner to all citizens regardless of differences in class, gender, race, or religion.
Illegal immigration insidiously erodes such equality under the law. When millions of foreign nationals reside illegally in the United States, a myriad of laws must be enforced unequally to perpetuate the initial transgression. Illegal immigration does not just imply illegal entry, but also continued illegal residence and all that entails on a daily basis.
Sanctuary cities protect illegal aliens from federal immigration agencies in a way that is not true of American citizens who arrive at airports and must go through customs, with no exemption from federal agents examining their passports and personal histories. If crimes or infractions are found, there is no safe space at an airport exempt from federal enforcement.
In California, thousands of illegal aliens have operated automobiles without mandatory insurance, driver’s licenses, and registrations, and, in some municipalities, are not arrested for such violations—even as American citizens who cannot claim such apparent mitigating circumstances are.
In my own vicinity in rural California, there are hundreds of dwellings where multiple families in trailers, sheds, and garages reside, employing illegal water, power, and sewage hookups. Most are more or less left alone by county authorities. The apparent rationale is that such violations are too chronic and widespread to be addressed, or that it simply does not pay for cash-strapped agencies to enforce the law in the case of those who are unable or unwilling to pay substantial fines.
Either way, the nearby citizen who is hounded by county or federal authorities on matters concerning the proper height of his mailbox, or the exact distance between a new leach line and his existing well, feels that the laws are unequally applied and loses confidence in the value of his own citizenship. He often sees it either as no real advantage over mere residency, or perhaps even a disadvantage.
In sum, there are several reasons to put a stop to illegal immigration. But among the most important and forgotten is the insidious destruction of what it means to be a citizen.
As I've stated previously on this blog, immigration is something we have royally screwed up. Because of President Trump's focus on securing our borders and bringing immigration under control, it is getting a lot of attention. Unfortunately, a lot of the attention is wild and crazy hyperbole by the Democrats. And that is because, it seems to me, they are violently and passionately opposed to anything that President Trump is for so they will say and do anything to subvert is plans.
So if you want a calm, reasoned discussion about illegal immigration, check out this article. It's mostly about illegal immigration, but that is an aspect of the whole immigration issue that we have royally screwed up and need to come to grips with.
I'm going to copy and paste the whole thing below so you don't have to follow the link if this is easier.
The Civic Cost Of Illegal Immigration
by Victor Davis Hanson
via Defining Ideas (Hoover Institution)
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
The arguments for ignoring illegal immigration are as well-known as the self-interested motives that drive it.
In the abstract, open-borders advocates argue that in a globalized culture, borders are becoming reactionary and artificial constructs. They should not interrupt more natural ebbs and flows of migrant populations.
More concretely, an array of vested interests sees advantage in dismantling the border: employers in hospitality, construction, food processing, and agriculture prefer hard-working low-wage immigrants, whose social needs are often subsidized by the government and who are reluctant to organize for higher wages.
The Democratic Party welcomes in impoverished immigrants from Latin America and Mexico. It hopes to provide generous social welfare assistance and thereby shepherd new arrivals and their offspring into the salad bowl of victimization and identity politics—and thereby change the electoral map of key states from red to blue.
La Raza activists see unchecked illegal immigration as useful in maintaining a large pool of unassimilated and poor foreign nationals who look to group leaders, thereby ensuring the continuance of what has become an industry of ethnic activism and careerism.
Mexico—which is now offering advice to illegal immigrants on how best to avoid U.S. federal immigration authorities—has the most to gain by porous borders. It envisions the United States as a relief valve destination to export its own poor and desperate rather than to have them agitate and demand costly social services from Mexico City.
Mexico enjoys some $25 billion in annual remittances, predicated on the unspoken assumption that its poor and hard-working expatriates can only afford to send such vast sums out of the United States through the magnanimity of the American social welfare system that helps subsidize families to free up hard-earned cash. Mexico has learned that its own expatriates are loyal proponents who romanticize Mexico—the farther away and longer they are absent from it.
Yet lost in this conundrum are the pernicious effects of illegal immigration on the idea of citizenship in a consensual society. In the Western constitutional tradition, citizenship was based upon shared assumptions that were often codified in foundational constitutional documents.
The first pillar of citizenship is the idea that the nation-state has the sole right to create and control its own borders. The duty of all Western constitutions, dating back to those of the Greek city-states, was to protect their own citizens within clearly defined and defensible borders. Without a finite space, no consensual society can make rules and laws for its own, enhance and preserve commonalities of language and culture, or raise a military to protect its own self-interest.
Borders are not normally artificial or post-colonial constructs, but natural boundaries that usually arise to reflect common bonds of language, culture, habit, and tradition. These ties are sometimes fragile and limited, and cannot operate on universal terms; indeed, they become attenuated when borders disappear and residents not only have little in common, but lack the mechanisms or even the desire to assimilate and integrate their migrant populations.
When borders are fluid and unenforced, it inevitably follows that assimilation and integration also become lax, as society loses a sense of who, or even where, their residents are. And the idea that the Bill of Rights should apply to those beyond U.S. borders may be a noble sentiment, but the practical effect of such utopianism is to open a Pandora’s box of impossible enforcement, affronts to foreign governments, endless litigation, and a diversion of resources away from protecting the rights of citizens at home.
Residency is also confused with citizenship, but they are no more the same than are guests at a dinner party and the party’s hosts, who own the home.
A country reverts to tribalism unless immigrants enter it legally—often based on the host’s determination of how easily and rapidly they can become citizens, and the degree to which they can benefit their adopted country—and embrace its customs, language, and habits.
The Balkans, Rwanda, and Iraq remind us that states without common citizen ties, affinities, rights, and responsibilities become fragmented and violent, as their diverse populations share no investment in the welfare of the commonwealth. What plagues contemporary Iraq and Syria is the lack of clearly defined borders, and often shifting and migrating populations that have no stake in the country of their residence, resulting in competing tribes that vie for political control to aid their own and punish the Other.
A second pillar of citizenship is the sanctity of the law.
What also separates Western and Westernized nations from often impoverished and unsecure states is a notion that citizens entrust their elected representatives with the crafting of laws and then show their fealty by obeying the resulting legislation.
The sanctity of the entire legal system in a republic rests on two important corollaries: citizens cannot pick and choose which laws they obey—either on the grounds that some are deemed bothersome and not in their own self-interest, or on the pretext that they are minor and their violation does not impair society at large.
