Diversity a Failed Ideology

In 1908, a play by Israel Zangwill was first staged. It was called the Melting Pot and depicted the life of a Russian-Jewish immigrant who having survived a Pogrom in Russia had immigrated to the US. The hero of the plays proclaims:

America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming… Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians – into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American.”

While the idea of melting together as a metaphor was not new, it dates back to at least 1780, this play brought the expression “melting pot” into general use in the US. Since then the expression has come under derision and now the accepted term is “multiculturalism” or diversity.

At the time, Zangwill, was celebrating the fusion of all these different cultures to produce Americans, not Russian-Americans or German-Americans but new Americans. He saw this as something to be celebrated. America would take all these heterogeneous people and assimilate them into a homogenous society. This simple principle served our country well. Aspects from different cultures were adapted into the general society but the end result was the same an American.

Diversity or multiculturalism has become official policy throughout the world but after the horrors of WWII it has change to mean something different than what Zangwill had celebrated in his play. Today, rather than celebrate the oneness of our country within all the cultures that make up our society, we instead celebrate the differences, fighting against assimilation and integration.

This has proved at times disastrous to various groups and the society as whole. In the UK the large migration of Muslims from South Asia with their contrasting views about women, religion, western laws have caused a huge rift in the country. Right now Scotland could vote to leave the commonwealth and the UKIP party which is promoting separation from the European Union, controlled immigration, etc. is poised to make huge gains in Parliament.

The recent scandal involving men mostly of Pakistani descent who in the city of Rotherham “groomed”, that is raped, trafficked and beat up to 1400 minors-some as young as 11 yrs. old- all while local authorities ignored the problem, in some cases jailing those who reported the issue has brought the issue of diversity to the fore-front.

According to the New York Times, the problem has existed since 1997, and though there were 3 earlier reports of the mass abuse the authorities, either suppressed or ignored the earlier reports published between 2002 and 2006. According to Alexis Jay, who filed the report that finally brought the problem to light said:

“They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten and intimidated,”

Three earlier reports, published from 2002 to 2006, detailed the abuse, and according to Ms. Jay, “could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham.” But the first one was “effectively suppressed” and the other two “ignored,” she said.

Some officials were apparently ordered by their managers to withhold information on the ethnic origin of the abusers, the report said. As a result, no contact was made with local Pakistani leaders for help in identifying gangs that continued to assault and abduct teenagers.

In case you think this is an isolated instance the same problems of sexual exploitation in cities including Oxford, Rochdale and Derby have also been reported with authorities ignoring the issue in the name of maintaining community harmony and diversity.

In Sweden, out of the 495 rapes committed against girls under 15 yrs. Old reported in 2013, 437 where committed by Muslims immigrants, something that the BRA has long tried to suppress. Other European countries have similar problems and it is not just relegated to “sexual crimes”.

With the goal of achieving diversity and multiculturalism, government officials have in many cases ignored or suppressed knowledge of problems since they would put certain culture norms in a negative light. Rather than those immigrants assimilating to life in the countries where they immigrated they are encourage to maintain their cultural identity and even those norms that are contrary to their host countries.

We have seen this with cities throughout Europe, adopting Sharia Law, banning of prayers, removing iconography deemed offensive and in some cases ignoring the laws of their countries. In the case of the sexual assaults they have adopted the views of the attackers that women are “sluts” and in essence were asking for it or just not worth the effort or the strife that it would cause to pursue the assailants. All in the name of Diversity.

Here the issue is how to address the criminality that afflicts the Urban Black population. Since the 70’s, local governments have adopted the view that only Blacks can solve their problems (which is true to an extent), and allowed a small group of Black leaders to dictate what the common policy will be. This has failed the Black community tremendously, as those leaders have used this power to enrich themselves and their cronies while the communities they are supposed to help have languished.

In a conundrum, the communities both decry the absence of law and order and at the same time protest law enforcements attempt to bring some order to their communities. The Black leaders rather than promote assimilation into the larger community, as Dr. King and others sought. They try to foment discord by pointing the differences and promoting “Black Culture” as separate to that of the whole community as a whole.

This divide and conquer strategy, whether done in good will or for nefarious reasons has meant that the larger Black community has been unable to fully integrate into the rest of society. Only those few who are successful are able to leave the turmoil behind and advance. The rest are stuck in a perpetual machine with low opportunities and bleak futures, which re-enforces the negative connotations inferred by others.

As Walter E. Williams writes:

“Though racial discrimination exists, it is nowhere near the barrier it once was. The relevant question is: How much of what we see today can be explained by racial discrimination? This is an important question because if we conclude that racial discrimination is the major cause of black problems when it isn’t, then effective solutions will be elusive forever.”

The problem with Diversity is that you don’t get to pick and choose which parts to maintain and which to drop. If Muslims cultures view of women is less than desirable, that needs to change. If Black minorities so not see how their Urban Black culture is affecting their community then nothing will ever change for them. Diversity only works when we all put something into a pot and come out as Americans, or British, Swedish or whatever. While no culture is perfect the values of those that live in it, should be reflective of the whole, otherwise chaos ensues…

Advertisements

A failure of ideology is driving the ME and Ferguson

 

⇒UPDATE⇐

 

 

The picture shows a map of the 5 year plan of ISIS/ISIL. Eventually they want the whole World under their flag and their religion, Islam. This is their plan, this is what they tell their recruits all over the World. We can argue all we want about whether ISIS/ISIL really represents Islam or not but this is what they are aiming for. The White House and the State Department spokespersons twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain that this is not what the Muslims religion is about or that we are not at war with Islam, yet what we say had little relevance to what they (ISIL) believes. Despite denials to the contrary and the revisionist history that is taught in today’s schools the spread of the Muslim faith was achieved mostly at the end of a sword, smaller versions of the knifes that being used to decapitate people today.

It is true that most major religions have had dark pasts, where religion was used as a justification for many barbaric deeds, but I find it extremely misleading this great campaign that is going on to pretend that Islam is nothing but a “peaceful” religion, ergo any atrocities committed in the name of Islam by its followers means that they are not truly “Muslim” or not part of its teachings. It is true that most Muslims are not violent or extreme fundamentalist in beliefs that only wish to worship and follow their religion in peace but denying that there are some that are some that feel differently is naïve, and dangerous. The very term “extreme fundamentalist” entails that it is the same religion only an extreme (strict) fundamentalist (earlier, primary, core) version of the religion. Pretending that because the Muslim faith has change into a more moderate version of its earlier self, those that follow the more fundamentalist version are not practicing the same religion is spurious.

The Telegraph in the UK has an article titled “British jihadists: How Britain became the Yemen of the West”, which offers one prescription with dealing with the European jihadists that have joined the fight in the ME, but the article fails in other areas because it is at fault of the same problems that others are having failing to see the influence of religion on the matter, and why it is appealing to some many. The article states the following;

“Dreadful as the murder video of the journalist James Foley was, it is by no means the worst thing posted online by, or involving, British and Western jihadists this week. In the jihadists’ theatre of savagery, Britons and Westerners have for several months taken principal speaking parts. The Foley video’s real significance, perhaps not fully understood in the general shock, is different. Until now, the Islamic State (Isil) has shown little interest in threatening the West. In that video, this started to change, with “John the Beatle” promising the “bloodshed of your people”. The ransom demand sent to Mr. Foley’s family, published yesterday, is even more explicit: “Today our swords are unsheathed towards you, government and citizens alike,” it says.”

This, ignores all the previous threats as non-existent, of course the public way in which it was carried out was bound to get attention. Until now those that have died or believed to have died were all considered a sort of collateral damage to the hostilities in the area. This was very clear into its extent and its message. But, in our secular society everything is viewed through a secular lens and this is where the article fails. The article explains the appeal of the jihadists this way, it was our fault;

“Britain’s key failing is that it was tough where it should have been liberal, and liberal where it should have been tough. It extended detention without trial and stop-and-search: sweeping measures that affected everyone and left Muslims, most of whom are completely blameless, feeling under attack. At the same time, it was ridiculously tolerant and indulgent towards a small minority of Muslim radicals.”

And then dismissively,

“Throughout history, bored, maladjusted and sexually frustrated young men have sought excitement and identity through violence. Where a non-Muslim adolescent might only have the outlet of gang fights in shopping centres or punchups in pubs, young Muslims have the glamour, thrill and wider meaning of Middle East combat. The connections they can make online, with others far away, and the ease of travel in the globalised world complete the picture.”

Kids will be kids, maybe we can create a “time-out” corner for this young adults Kids, to go to so that they won’t join those fighting, killing, raping and bombing with ISIS, but as the author warns we have to be careful so as not to radicalize more susceptible young ones. Now the prescription as the author sees it, is to let the educate the possible recruits,

“A potential British Isil recruit may not be too bothered that he could end up dead. But around half of the Britons who have died so far in Syria and Iraq were killed not by the regime-infidel enemy but by their own side through in-fighting, and if that same potential recruit knew that, it might put a different complexion on it.

If young men in Bradford and east London heard stories from disillusioned British Isil fighters who felt they were treated as cannon fodder that would do 20 times more good than any number of heartfelt condemnations from middle-aged politicians or “community leaders”.


A young man goes to the ME and if he survives and returns we will use him to tell other young men not to go, this is assuming that the young returning will be so disillusioned with their jihad that they will be willing to do so, and completely forgets those that return and tell a completely different story or that want to pursue or start their own jihad closer to home. Winning strategy! Ok, sarcasm off. This is not exactly a new strategy, something similar has been tried here with gang members but for all the hoopla it has had limited success. That has not stop us from trying as Chicago is attempting use past gang members to help its runaway gang problem, again after an earlier initiative in 2012 failed to deliver and crime spiraled out of control. Other cities, Atlanta, Detroit, Charlotte, Houston, Oakland, Cleveland, Little Rock, Memphis, Dallas, to name a few have tried the same approach all with little or limited success as they fail to address core issues that cause the gangs to be attractive, in the first place, to young man. All this amounts to be what St. Augustine described as the “cruel optimism” of people: our desire to believe the best in people and if we just tell them why something is wrong them will stop doing it.