Citizenship instead demands that unpopular or unworkable laws be amended or repealed by the proper legislative and judicial branches of government, not by popular neglect or violation. Once immigration law goes unenforced, there are pernicious ramifications. First, citizens question why all laws are not equally subject to nullification. If the immigrant is excused from obeying immigration law, is the citizen likewise exempt from IRS statutes or simple traffic laws?
Second, the immigrant himself adopts a mindset that obeying the law is unimportant. Currently among illegal aliens, there is an epidemic of identity theft, forged government affidavits, and the use of fake social security numbers. Open-borders advocates do not disagree that these violations undermine a society, but instead argue that such desperate measures are needed for impoverished illegal aliens to survive in the shadows. Perhaps, but equally true is that once an illegal resident discovers that some of the laws of the host are not enforced, he then assumes others will not be either.
In truth, illegal aliens lose respect for their hosts, concluding that if Americans do not care to enforce their own laws, foreign nationals need not abide by them either. In reductionist terms, when an immigrant’s first act when entering the United States involves breaking the law, then all subsequent violations become only that much easier.
Besides secure borders and respect for the laws, a third tenet of citizenship is the idea of equal applicability of the law. Citizens in modern Western societies are assured that their laws are applied in the same manner to all citizens regardless of differences in class, gender, race, or religion.
Illegal immigration insidiously erodes such equality under the law. When millions of foreign nationals reside illegally in the United States, a myriad of laws must be enforced unequally to perpetuate the initial transgression. Illegal immigration does not just imply illegal entry, but also continued illegal residence and all that entails on a daily basis.
Sanctuary cities protect illegal aliens from federal immigration agencies in a way that is not true of American citizens who arrive at airports and must go through customs, with no exemption from federal agents examining their passports and personal histories. If crimes or infractions are found, there is no safe space at an airport exempt from federal enforcement.
In California, thousands of illegal aliens have operated automobiles without mandatory insurance, driver’s licenses, and registrations, and, in some municipalities, are not arrested for such violations—even as American citizens who cannot claim such apparent mitigating circumstances are.
In my own vicinity in rural California, there are hundreds of dwellings where multiple families in trailers, sheds, and garages reside, employing illegal water, power, and sewage hookups. Most are more or less left alone by county authorities. The apparent rationale is that such violations are too chronic and widespread to be addressed, or that it simply does not pay for cash-strapped agencies to enforce the law in the case of those who are unable or unwilling to pay substantial fines.
Either way, the nearby citizen who is hounded by county or federal authorities on matters concerning the proper height of his mailbox, or the exact distance between a new leach line and his existing well, feels that the laws are unequally applied and loses confidence in the value of his own citizenship. He often sees it either as no real advantage over mere residency, or perhaps even a disadvantage.
In sum, there are several reasons to put a stop to illegal immigration. But among the most important and forgotten is the insidious destruction of what it means to be a citizen.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Hatred of our President
With each passing day I'm more and more disappointed and perplexed by the vile hatred I see directed towards President Trump by otherwise seemingly reasonable people. That my fellow Americans are so angry at the President that they are determined to do everything in their power to subvert any policy put forth based on a previously unseen level of hatred is just unprecedented. At least in my lifetime it is. I think that there was probably just as much hatred of Lincoln, but that's a long time ago.
I knew that a lot of people hated some of his views and positions during the campaign, but I thought that they would moderate themselves when he won. I knew that a lot of people wanted and expected Hillary to win, but I thought that when she didn't they would see the peaceful transfer of power and resist some of his policies and support some things that they could live with. After all, this is how it's normally been. I thought that since he is not a traditional conservative, that there would be some Democrats who would be willing to work with him on some of his positions that would be acceptable to the other side. I thought that at some point the press would eventually start to treat him fairly. I thought that this ridiculous Russia story would eventually fade. I thought that people would see the need to protect our borders and get rid of criminal, illegal aliens. I thought that the existential threat from political Islam would be recognized and he would receive support in the war against it.
But I was wrong. It is amazing to me that so many people can't get past his personality and hate him personally. There seems to be no ability to have a policy discussion. There seems to be no ability to seek the greater good. Compromise is gone. The press have no desire to moderate their hatred. There a judges that are determined to thwart his policies based on their hatred of him.
I can barely watch the news and I've had to hide or unfollow many friends on Facebook. I'm careful not to make any political statements over there because it immediately brings out morons who know nothing but hate.
Frankly, it's worrisome. I know it's early and some successes should normally beget a let up in the hate. But I'm not sure. I'm just not sure...
I knew that a lot of people hated some of his views and positions during the campaign, but I thought that they would moderate themselves when he won. I knew that a lot of people wanted and expected Hillary to win, but I thought that when she didn't they would see the peaceful transfer of power and resist some of his policies and support some things that they could live with. After all, this is how it's normally been. I thought that since he is not a traditional conservative, that there would be some Democrats who would be willing to work with him on some of his positions that would be acceptable to the other side. I thought that at some point the press would eventually start to treat him fairly. I thought that this ridiculous Russia story would eventually fade. I thought that people would see the need to protect our borders and get rid of criminal, illegal aliens. I thought that the existential threat from political Islam would be recognized and he would receive support in the war against it.
But I was wrong. It is amazing to me that so many people can't get past his personality and hate him personally. There seems to be no ability to have a policy discussion. There seems to be no ability to seek the greater good. Compromise is gone. The press have no desire to moderate their hatred. There a judges that are determined to thwart his policies based on their hatred of him.
I can barely watch the news and I've had to hide or unfollow many friends on Facebook. I'm careful not to make any political statements over there because it immediately brings out morons who know nothing but hate.
Frankly, it's worrisome. I know it's early and some successes should normally beget a let up in the hate. But I'm not sure. I'm just not sure...
Monday, March 27, 2017
Political Islam
Ayaan Hersi Ali is one of the smartest, most experienced, and logical commentators on the scene today about the problems between the West and Islam. She has written a great document sponsorted by the Hoover Institution titled, "How to Counter Political Islam". It is a well-written piece that provides not only really wonderful insight into the problems we are encountering with political Islam, but also some precient strategies to go about thwarting the threat.
You can read the report at this link.
I'm going to copy the Executive Summary below in case you don't have the time to read the entire thing (although you really should). This will give you a taste of the issues and the proposed solutions.
Immigration
As I said, this gives you an idea of the paper. However, if you, like me, think that the invasion of political Islam is a danger to our society akin to others we've confronted and defeated in the past, this will be educational and well worth your time.
You can read the report at this link.
I'm going to copy the Executive Summary below in case you don't have the time to read the entire thing (although you really should). This will give you a taste of the issues and the proposed solutions.