Charles C. W. Cooke writing in the National Review writes, “H. G. Wells’ famous prediction that the First World War would be the “war to end all wars” was met with skepticism by the British prime minister. “This war, like the next war,” David Lloyd George quipped in the summer of 1916, “is a war to end war.” History, he sighed, is not shaped by wishful thinking.”

He continues,

“This week, responding to the news that an American journalist had been executed in Syria by the Islamic State, President Obama contended that the group “has no place in the 21st century.” One wonders: What can this mean? Is this a statement of intent, or is it a historical judgment? Certainly, insofar as Obama’s words indicate a willingness to extirpate the outfit from the face of the Earth, they are useful. If, however, they are merely an attempt to shame the group by explaining that in 2014 the good guys no longer behave in this manner, it is abject and it is fruitless. As a matter of regrettable fact, IS does indeed have a place in the 21st century — and, like the barbarians who hypothetically had “no place” in the Roman Empire, it is presently utilizing that place to spread darkness and despair. Assurances that “our best days are ahead of us,” I’d venture, are probably not going to cut it with the mujahideen.”

“Many among us seem incapable of believing that it is. On Reddit, users are furiously debating whether the footage was faked. Elsewhere, others are seeking explanations as to what might have pushed Foley’s killers to such extraordinary lengths. Perhaps, they ask, IS’s behavior is the fault of something else. The United States’ invasion of Iraq, maybe? Or the legacy of colonialism, or of global inequality? Do these men just need running water? This instinct is folly, the product of the mistaken conviction that man is perfectible and his nature pliant, and that there is something intrinsically different about our age. “The lessons of history endure,” Oklahoma University’s J. Rufus Fears observed beautifully, “because human nature never changed.” “All the human emotions,” Fears added,

 

Are the same today as in Egypt of the pharaohs or China in the time of Confucius: Love, hate, ambition, the lust for power, kindness, generosity, and inhumanity. The good and bad of human nature is simply poured into new vehicles created by science and technology.

That is the false ideology that must be countered, that because we have become more “civilized” that we have seized to be human, that those instincts and feelings that drove humanity 10,000 years ago or 14 years ago are now different, why? Especially when at the same time we are sending a completely different message as our culture becomes more primitive, when the desires of the flesh are more important, when we excuse those that loot, rob and steal as innocents and denigrate those that try to be productive as evil. We are still human, we can redistribute happiness or success. The thought that if we allowed the Islamist to have their own country will be enough to satisfy them and leave other be is the same wrong ideology as that of those that believe that if we give more to certain groups will satisfy them and lead them to happiness and advancement. History can teach a lot about human nature, what it cannot do is make us listen.

UPDATE

MSNBC host Chris Matthews questioned Monday why ISIS is not grateful to the United States instead of threatening this country, noting “we did their work for them” by removing secular dictators like Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.  H/T  The Daily Caller

““What did we do against ISIS except allow them to exist by breaking up the Iraqi government under George W. Bush?” Matthews asked. “We created their opportunity. How are we their enemy? I don’t get it. What did we do to them, to ISIS?”

Mohyledin tried to explain the broader regional context, noting the long-standing support of many secular Arab governments by the United States. But he was quickly cut off.

“Wait a minute, we helped knock off Gaddafi, we took a pretty strong stand against Syria, we knocked off Saddam Hussein,” Matthews interjected. “We knocked off all the secular leaders. Why aren’t the Islamists happy with us?”

“Factually, we did their work for them,” the MSNBC host asserted. “We pulled the rug out from under all these people who were secularists so that these Islamists could grab those countries. What’s the knock, what’s the knock on us?”

 

He does not understand why the US is being targeted after all not only did we provided the opportunity, but we removed the opposition yet they are not satisfied by our stumbling benevolence. This is a perfect example of the thinking that if we give extremist something that they should be grateful and go on about themselves, but ignoring that root cause of the issues by just addressing one. This is willful ignorance as well as arrogance in that we are in essence saying, here you go young wild child here a country now go play and leave me alone. The problems in the ME date far back, it is not because of Israel, the Palestinian lack of a State,  US involvement in the region or British colonialism (though the latter did make a mess of things), they date to the early days of Islam when several tribes in the desert in Arabia and went on to conquer everyone in their path until they were stopped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reality Bites… but some keep Believing and keep getting swept away

The World is again full of turmoil, that is not surprising. What should be surprising is how of it could have been avoided, but wasn’t. One of humanity most innate instincts is that of surviving. As a result we have an affinity to learn find out what the mistakes were and what caused them. For instance, early man had to learn that fire burns, that some animals were unfriendly, same with some other groups of humans. We had to learn how to plant crops in a way that we would reap the most benefits. We learned which plants we could eat, which to avoid, how to cook some that would otherwise kill us. We learned not to cross rivers after torrential rains, how to make metal instruments, etc. All was done through trial and error over the millenia. We learned to build cities, to fortify them and then to write things down so that future generations would benefits from their knowledge.

Here we are in the 21st Century, today the combined knowledge of thousands of years of humanity is available at your fingertips in the internet but in many ways we are still that primitive man trying to cross that swollen river, despite the lessons of those that got washed away. As a result we have to re-learn the lessons again and again. No, we can not cross that river but we keep believing that if we turn this way or that way and if we do it diagonally or more slowly we will get to the other side.

Current events are just examples of getting swept away by the currents. Vietnam which for decades dictated how our foreign military policy would be conducted, taught us great lessons that should have prevented us making similar mistakes in the future but we forgot those lessons and are now having to re-learn them. The reality is in war there has to be a victor and the enemy must be vanquished, otherwise we will be doing it again or ultimately losing. Fighting half a war means winning half the victory.

After the costly victory in Vietnam in January 1973, and yes I said victory, we had destroyed the North Vietnamese’s ability to make war but we did not vanquished them. While we promised the South Vietnamese that we would support them with military aid, not troops, we reneged on that promise. The North Vietnamese on the other hand got lots of assistance from China and the Soviet Union, when they launched their Spring Offensive in 1975 the South Vietnamese ran were defenseless and collapsed, granting a real victory to the North who vanquished the South by re-uniting it with the North into communist united Vietnam. The lessons were clear, a war is not won on half measures, our refusal to attack the North directly dragged the war for years at horrendous human cost. Once we changed our tactics the North sued for Peace but we did not follow through we left a divided Vietnam and a South Vietnam which had been devastated by years of fighting to fend for itself.

During the First Gulf War we applied the one lesson from Vietnam and went in with a large force, not incremental increases of troops that was the method in Vietnam, we quickly and overwhelmingly won the contest. But we did not vanquish Saddam, instead we watched as he vanquished those that tried to rise against him after the hostilities with our forces were finished. As we did in Vietnam we failed to vanquish the enemy, all the while we ask Iraqis to fight against Saddam, and left them defenseless once he turn his attention to them. We went back to Iraq, deposed of Saddam but after the country was pacified we again left the country to its own devices, we ignored the rising river of resentment of the new Iraqi government by the Sunni population which had backed Saddam. Reality is biting us again…

Reality is biting us in Africa as well, for years the State Department ignored the actions of Boko Haram and refused to call them a terrorist organization despite the many attacks against Christians and the violence against all things Western. In Libya we assisted helped to depose of Gaddafi without much tought what would happen after, now Libya is a failed state that resembles Somalia in that different Warlords control different areas of the country. Not to mention the issues in the Ukraine, the civil war in Syria, Yemen, the aggressiveness of China and Iran obtaining nukes.

It’s not just other parts of the World, but domestically that reality is biting us hard. Obamacare is train wreck, we have an artificially inflated stock market that is due for a large correction, unemployment numbers hide that millions have left the workforce and millions more are working part-time or underemployed, green energy is a costly fraud, Veterans are dying for lack of care, the NSA is spying on all of us, race relations are worse now, and our President loves to golf.

Little thought was given to what the Islamization of Northern Africa and the Middle East would do. What the takeover of 1/6th of the economy would do to our country, or what would happen when we retreat from the World. The theory seems to be that if we all gave up something that we all would be happier. A common redistributionist thought but taking from Peter to pay Paul has never worked. Making more countries Islamic Republics is not going to deter those that see us (the West) as evil or make more inclusive, it does the opposite. Providing health insurance at an inflated cost will not make people healthier, but it will incentivize many to do less and ask for more. Leaving a vacuum on the World’s stage is not going to make the World love us more, but it will allow others to fill the space to our detriment.

These lessons are not new, we have thousands of years of history behind us to teach us. Is not that we have lost the instinct to find out what went wrong or why but we have lost the ability to learn from the past.  We have become so smug that we live in the 21st century that we feel that can ignore the past as we create our future. We feel that we can cross the raging rivers, no matter what evidence there is that we can’t.  This transcends ideology whether Right or Left or Center. Innovation another great human trait, that has gotten us to were we are, only works if we listen to those voices from our past to help us guide us into the future.

 

A Crisis of Words, what about the Children

The downing of the Malaysian plane MH-17 and the Israeli offensive in Gaza have finally pushed immigration from the headlines, it is a good time to examine the “crisis” its origins, the public reaction and the use by member of the main parties to game the controversy.

Immigration reform like many other subjects in American politics, is one that emote great anguish on both sides of the political spectrum. Those on the left see any abortion legislation that in any way limits abortion as if abortion is being abolished and a War on Women. Similarly the reaction to the Hobby Lobby decision brought about some of the dumbest, ignorant and ill-informed commentary from the MSM, the immigration debate does that to the Right.

Let me begin by saying that the notion that 57,000 UAC (unaccompanied alien children) coming into the US will somehow cause some massive disruption that will bankrupt some local governments is ludicrous. In the aftermath of the Haiti Earthquake 60,000 refugees came to the US. 38,000 of them settled in the Miami area. Unlike up to 85% of the UACs which are reunited with parents or relatives already here, most the refugees from Haiti, came with the clothes on their back and needed placement, which included housing, food, monetary assistance,  job placement, etc., while it may had provided some strains in the system they were absolve into the country.