Executive Summary
Speaking in Youngstown, Ohio, on August 15, 2016,
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gave a
speech on what he unequivocally referred to as “radical
Islam.” He declared:
Nor can we let the hateful ideology of radical Islam—its oppression of women, gays, children, and nonbelievers— be allowed to reside or spread within our own countries . . . [W]e must use ideological warfare as well. Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of radical Islam. Our administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.1
Since Mr. Trump’s election victory and inauguration as pres- ident, much attention has been focused on hurried and probably temporary restrictions on refugees, visitors, and immigrants from a number of majority-Muslim countries. Almost no attention has been paid to the broader goals outlined in the Youngstown speech.
Islam.” He declared:
Nor can we let the hateful ideology of radical Islam—its oppression of women, gays, children, and nonbelievers— be allowed to reside or spread within our own countries . . . [W]e must use ideological warfare as well. Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of radical Islam. Our administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.1
Since Mr. Trump’s election victory and inauguration as pres- ident, much attention has been focused on hurried and probably temporary restrictions on refugees, visitors, and immigrants from a number of majority-Muslim countries. Almost no attention has been paid to the broader goals outlined in the Youngstown speech.
I argue that the speech heralded a paradigm shift away from
President Obama’s doctrine of focusing solely on the violence
committed by “extremists” to a more comprehensive approach
that seeks to undermine, degrade, and ultimately defeat political
Islam (or Islamism) as an ideology and a movement seeking to
in ltrate and undermine our free society.
A narrow focus on Islamist violence had the effect of restricting our options only to tools such as military intervention, electronic surveillance, and the criminal justice system. This approach has proved both costly and ineffective.
Moving beyond the controversy over his executive order on immigration, President Trump now has the chance to broaden our strategy. Instead of “combating violent extremism,” his adminis- tration needs to rede ne the threat posed by political Islam by recognizing it as an ideology that is fundamentally incompatible with our freedoms and a movement that is working insidiously but effectively to achieve its stated utopia.2
I argue that the American public urgently needs to be edu- cated about both the ideology of political Islam and the organi- zational infrastructure called dawa that Islamists use to inspire, indoctrinate, recruit, nance, and mobilize those Muslims whom they win over to their cause.
There is no point in denying that this ideology has its foun- dation in Islamic doctrine.3 However, “Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Muslims” are distinct concepts. Not all Muslims are Islamists, let alone violent, though all Islamists—including those who use violence—are Muslims. I believe the religion of Islam itself is indeed capable of reformation, if only to distinguish it more clearly from the political ideology of Islamism. But that task of reform can only be carried out by Muslims. Happily, there is a growing number of reformist Muslims. Part of the Trump
A narrow focus on Islamist violence had the effect of restricting our options only to tools such as military intervention, electronic surveillance, and the criminal justice system. This approach has proved both costly and ineffective.
Moving beyond the controversy over his executive order on immigration, President Trump now has the chance to broaden our strategy. Instead of “combating violent extremism,” his adminis- tration needs to rede ne the threat posed by political Islam by recognizing it as an ideology that is fundamentally incompatible with our freedoms and a movement that is working insidiously but effectively to achieve its stated utopia.2
I argue that the American public urgently needs to be edu- cated about both the ideology of political Islam and the organi- zational infrastructure called dawa that Islamists use to inspire, indoctrinate, recruit, nance, and mobilize those Muslims whom they win over to their cause.
There is no point in denying that this ideology has its foun- dation in Islamic doctrine.3 However, “Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Muslims” are distinct concepts. Not all Muslims are Islamists, let alone violent, though all Islamists—including those who use violence—are Muslims. I believe the religion of Islam itself is indeed capable of reformation, if only to distinguish it more clearly from the political ideology of Islamism. But that task of reform can only be carried out by Muslims. Happily, there is a growing number of reformist Muslims. Part of the Trump
administration’s strategy must be to support and empower
them.
The other part of the strategy requires confronting dawa, a term unfamiliar to Americans. Dawa as practiced by radical Islamists employs a wide range of mechanisms to advance their goal of imposing Islamic law (sharia) on society. This includes proselytizing but extends beyond that.4 In Western countries, dawa aims both to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and to instill Islamist views in existing Muslims.5 The ultimate goal of dawa is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with the rule of sharia law.
Dawa is to the Islamists of today what the “long march through the institutions” was to twentieth-century Marxists. It is subversion from within—the abuse of religious freedom in order to undermine that very freedom. Another analogy is also possible. After Islamists gain power, dawa is to them what Gleichschaltung6 (synchronization) of all aspects of German state, civil, and social institutions was to the National Socialists.
There are of course differences. The biggest difference is that dawa is rooted in the Islamic practice of attempting to convert non-Muslims to accept the message of Islam. As it is an ostensibly religious missionary activity, proponents of dawa enjoy a much greater protection by the law in free societies than Marxists or fascists did in the past.
Worse, Islamist groups have enjoyed not just protection but at times of cial sponsorship from government agencies duped into regarding them as representatives of “moderate Muslims” simply because they do not engage in violence.
All this means that the new administration urgently needs to devise an anti-dawa counterstrategy that employs the full range of tools at our disposal.
The other part of the strategy requires confronting dawa, a term unfamiliar to Americans. Dawa as practiced by radical Islamists employs a wide range of mechanisms to advance their goal of imposing Islamic law (sharia) on society. This includes proselytizing but extends beyond that.4 In Western countries, dawa aims both to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and to instill Islamist views in existing Muslims.5 The ultimate goal of dawa is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with the rule of sharia law.
Dawa is to the Islamists of today what the “long march through the institutions” was to twentieth-century Marxists. It is subversion from within—the abuse of religious freedom in order to undermine that very freedom. Another analogy is also possible. After Islamists gain power, dawa is to them what Gleichschaltung6 (synchronization) of all aspects of German state, civil, and social institutions was to the National Socialists.
There are of course differences. The biggest difference is that dawa is rooted in the Islamic practice of attempting to convert non-Muslims to accept the message of Islam. As it is an ostensibly religious missionary activity, proponents of dawa enjoy a much greater protection by the law in free societies than Marxists or fascists did in the past.
Worse, Islamist groups have enjoyed not just protection but at times of cial sponsorship from government agencies duped into regarding them as representatives of “moderate Muslims” simply because they do not engage in violence.
All this means that the new administration urgently needs to devise an anti-dawa counterstrategy that employs the full range of tools at our disposal.