The issue with immigration in our country has always been one of  lax enforcement of  the laws we have or a different interpretation of what those laws require us to do. currently, the most common excuse being given for the “crisis” is the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, a law meant to protect the young from human and sex traffickers by providing a different procedure of handling those UACs from those from Canada or Mexico, where they would be sent back expeditiously.

Pryor to 2012, only 1% of illegals were UACs, last year there were 26,206 UAC’s of which only 1,669 were deported according to the LA Times, this year there could be up to 90,000 according to estimates by DHS.  Something changed after 2012 that is now the driving force for the changes in the amount of UACs doing the perilous journey from mainly El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras through Mexico and into the US.

Pro-immigration proponents will say that violence and poor conditions in those countries are the reason for the influx of UACs, while others will point out that the decision of President Obama to adopt his version of the Dream Act, allowing children of illegals to stay is the driving force. This report and interview of a mother and child by local TV station seems to lend credence to the latter.

A mother and child told CHANNEL 5 NEWS that the message being disseminated in their country is, “go to America with your child, you won’t be turned away.”

The woman, Nora Griselda Bercian Diaz, from Guatemala, said she endured threats from the Zetas and extortion from corrupt Mexican police. She eventually crossed the Rio Grande with her 6-year-old Delmi Griselda Paul Bercian by her side.

The woman said she wants a U.S. education for her daughter.

“I want to study,” said the girl who hopes to one day become a doctor.

A CHANNEL 5 NEWS crew met the mother and daughter three hours after they crossed the border illegally. They were lost and searching for Border Patrol agents.

“I was planning to go to McAllen then call a friend for her to send me money on the bus,” Bercian Diaz said.

Bercian Diaz said she has no family in the United States. Her hope of staying here relies on her little girl. She said the message in her country is that America’s borders are open to all families.

News reports in Guatemala say mothers and small children are getting bus tickets, Bercian Diaz said.

“I said, ‘I need to act right now, because this will end and my girl won’t have a future,'” Bercian Diaz said.

Ms. Diaz had been deported from the US previously, now she made the trip with her daughter in the hopes that they would not be separated and allowed to stay. As Ms. Diaz points out, the feeling in Guatemala is that there would be changes in the law soon, which means that they better take advantage of the current atmosphere now.

This story on the New York Post, details a memo from the Border Patrol that would contradict the administration’s contention that violence in Central America is the reason so many young people are streaming northward.

According to the memo, which was brought up at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, agents grilled more than 200 non-Mexican immigrants in late May, and 95 percent of them said they headed to the US because they’d heard they could get a “permiso,” or “free pass” simply by showing up at the border.

Somehow people in these 3 countries have gotten the impression (rightfully,  it seems) that if they send their children or come with their children to the US and turn yourself to the Border Patrol that you will not be deported or will be allowed to stay indefinitely. How did these people get that impression? It obviously appears that there has been collusion between our government and pro-immigration groups as well as the government of these countries and Mexico. Having heard some of the comment by government officials from those countries they are aware of the situation and are encouraging it, if not at  least condoning it.

But, it is a crisis as the Media is trying to portray it or just a ploy to get Congress to act and pass an Immigration Reform bill that seemed to have stall?  It appears to be both, if we examine the timeline we see that until late May, while it appeared that the Republican Congress would vote on an Immigration Reform bill, the influx of UACs was unnoticed. According to DHS testimony last week, the numbers of illegals detain in the southern border are on par with last year, what is different is that the percentage of those caught changed from 65% Mexicans to others to only 35% Mexicans the others making up the difference.

The border discussion belies a bigger problem when dealing with illegal immigration and that is Visa overstayers. While estimates vary wildly from 25% to 40% and may vary also by group, Pew Hispanic Research Center estimated in 2010 that 45% of the 11.2 million illegals in the country are Visa overstayers.  The Wall Street Journal on a report last year;

Nobody is sure how many people are in the U.S. on expired visas. The most commonly cited figures equate to some four million to five million people. But that is based on a 2006 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, which relied on a formula that was created using 1990 data. In 2011, there were 159 million nonimmigrant visits to the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security. More than three-quarters were for pleasure. But millions also involved business travelers, temporary workers and students.

This is not just an issue that affects immigration but a national security issue as well, especially in light of September 11, when all the hijackers had legal visas into the US, 5 of them were Visa overstayers. Currently foreigners are fingerprinted when they enter the country, but no system exists to track when if ever they leave and whether they overstayed their Visa.  While a group of Republicans and Democrats want to establish a system to verify exit of those that enter the country, the President wants no such system and wants to allow any foreigner in the country the ability to apply for admission. This would include those here legally but on temporary Visas as well those that have overstayed their Visa. This is one of the many sticking points on any proposed Immigration Reform legislation. Then there is another problem, even when we issue deportation orders few comply voluntarily.  Currently there are more than 850,000 people with deportation orders still in the country.

Both sides are adamant in making the current situation into a crisis, the pro-immigration camp wants to utilize the UACs to call for a wider amnesty, after all it is for the children and you would not want to break-up the families. While the others are saying this is exactly what you get when you reward lawlessness, there is a reason most governments do not make deals with terrorists, it entices them to do it again.  Both have ramped up the rhetoric with some placing the blame on us due to the War on Drugs like here, here, and here.  On the other side there are equally misinformed articles that aim to scare the populace with stories of how these group of immigrants will bankrupt their cities, destroyed their schools and crime rate will skyrocket.

Both sides are convinced that any larger influx of Hispanics will be to their benefit are the voting booth.  A common misconception that totally ignores reality and display an ignorance about what Hispanics want and how they vote if they vote at all.  Hispanics are not block voters, like for instance the AA vote. If that was the case Texas would be Democrat controlled state in every election.  People like to point out New York and California as examples of states where the Hispanic vote is key but both of those states though they have large Hispanic population, were blue states for a long time.

This urban myth, seems to be a result at least of where the exit voting polls are taken and the belief that all Hispanics support illegal immigrants.  The areas where exit polling is done are usually in large Metro Areas,  New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, etc.  Invariably most if not all of these areas are controlled by Democrats, they are also areas where large segments of the population are dependent on government. This eschews polling data by showing a preference for governmental policies and liberal views.

Yet those preferences don’t translate in other areas here are some quick facts from the BLS;

  • Hispanics are only second to Asians in the worker participation rate at 66.4 %
  • Hispanics enter the workforce earlier that any other Ethnic group
  • Hispanics as a group also work the most past the age of 65
  • Hispanics are paid the least across all job categories

Other stats

  • Hispanics are less likely to receive government assistance
  • Hispanics that live at or under the Federal poverty level, less than 50% are receiving 1 form of assistance
  • Only 36% of those receive more than one, compared that to 68% of blacks and 57% of whites

Before anyone guesses that I am pro-amnesty or open borders, let me state that I bitterly oppose both. There are good arguments for securing our borders and for managing our immigration policies in the manner that suits the country. What I am opposed is both sides using false or misleading statements to achieve their goals. If you have to resort to sentimentality to win, then you already lost your arguments. Likewise if you have to lie and instill fear to make your point you are just as bad.

I am reminded of the movie Children of Men, in that postapocalyptic world where no children were being born, this meant that those alive would be the last to survive. Refugees were thrown into cages, killed or kept in Refugee Camps with no hope. Finally a woman is pregnant with the first baby in more than 18 years, the rebels that opposed the immigration policies wanted to use the baby as a rallying cry to a full-blown rebellion, willing to kill the only woman who could start the next generation of humankind.  Talk about cutting your nose to spite your face. In many ways this is what is happening with the surge in UACs, some are hoping that the large migration of juveniles will force the government to act their way, risking the lives of those kids on a long and perilous journey to do so. Others are using the surge to do the opposite, demonizing  a large group of citizens along the way, who agree with them in the first place.

Finally, I wanted to answer Univision’s reporter Jorge Ramos, who tweeted that government should not be in the business of deporting children; to which I say,  government should not be in the business of  trafficking of children, which is exactly what is happening, and it is a lucrative business. As this story reports or This one also thanks to Clarice Feldman at American Thinker.

Imagine, an Obama as the Candidate he told us he would be

romney-2012-blog-image-hope-and-change

The euphoria and heady days of 2008 and the candidate for President Barack H. Obama are long gone. For many the Hope and Change that was promised has given way to cynicism, disappointments, blame shifting, name
calling, and to many horror at how things have turned out. For most, except the most partisan out there President Obama and his Administration have been a failure. We can argue as to the causes but the fact remains. Imagine what could have been had Candidate Obama had become President Obama. Before the election there were some doubts about Obama, veteran newscasters Charlie Rosen and Tom Brokaw expressed some of those in October 2008, and though some like Limbaugh have mischaracterized the conversation, the substance was that Obama was a somewhat unknown quantity. In the end they did as much of the MSM did in regards to Obama in 2008 and they just downplayed or ignored their instincts, choosing instead to join the bandwagon and helped Obama win the Presidency and a sweeping majority in Congress to boot.

Right after the election there were indications that something could be wrong, when Obama started doing press conferences with the non-existent seal of the Office of President-Elect of the US, a concocted title that he and his transition team would go on to use until his inauguration. But it was a meeting 3 days after his inauguration on January 20th, 2008 that set the tone for the rest of his Presidency. It was at this meeting with the heads of Congress that was meeting to discuss the stimulus package proposals, that President Obama told Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona, “I won” and House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, “elections have consequences!”. The meeting which was supposed to foster bi-partisanship, had turned into, something else. The Republicans which had been battered and powerless, having lost Congress and the Presidency would now be unified, and would ride the Tea Party wave into control of the one-half of Congress in 2010, effectively stopping Obama’s agenda and our current situation. Let us Imagine what it could have been had the uniter, moderate, consensus builder, bi-partisan, post-partisan Candidate that was elected in 2008 had actually been what was advertised.