4 the challenge of dawa
The purpose of this report is to suggest the basis for a new
anti-dawa strategy, designed to check the advance of political
Islam as an ideology and a movement.
In the rst part, I describe the constitution of political Islam: the foundational principles, terminology, and objectives of Isla- mist ideology.
In the second part, I analyze the infrastructure of political Islam, in particular the institutions and techniques of dawa.
In the third part, I propose a number of policies that I believe will, if properly implemented, halt the spread of political Islam in the United States and perhaps also abroad.
The report concludes with a series of detailed policy recom- mendations, grouped under seven headings. These are summa- rized in the following pages.
In the rst part, I describe the constitution of political Islam: the foundational principles, terminology, and objectives of Isla- mist ideology.
In the second part, I analyze the infrastructure of political Islam, in particular the institutions and techniques of dawa.
In the third part, I propose a number of policies that I believe will, if properly implemented, halt the spread of political Islam in the United States and perhaps also abroad.
The report concludes with a series of detailed policy recom- mendations, grouped under seven headings. These are summa- rized in the following pages.
Summary of Policy Recommendations
General
-
The administration should acknowledge that combating
political Islam by military means alone is not working.
-
The administration should de ne the enemy more clearly:
political Islam (Islamism) is not just a religion, but is also a
political ideology.
-
The administration should understand the signi cance of
Islamist dawa: the subversive, indoctrinating precursor to
jihad.
Government Outreach
-
In reaching out to the Muslim American community, the
administration should ally itself with genuine Muslim
moderates and reformers, not with “nonviolent” Islamists.
-
The administration should require the FBI to scrutinize
the ideological background and nature of the Islamic organizations it engages with and partners with to ensure that they are genuinely moderate, that is, not committed to the Islamist agenda.
• The current failing strategy known as “Countering Violent Extremism” should be abandoned and replaced.
Immigration
-
The administration, through the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), should subject immigrants and refugees to
ideological scrutiny.
-
The DHS should deny entry to foreign individuals involved
with or supportive of Islamism and related groups and
should refuse permanent residency and naturalization to such
individuals.
-
The administration should prioritize entry to the United
States of immigrants who have shown loyalty to the United
States.
Law and the Justice System
-
The secretary of state should designate the Egyptian chapter
of the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization
(FTO).
-
The administration should implement effective ideological
screening of chaplains employed by the Department of
Justice, the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense
(military chaplains), and the State Department.
Surveillance
-
The administration should systematically map the
infrastructure of subversive dawa activities around the world.
-
The administration should ensure reasonable surveillance of
Islamic centers and mosques that are credibly suspected of
engaging in subversive activities, such as the Islamic Society
of Boston.
-
The administration, through the Internal Revenue Service,
should revoke the tax-exempt status of organizations
connected to subversive Islamist activities.
Diplomacy
-
As a condition of US friendship, the administration should
require foreign governments as well as Islamic NGOs to stop
supporting and nancing subversive Islamist activities in the
United States.
-
The administration should use broadcast institutions
overseas (e.g., Voice of America) to ght the war of ideas by disseminating a counter-dawa message, highlighting the work of Muslim reformers and non-Islamist Muslims.
-
If a country or NGO cannot show veri able progress in
curbing its support for subversive dawa activities in the
United States, the administration should punish that country
or NGO in concrete terms, for example by trade sanctions or
cuts in aid payments.
Military Operations
-
The administration should meanwhile continue conventional
military operations against jihadist organizations.
-
However, the administration should also wage cyber war
on organizations engaged in Islamist dawa as well as those
engaged in jihad.
Sunday, March 26, 2017
Motivation Monday
I hesitated a bit to choose this for MM. But it's always motivating to start early and keep your eye on the prize!
Overwhelming...
Saw this over on FB and thought I'd share. I'm not sure that I agree with all of it, but there is a lot of truth here. At some point we have to not only there is a problem, but also that we need to do something about it. The question is, do we have the resolve?
A German's View on Islam - worth reading. This is one of the best explanations of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist. A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come.'
'My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
'We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.'
'The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.'
'The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.'
'The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
'History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.'
'Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.'
'Now Islamic prayers have been introduced inToronto and other public schools in Ontario, and, yes, in Ottawa, too, while the Lord's Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?). The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move in.'
'In Australia, and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look at the back of some of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within the nation's shores.'
'In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of "no-go" zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law...'
'As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.'
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Motivation Monday
I've been watching the PGA event at Bay Hill Golf Club in Florida this weekend. This is the Arnold Palmer tournament and the broadcast was filled with remembrances and tributes to Arnie. It was really very touching. If you think about it, I'm not sure there has been an athlete with a bigger impact and with as much humility as Arnold Palmer. Quite simply, he was a giant of the sport. There is even a hashtag to state just what kind of character he possessed in shorthand. It is #Arniewould. He deserves the tribute and I hope that his legacy will live for a long, long time.
During the weekend I saw this video. It's a commercial. Let me get that out of the way right up front. That being said, it's terrific. If you're a golfer, if you appreciate character, if you have a sense of history, if you have a heart...you will like this. If you're like me, you will love this!
During the weekend I saw this video. It's a commercial. Let me get that out of the way right up front. That being said, it's terrific. If you're a golfer, if you appreciate character, if you have a sense of history, if you have a heart...you will like this. If you're like me, you will love this!
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Good News...Bad News
An old truism is that any landing you can walk away from is a good one. But there are degrees...
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Immigration
A friend posted what I think is a really, really good article on Immigration over on FB. It's from the Economist and is very comprehensive. If you follow the link at the bottom of the article you can get to the whole thing. It's a long read but, in my view, a very good and thought provoking look at Hispanic immigration. You can get to it here.
I've written about this before and it continues to flummox me. Let me start with the obvious. As a country we really, really need to get our shit together regarding immigration. We are a country of immigrants. We must not retreat from that principle. We must have a system to accept people into this country and encourage their assimilation. That is how it's always been. But in the last several decades, this whole subject has become a political football and there is simply no courage on the part of our elected leaders to develop comprehensive immigration reform.
Let me also be blunt about many of my fellow Americans. You have your head up your ass when it comes to welcoming people to the country. Like I said, I've written about this before so if you've been reading at all, you know I have no time for illegal immigration. But we seem to have put all immigrants, especially Hispanic immigrants, into this giant bucket of criminals and drug dealers. Many people, and especially my fellow baby boomers, are blind to the obvious trends in the country. Simply put, white people are getting older and Hispanics are increasing in numbers in the younger population and we (old, white people like me) have to change our views and be open to solutions that will welcome people to the country.