  • 2009- After assuming office with the economy still mired in a Recession, Obama held a meeting with Congress leaders for proposals to help the country still mired in a Recession. As a result a package of tax-cuts and spending on infrastructure was devised, with the cost of package being off-set in part by the winding down of operations in Iraq.
  • In June, he expresses his full support of the Green Revolution Movement in Iran, supporting the Secular student and young Iranian movement to replace the Islamic Republic.
  • Obama also supported the Honduran Supreme Court, that sought to stop the President of Honduras Manuel Zelaya, who with the help of Hugo Chavez, was trying to change the Honduran Constitution to allow him to run for re-election which the Constitution did not allow. Following a similar tactic that the Presidents of Venezuela’s Chavez had employed to keep himself in power. The same thing was done in Ecuador and Nicaragua who changed their Constitutions to allow the President to run indefinitely,  de-facto dictators.
  • In July, when asked to comment on the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates, a friend, Obama replied that it was a local law enforcement issue and as President it would not be his place to take sides.
  • In August he proposes a budget that starts to remove elements from the TARP and ARRA legislations to bring his baseline budget more in line with the Budgets before both emergency legislations.
  • In September he urges Congress to forgo the Mathew Shepard legislation as there was already Hate Crimes laws that were applicable not to mention State sanctions that did not require another Federal intervention.

 

  • 2010-After the loss of the Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy for 47 years after his death in January, President Obama formally asks his fellow Democrats in Congress to work with Republicans on the Health Care Bill. The people had sent a message and he got it, the present bill was not what the people wanted.
  • After announcing the end of Combat Operations in Iraq, due to the success the “Surge” in Iraq, Obama promises to work on a new SOFA agreement to monitor and assist the new Iraqi government past the current date of 2011. He explains that this small force was needed to ensure the hard-fought gains of the American Serviceman and Women during their intervention in Iraq.
  • In Afghanistan, the “good war”, he follows the advice of his military for a similar surge that proved a game changer in Iraq.

Now I was going to continue and to list other areas where Candidate Obama would have acted differently from President Obama, like after the loss of one half of Congress he would moderate his policies and be more inclusive, or how he would act more forcefully when confronted by malfeasance by members of his Cabinet (ATF, NSA, IRS, HHS, DOJ, VA, etc all had scandals). Perhaps, he would not insert himself into the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin shooting, while ignoring the mass killing going on in Chicago and other cities. He would not intentionally disregard laws that he was opposed to, simply because prosecutorial discretion allows him too, but at the end of the day as the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exclaimed;

What difference at this point does it make?

As I was writing this blog piece, I was following the events of the plane that went down in the Ukraine. It appears that it was shot down, by whom? It is not clear, it could have been the Russians, the Russian backed rebels or even the Ukrainians who also have the capability. Whatever the circumstances a plane bound for Kuala Lumpur from Amsterdam with almost 300 people had been shot down with not survivors. Among the dead were 23 Americans, over 100 children and this was his statement;

‘Before I begin, obviously the world is watching reports of a downed passenger jet near the Russia-Ukraine border. And it looks like it may be a terrible tragedy. Right now we’re working to determine whether there were American citizens on board. That is our first priority.’

‘And I’ve directed my national security team to stay in close contact with the Ukrainian government. The United States will offer any assistance we can to help determine what happened and why. And as a country, our thoughts and prayers are with all the families and passengers, wherever they call home. ‘

Obama then jarringly quickly returned to his prepared remarks.

‘I want to thank Jeremie for that introduction’ he said. ‘Give Jeremie a big round of applause.’ ‘It is great to be in the state that gave us Joe Biden. We’ve got actually some better-looking Bidens with us here today.  We’ve got Beau and his wife, Hallie, are here. Give them a big round of applause. We love them.’  …’Jack Lew’s signature is actually on your money,’ he said, ‘although it’s kind of illegible. We teased him when he first became treasury secretary that he was going to have to fix his signature a little bit because it looked just like a caterpillar running along the bottom.’

In all his statement regarding the event was about 40 seconds long before he turned to the teleprompter and his speech about transportation and boosting infrastructure spending. Regardless of the reason for the crash, a mechanical malfunction, pilot error, or some freak natural event the crash and death of 300 individuals IS a tragedy. That this might be the result of human intervention and deliberate whether in error or not, President Obama’s disconnect was in full display. It was a shameful display with jokes and political attacks against the Republicans. The total disregard for human beings is nothing new to President Obama as displayed by his reluctance to address the current border situation. The masses of young children and adults coming in the country after a hazardous journey were many are dying on the way. Young girls are being raped to the point that the DHS Secretary Johnson is testifying that girls are given birth control before they embark to the US and when they arrive as reported here. Not only that but the law that the Administration is claiming that is forcing them to accept the illegals the “William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008” is not applicable to as many as 85 percent of the cases because the children are being smuggled into the country, in many instances with a parent,  and not victims of trafficking, making them ineligible for the protections afforded by the law. It is just another instance of the Obama Administration expanding the parameters of a law to suit its political purposes. You can read the Center for Immigration Studies explanation of the law, here.

Whether Obama the Candidate was just a dream foisted by a pliant and cheerleading MSM,  he was a good great con man who suckered the nation or a combination of both, maybe he just never existed, it was a projection in most of Americans. That is probably closer to the truth but just Imagine if that person existed was in charge today, just Imagine. If there is a lesson here is that something that seems to good to be true, usually is and that is particularly the case in politics. We need to vet our candidates well, or else they will become President or Senator or Congressman, and we want the candidate to be that person we choose, not an empty Bear in a suit who is now loose.