I don't have all the answers. But it's obvious that the issue isn't going away. Most folks come here to better themselves and their families. And living in So Cal I can testify that most are taking jobs the rest of us don't want to do. So why not come up with an innovative guest worker program that is welcoming and expansive. Not amnesty. Not citizenship. But take folks out of the shadows and give them some dignity. But that's just one thing. We've got to figure out how to ensure that the young folks who are here and are coming here have a chance at the American dream. We also can't kid ourselves that there isn't a big problem with drugs and gangs. And those things need to be attacked aggressively. I know that there are many who don't believe this, but I think Trump is heading in this direction. At least I hope he is. Because, as I said, it's not going away. And sticking our heads in the sand is not an answer.
I've written about this before and it continues to flummox me. Let me start with the obvious. As a country we really, really need to get our shit together regarding immigration. We are a country of immigrants. We must not retreat from that principle. We must have a system to accept people into this country and encourage their assimilation. That is how it's always been. But in the last several decades, this whole subject has become a political football and there is simply no courage on the part of our elected leaders to develop comprehensive immigration reform.
Let me also be blunt about many of my fellow Americans. You have your head up your ass when it comes to welcoming people to the country. Like I said, I've written about this before so if you've been reading at all, you know I have no time for illegal immigration. But we seem to have put all immigrants, especially Hispanic immigrants, into this giant bucket of criminals and drug dealers. Many people, and especially my fellow baby boomers, are blind to the obvious trends in the country. Simply put, white people are getting older and Hispanics are increasing in numbers in the younger population and we (old, white people like me) have to change our views and be open to solutions that will welcome people to the country.
I don't have all the answers. But it's obvious that the issue isn't going away. Most folks come here to better themselves and their families. And living in So Cal I can testify that most are taking jobs the rest of us don't want to do. So why not come up with an innovative guest worker program that is welcoming and expansive. Not amnesty. Not citizenship. But take folks out of the shadows and give them some dignity. But that's just one thing. We've got to figure out how to ensure that the young folks who are here and are coming here have a chance at the American dream. We also can't kid ourselves that there isn't a big problem with drugs and gangs. And those things need to be attacked aggressively. I know that there are many who don't believe this, but I think Trump is heading in this direction. At least I hope he is. Because, as I said, it's not going away. And sticking our heads in the sand is not an answer.
Monday, March 13, 2017
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Caught Ya
What do you think? On-line betting? A new novel? Facebook? Porn? The possibilities are endless!
Let's Go Skydiving He Said
It'll be fun he said. Don't be a chicken he said. What's the worst that could happen he said. I'll even take photos he said. He's an asshole!
Monday, March 6, 2017
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Hysterically Ignorant
As I surf around social media I am continually struck by the ongoing vitriol against President Trump. It is mean, intense and relentless. I've read a few articles that there is a lot of the stuff coming from relatively few sites, most off shore. There is also a lot of speculation that many of the people spewing the worst stuff are being paid by the usual suspects. I sorta hope that is true because it is honestly really disappointing and disturbing that so many of my fellow Americans would speak and act so hatefully. But I don't know. What I do know is that most of it is hysterically ignorant. I think most who rant and rave just take their info from a familiar source, which may or may not be truthful.
I happened on a post over on Facebook from a guy who was responding to a question about working together to accomplish some things that both sides can agree on. I've seen these before but never as comprehensivly hateful (and mostly wrong) as this guy is. So I thought it might be useful (or at least interesting) to take all of his points and provide a bit of a counterpoint (in red).
"Several of my conservative friends have said that we should "work together" with the president and the Republican majority because they won the election and Trump is "everyone's president." This is my response:
•I will not forget how badly he and so many others treated former President Barack Obama for 8 years...I will not apologize for being against President Obama for the majority of his Presidency. I have said many times that he wasn't my guy, but I gave him a chance. He pretty quickly lost me but I gave him a chance. And I've talked to many who felt the same way. But there are were so many things that I couldn't agree with and that I thought endangered our country that I wound up strongly believing that he was the worst President of my lifetime and most likely in the bottom 3 in history. But I never, ever made hateful, demonizing remarks about him. And I didn't see remotely as many as I see for Trump. So I'm not buying this.
•I will not "work together" to privatize Medicare, cut Social Security and Medicaid. I've heard the uninformed say this over and over again. To be clear, this is BS. There are some responsible economists and Congressmen who have pointed out that these programs are a trainwreck and need to be fixed, but there is no political will to do it. This is a demonizing fantasy that won't happen.
•I will not "work together" to build a wall.The wall is a border. As in a sovereign border. Of our country. If you don't beleive in borders, well then I don't know what to say except to read my post titled "Illegal" a few days back. There is really only one place in the world that has open borders where people can flow freely back and forth. That's Europe. And it ain't working out too well.
•I will not "work together" to persecute Muslims.Don't know where this comes from. Maybe he's referring to the travel ban. I've written about this previously. The ban is not a ban on Muslims. It's targeted at countries that can't control or vet their immigrants coming here. 85% of Muslims are not impacted. And it's temporary. Other than that, I don't know what he's talking about.
•I will not "work together" to shut out refugees from other countries.We are talking a temporary travel ban from the worst of he worst countries until we get our shit together. Don't know how that is shutting out refugees. The truth is that we take in more refugees than any other country in the world. Period.
•I will not "work together" to lower taxes on the 1% and increase taxes on the middle class and poor.I'm not a tax genius and I don't think this guy is either. This is an old accusation. And it's bunk. I heard the Treasury Secretary being interviewed today. The tax cut they are working on is clearly targeted to reduce corporate taxes to stimulate growth and a tax cut to benefit the middle class. Period.
•I will not "work together" to help Trump use the Presidency to line his pockets and those of his family and cronies.Another old, general accusation for which there is absolutely no evidence of nor any motivation for him to do this. He's a billionaire for goodness sakes.
•I will not "work together" to weaken and demolish environmental protection.This one is in the eye of the beholder. He is reducing regulations. There is no denying that. But I would argue that the pendulum had swung so far to the extreme when it comes to environmental issues, it wouldn't be so bad to come back a ways toward reality.
•I will not "work together" to sell American lands, especially National Parks, to companies which then despoil those lands.This is total fabrication. No evidence of this. It's fake news.
•I will not "work together" to enable the killing of whole species of animals just because they are predators, or inconvenient for a few, or because some people like killing them.This comes out of left field and makes no sense. Don't know what he's talking about, but it's bullshit.
•I will not "work together" to remove civil rights from anyone.Since he didn't offer examples, I don't know what this is about. I've never heard President Trump talk about removing civil rights. Think about that. How and why would he do this? Again, it makes no sense.
•I will not "work together" to alienate countries that have been our allies for as long as I have been alive.Well, I would bet that this guy isn't a national security genius. We make shifts in foreign policy all the time. We have allies today that were enemies yesterday. We need to be able to negotiate from a position of strength and make alliances that are in the best interest of our country.
•I will not "work together" to slash funding for education.I guess this is about Betsy Devos and the Dept of Education. So that is the smallest and newest cabinet department. There's a strong argument that we don't even need it. All they do is hand out federal grants and make regulations, and we could find someplace else to do that. But as far as slashing education, I think the real issue is allocation. Instead of blindly handing out funds to appease the NEA, who no friend of children, he will relook at vouchers and charter schools. There are some great news stories out there that should be evaluated.
•I will not "work together" to take basic assistance from people who are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.Today, 43 million people are on some form of food stamps. 43 million. During Obama's 8 years, 94 million people left the work force. Mostly it was because of a lack of jobs and realizaiton that in many cases the government would take care of them. Now I'm all for giving people a hand up. Everyone could need that at some point. But with Trump we've got a guy that realizes that we need jobs. We need jobs to give people self respect. We need jobs to give people a chance to care for their families. We need jobs to get people off the dole. And most importantly we need jobs to rebuild the middle class. Because the definition of a healthy society is a healthy middle class.
•I will not "work together" to get rid of common sense regulations on guns.What is common sense to one person is confiscatory government overreach to another. How about we just rely on the Constitution. Go read the 2nd amendment. We have hundreds of millions of guns in this country. That horse has left the barn. What we need is responsible gun ownership and education. The other thing we need is to get guns out of the hands of bad guys. I could get behind any program that does that.
•I will not "work together" to eliminate the minimum wage.The minimum wage argument is a ruse. It's an excuse to protest. The truth is that the minimum wage is designed for entry level workers. It's not meant to support a family. But if those who think raising the minimum wage to a point that small businesses are impacted (and we're almost there) it will backfire. Check out what some of the fast food outlets are doing with robotics. Check out price hikes at restaurants. People will always find a way around it.
•I will not "work together" to support so-called "Right To Work" laws, or undermine, weaken or destroy Unions in any way.State after state is moving to become Right To Work states. Becuase the truth is that Unions have mostly outlived their usefulness. Many of them are nothing more than political advocacy organizations. Why should a worker be forced to pay dues to an organization that isn't doing much except making the fat cats at the top rich and advocating for a candidate that they may or may not like.
•I will not "work together" to suppress scientific research, be it on climate change, fracking, or any other issue where a majority of scientists agree that Trump and his supporters are wrong on the facts.Facts. Whenever I see someone spouting about facts on this subject I cringe. On any of these issues there are scientific experts on both sides. How about we slow down a bit and invest in the independent research. Nothing in this area is urgent. It won't impact my grandchildren's grandchildren. So how about we slow down, stop destroying whole industries and figure it out?
•I will not "work together" to criminalize abortion or restrict health care for women.No one in the Trump organization wants to criminalize abortion or restrict health care for women. I assume this is about Planned Parenthood. Those folks have proven to be pretty nasty. I have no problem removing federal funding ($500M/yr) from them. But the truth is that legalized abortions is the law of the land. It is settled. The other truth is that there are plenty of sources of women's healthcare for anyone who wants it without relying on PP. But if they can stay in business through private donations, so be it. I want abortions to be safe, legal and rare. And I think most thinking Americans believe the same thing.
•I will not "work together" to increase the number of nations that have nuclear weapons.Don't know where this came from expcept for some musings during the campaign. No one wants this to happen.
•I will not "work together" to put even more "big money" into politics.Blaming Trump for this is breathtakingly disengenuous. Trump financed his own campaign. Hillary was the one who took the big bucks from the highest bidder, including that sleaze George Soros.
•I will not "work together" to violate the Geneva Convention.I assume this is about waterboarding. President Trump has said he will follow the lead of Secretary Mattis who is against it. But I have to say, I agree with Trump. There are some instances where using something like that is justified.
•I will not "work together" to give the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi Party and white supremacists a seat at the table, or to normalize their hatred and racism.This is the ultimate in fake news. Trump is not remotely racist. I assume this is about Bannon who has taken a bad rap in the media. There is no evidence that he is racist. None. This is also about this so-called Alt Right movement that many think somehow is a major force in supporting Trump. The Alt Right is a group of about 5000 (at most) racist assholes who are wack jobs. They have no impact. They are irrelevant. And we all need to be aligned that these guys have no standing and should be shamed. And I think, from what I've seen, the Trump administration agrees.
•I will not "work together" to deny health care to people who need it.No one is trying to deny healthcare. They are trying to fix a very broken Obamacare system that is cratering.
•I will not "work together" to deny medical coverage to people on the basis of a "pre-existing condition."Every plan I've seen contains a pre-existing condition capability. That is not going away.
•I will not "work together" to increase voter suppression.This is an interesting one. I've never understood why asking for an ID to vote is voter suppression. It doesn't make any sense. I need an ID to drive a car. I need an ID to fly on an airliner. I need an ID to cash a check. I need an ID to buy beer. There are many, many, many areas of life where I need an ID. So why not to vote? It doesn't make any sense. But that is the law in many places. I would strongly support requiring and ID to vote. If that means I'm suppressing the vote, so be it.
•I will not "work together" to normalize tyranny.I don't even know what to do with this. Where is the evidence of tyranny?
•I will not “work together” to eliminate or reduce ethical oversite at any level of government.Again. Where is the evidence that ethical oversight is going away?
•I will not "work together" with anyone who is, or admires, tyrants and dictators.I can only assume that this has to do with Russia. Every President in recent history has had as a goal to reduce tension and reset relations with Putin. It has never worked, and I suspect won't work this time. Putin is an asshole. And I suspect that Trump knows that. But he's keeping his powder dry. So people can speculate all they want, but Trump knows that Putin is an asshole.
•I will not "work together" to give less support to government employees.Ha Ha. The bureacracy in government is way, way, way out of control. I don't know the best way to reduce it, but I'd do something dramatic. Like reduce by 30% and get rid of 50% of contractors. Don't know if the numbers are right, but something dramatic. Bureaucrats administer regulations. There are too many of both. Reduction would be good.
•I will not "work together" to find ways for the billionaires to cheat the system.Billionaires don't have to cheat the system. They are smart folks. They got billions by being smart and hiring smart folks. And I want smart, rich folks who've had to work to make their money running things. It makes a lot more sense than turning government over to bureaucrats who have never really done anything.
•I will not "work together" to implement a hiring freeze at government agencies.A hiring freeze is the minimal that needs to be done. There needs to be a freeze and then a dramatic reduction.
•I will not "work together" to suppress reporters' right to ask questions the administrations does not like.I won't get into a whole fake news discussion, but no reporters have had their rights diminished. The Trump administration has not done anything that hasn't been done by otheres. And if I were in their shoes, I'd be trying to flumox some of the biggest liars at every turn.
•I will not "work together" to bully any country, big or small.The world is a big, ugly, unforgiving place. We do best when we are strong. We are not bullying when we negotiate from a position of strength.
•I will not "work together" to craft a message diminishing women and young adults.I'd love to see the evidence of this. I've not seen anything that equals diminishing. There has been some private discussions released that were not flattering to Trump, but that is hardly diminishing women
•I will not support anyone that thinks its OK to put a pipeline to transport oil on Sacred Ground for Native Americans. And, it would run under the Missouri River, which provides drinking water for millions of people. An accident waiting to happen.He's talking about the Dakota Access Pipeline. The story provided by the protestors and the obliging media has proven to be wholly false. The pipeline is safe, it's not on Indian land, the Corps of Engineers has worked with the tribes every step of the way, and there are thousands of pipelines that are perfectly safe. My advice here is to follow the money. See who really benefits from this protest.
This is my line, and I am drawing it.
•I will stand for honesty, love, and respect for all living beings." Me too.
I happened on a post over on Facebook from a guy who was responding to a question about working together to accomplish some things that both sides can agree on. I've seen these before but never as comprehensivly hateful (and mostly wrong) as this guy is. So I thought it might be useful (or at least interesting) to take all of his points and provide a bit of a counterpoint (in red).
"Several of my conservative friends have said that we should "work together" with the president and the Republican majority because they won the election and Trump is "everyone's president." This is my response:
•I will not forget how badly he and so many others treated former President Barack Obama for 8 years...I will not apologize for being against President Obama for the majority of his Presidency. I have said many times that he wasn't my guy, but I gave him a chance. He pretty quickly lost me but I gave him a chance. And I've talked to many who felt the same way. But there are were so many things that I couldn't agree with and that I thought endangered our country that I wound up strongly believing that he was the worst President of my lifetime and most likely in the bottom 3 in history. But I never, ever made hateful, demonizing remarks about him. And I didn't see remotely as many as I see for Trump. So I'm not buying this.
•I will not "work together" to privatize Medicare, cut Social Security and Medicaid. I've heard the uninformed say this over and over again. To be clear, this is BS. There are some responsible economists and Congressmen who have pointed out that these programs are a trainwreck and need to be fixed, but there is no political will to do it. This is a demonizing fantasy that won't happen.
•I will not "work together" to build a wall.The wall is a border. As in a sovereign border. Of our country. If you don't beleive in borders, well then I don't know what to say except to read my post titled "Illegal" a few days back. There is really only one place in the world that has open borders where people can flow freely back and forth. That's Europe. And it ain't working out too well.
•I will not "work together" to persecute Muslims.Don't know where this comes from. Maybe he's referring to the travel ban. I've written about this previously. The ban is not a ban on Muslims. It's targeted at countries that can't control or vet their immigrants coming here. 85% of Muslims are not impacted. And it's temporary. Other than that, I don't know what he's talking about.
•I will not "work together" to shut out refugees from other countries.We are talking a temporary travel ban from the worst of he worst countries until we get our shit together. Don't know how that is shutting out refugees. The truth is that we take in more refugees than any other country in the world. Period.
•I will not "work together" to lower taxes on the 1% and increase taxes on the middle class and poor.I'm not a tax genius and I don't think this guy is either. This is an old accusation. And it's bunk. I heard the Treasury Secretary being interviewed today. The tax cut they are working on is clearly targeted to reduce corporate taxes to stimulate growth and a tax cut to benefit the middle class. Period.
•I will not "work together" to help Trump use the Presidency to line his pockets and those of his family and cronies.Another old, general accusation for which there is absolutely no evidence of nor any motivation for him to do this. He's a billionaire for goodness sakes.
•I will not "work together" to weaken and demolish environmental protection.This one is in the eye of the beholder. He is reducing regulations. There is no denying that. But I would argue that the pendulum had swung so far to the extreme when it comes to environmental issues, it wouldn't be so bad to come back a ways toward reality.
•I will not "work together" to sell American lands, especially National Parks, to companies which then despoil those lands.This is total fabrication. No evidence of this. It's fake news.
•I will not "work together" to enable the killing of whole species of animals just because they are predators, or inconvenient for a few, or because some people like killing them.This comes out of left field and makes no sense. Don't know what he's talking about, but it's bullshit.
•I will not "work together" to remove civil rights from anyone.Since he didn't offer examples, I don't know what this is about. I've never heard President Trump talk about removing civil rights. Think about that. How and why would he do this? Again, it makes no sense.
•I will not "work together" to alienate countries that have been our allies for as long as I have been alive.Well, I would bet that this guy isn't a national security genius. We make shifts in foreign policy all the time. We have allies today that were enemies yesterday. We need to be able to negotiate from a position of strength and make alliances that are in the best interest of our country.
•I will not "work together" to slash funding for education.I guess this is about Betsy Devos and the Dept of Education. So that is the smallest and newest cabinet department. There's a strong argument that we don't even need it. All they do is hand out federal grants and make regulations, and we could find someplace else to do that. But as far as slashing education, I think the real issue is allocation. Instead of blindly handing out funds to appease the NEA, who no friend of children, he will relook at vouchers and charter schools. There are some great news stories out there that should be evaluated.
•I will not "work together" to take basic assistance from people who are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.Today, 43 million people are on some form of food stamps. 43 million. During Obama's 8 years, 94 million people left the work force. Mostly it was because of a lack of jobs and realizaiton that in many cases the government would take care of them. Now I'm all for giving people a hand up. Everyone could need that at some point. But with Trump we've got a guy that realizes that we need jobs. We need jobs to give people self respect. We need jobs to give people a chance to care for their families. We need jobs to get people off the dole. And most importantly we need jobs to rebuild the middle class. Because the definition of a healthy society is a healthy middle class.
•I will not "work together" to get rid of common sense regulations on guns.What is common sense to one person is confiscatory government overreach to another. How about we just rely on the Constitution. Go read the 2nd amendment. We have hundreds of millions of guns in this country. That horse has left the barn. What we need is responsible gun ownership and education. The other thing we need is to get guns out of the hands of bad guys. I could get behind any program that does that.
•I will not "work together" to eliminate the minimum wage.The minimum wage argument is a ruse. It's an excuse to protest. The truth is that the minimum wage is designed for entry level workers. It's not meant to support a family. But if those who think raising the minimum wage to a point that small businesses are impacted (and we're almost there) it will backfire. Check out what some of the fast food outlets are doing with robotics. Check out price hikes at restaurants. People will always find a way around it.
•I will not "work together" to support so-called "Right To Work" laws, or undermine, weaken or destroy Unions in any way.State after state is moving to become Right To Work states. Becuase the truth is that Unions have mostly outlived their usefulness. Many of them are nothing more than political advocacy organizations. Why should a worker be forced to pay dues to an organization that isn't doing much except making the fat cats at the top rich and advocating for a candidate that they may or may not like.
•I will not "work together" to suppress scientific research, be it on climate change, fracking, or any other issue where a majority of scientists agree that Trump and his supporters are wrong on the facts.Facts. Whenever I see someone spouting about facts on this subject I cringe. On any of these issues there are scientific experts on both sides. How about we slow down a bit and invest in the independent research. Nothing in this area is urgent. It won't impact my grandchildren's grandchildren. So how about we slow down, stop destroying whole industries and figure it out?
•I will not "work together" to criminalize abortion or restrict health care for women.No one in the Trump organization wants to criminalize abortion or restrict health care for women. I assume this is about Planned Parenthood. Those folks have proven to be pretty nasty. I have no problem removing federal funding ($500M/yr) from them. But the truth is that legalized abortions is the law of the land. It is settled. The other truth is that there are plenty of sources of women's healthcare for anyone who wants it without relying on PP. But if they can stay in business through private donations, so be it. I want abortions to be safe, legal and rare. And I think most thinking Americans believe the same thing.
•I will not "work together" to increase the number of nations that have nuclear weapons.Don't know where this came from expcept for some musings during the campaign. No one wants this to happen.
•I will not "work together" to put even more "big money" into politics.Blaming Trump for this is breathtakingly disengenuous. Trump financed his own campaign. Hillary was the one who took the big bucks from the highest bidder, including that sleaze George Soros.
•I will not "work together" to violate the Geneva Convention.I assume this is about waterboarding. President Trump has said he will follow the lead of Secretary Mattis who is against it. But I have to say, I agree with Trump. There are some instances where using something like that is justified.
•I will not "work together" to give the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi Party and white supremacists a seat at the table, or to normalize their hatred and racism.This is the ultimate in fake news. Trump is not remotely racist. I assume this is about Bannon who has taken a bad rap in the media. There is no evidence that he is racist. None. This is also about this so-called Alt Right movement that many think somehow is a major force in supporting Trump. The Alt Right is a group of about 5000 (at most) racist assholes who are wack jobs. They have no impact. They are irrelevant. And we all need to be aligned that these guys have no standing and should be shamed. And I think, from what I've seen, the Trump administration agrees.
•I will not "work together" to deny health care to people who need it.No one is trying to deny healthcare. They are trying to fix a very broken Obamacare system that is cratering.
•I will not "work together" to deny medical coverage to people on the basis of a "pre-existing condition."Every plan I've seen contains a pre-existing condition capability. That is not going away.
•I will not "work together" to increase voter suppression.This is an interesting one. I've never understood why asking for an ID to vote is voter suppression. It doesn't make any sense. I need an ID to drive a car. I need an ID to fly on an airliner. I need an ID to cash a check. I need an ID to buy beer. There are many, many, many areas of life where I need an ID. So why not to vote? It doesn't make any sense. But that is the law in many places. I would strongly support requiring and ID to vote. If that means I'm suppressing the vote, so be it.
•I will not "work together" to normalize tyranny.I don't even know what to do with this. Where is the evidence of tyranny?
•I will not “work together” to eliminate or reduce ethical oversite at any level of government.Again. Where is the evidence that ethical oversight is going away?
•I will not "work together" with anyone who is, or admires, tyrants and dictators.I can only assume that this has to do with Russia. Every President in recent history has had as a goal to reduce tension and reset relations with Putin. It has never worked, and I suspect won't work this time. Putin is an asshole. And I suspect that Trump knows that. But he's keeping his powder dry. So people can speculate all they want, but Trump knows that Putin is an asshole.
•I will not "work together" to give less support to government employees.Ha Ha. The bureacracy in government is way, way, way out of control. I don't know the best way to reduce it, but I'd do something dramatic. Like reduce by 30% and get rid of 50% of contractors. Don't know if the numbers are right, but something dramatic. Bureaucrats administer regulations. There are too many of both. Reduction would be good.
•I will not "work together" to find ways for the billionaires to cheat the system.Billionaires don't have to cheat the system. They are smart folks. They got billions by being smart and hiring smart folks. And I want smart, rich folks who've had to work to make their money running things. It makes a lot more sense than turning government over to bureaucrats who have never really done anything.
•I will not "work together" to implement a hiring freeze at government agencies.A hiring freeze is the minimal that needs to be done. There needs to be a freeze and then a dramatic reduction.
•I will not "work together" to suppress reporters' right to ask questions the administrations does not like.I won't get into a whole fake news discussion, but no reporters have had their rights diminished. The Trump administration has not done anything that hasn't been done by otheres. And if I were in their shoes, I'd be trying to flumox some of the biggest liars at every turn.
•I will not "work together" to bully any country, big or small.The world is a big, ugly, unforgiving place. We do best when we are strong. We are not bullying when we negotiate from a position of strength.
•I will not "work together" to craft a message diminishing women and young adults.I'd love to see the evidence of this. I've not seen anything that equals diminishing. There has been some private discussions released that were not flattering to Trump, but that is hardly diminishing women
•I will not support anyone that thinks its OK to put a pipeline to transport oil on Sacred Ground for Native Americans. And, it would run under the Missouri River, which provides drinking water for millions of people. An accident waiting to happen.He's talking about the Dakota Access Pipeline. The story provided by the protestors and the obliging media has proven to be wholly false. The pipeline is safe, it's not on Indian land, the Corps of Engineers has worked with the tribes every step of the way, and there are thousands of pipelines that are perfectly safe. My advice here is to follow the money. See who really benefits from this protest.
This is my line, and I am drawing it.
•I will stand for honesty, love, and respect for all living beings." Me too.