Tea Party “is” responsible for the IRS, VA, Benghazi and other scandals

The Tea Party, or a better description the Tea Party movement, is responsible for the scandals that plaguing the Obama Administration, by bringing to the forefront the problems that afflict our government; cronyism, incompetence, size, mismanagement and size. Its populists message made inroads with people and appealed to voters across, racial, political, income and age lines.  It was this disenchantment that a young Jr. Senator from Illinois was able to tap into the Presidency over the more senior and experience opponents; first in the Democratic Primary against Hillary Clinton and then against long-time Senator McCain both Washington insiders.

The origins of the Tea Party Movement or TPM  are difficult to place, since many groups have claimed to be Tea Party Patriots or a variation, many in commemoration of the original protest that gave its name the Tea Party of 1773, a protest against the Crown’s taxes in the colonies. The current TPM really started to take shape as a protest against the Bush Administration, in particular the then proposed TARP program and the  Bush Administration expansion of the Federal government in 2008.

In 2009, with the new President Obama and its expansion of the TARP, to the bailout GM and Chrysler as well as the Stimulus Bill and later the proposed Health Care overhaul bill, while mired in a recession flamed the TPM into a National movement. The TPM held massive rallies throughout the country and in the mid-term elections of 2010 many candidates supported by the TPM were elected into Congress over Establishment politicians. Those gains in 2010 and the earlier victory of Senator Scott Brown at the beginning of 2010 to replace Senator Ted Kennedy who had died cemented the TPM as a legitimate force in National politics. Brown’s election was extremely important as his election would provide the Republicans with 41 Senate seats, which would have been enough to sustain a filibuster of the Obamacare bill in Congress.

Senator Brown’s election was important in other ways because it forced the Democrats to find ways to thwart the TPM and its populist movement. It also marked the departure of how the MSM’s media outlets covered the TPM. The TPM’s strong opposition to the Health Care bill, the Stimulus and other policies of the new Administration was from that point on in the MSM’s (Main Street Media) eyes one driven by racism, homophobia, xenophobia,  Hellenologophobia, anti-government, anarchists or just plain crazy people. One example of this is the Media’s reporting of the protests outside of Congress on the day that then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and her entourage of Democratic Leaders including many from the CBC (Congressional Black Caucus) marched in with her oversized mallet to commemorate the passage of the Health Care Bill. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) and other members of the CBC would claim that protester spat on him as they hurls racist slurs at him other Congressmen, despite the dozens of MSM cameras and hundreds more of others that were recording the event, none have corroborated his accusations. Breibart even offered a $100,000 reward for any video or audio that corroborated the claims, needless to say the reward was never claimed, in fact all the video footage disproved the claims. It didn’t stop the MSM from reporting the claims as factual, to this day many point to that non-event as proof of the TPM’s racism, just another instance of the MSM’s false but accurate reporting that become vogue when reporting about the TP or non-Democrats for that matter.

The TPM was becoming a powerful force in politics, one that could upset the delicate balance our 2 party system had developed through the years. To the Democrats it was siphoning support from those fiscally responsible Democrats still in the party, even though the party itself had taken a sharp turn to the left. To the Republicans they faced the possibility of it being consumed by the movement, upsetting the things as they are of the Establishment. Both parties have profited from government largesse, the Democrats would get funding for their social engineering and the Republicans the Defense and breaks for corporate entities. Both could go home to their districts and “bring home the bacon” from Washington and use it to get elected and re-elected. It was something that both would tout endlessly about  during the election season by incumbents and opponents if one failed to deliver. The TPM was looking to upset that symbiotic relationship between the parties, they had to be stopped.

In the beginning the Republican Party was happy with the Tea Party as it added life to their ranks who had been demoralized after the Bush Administration, they had lost both Houses of Congress and the Presidency and seemed lost without a clear message for the future. The TPM gave them a boost that they sorely needed, but it became apparent that the TPM was not going to be puppet of the Establishment Republicans, in fact the TPM would go just as hard against them as they would against the Democrats.  If the movement was to be stopped the Democrats would have to get involved to help and they did utilizing their allies in the MSM, Hollywood and some Republicans to bring a stopped to the TPM.

The Media’s reporting of the TPM changed, rallies that were once looked upon skeptically now were reported in negative connotations, the attendees where under reported, the racial make-up of the attendees was analysed, income levels, intelligence, etc. The TPM was put under a microscope, in the 2010 Mid-terms any Tea Party supported candidate was vetted rigorously, after the elections much was made about those that lost but very little was said about those that one, which far out-numbered the loses. The TPM candidates were often vilified, their statements were often taken out of context and portrayed negatively, but all of this was not enough to stop the wave that saw the Republican party from retaking one half of Congress putting the stop brakes on the Obama Administration Agenda. It was clear that the TPM needed to be stopped or 2012 would be another bad year for the Democrats.

This is why the TPM is responsible for the scandals that would follow. The Obama Administration and the Democrats Congress in had a very pro-Government Agenda. They sought to pass legislation that would radically change our country. From climate change regulation, to gun control, health care, financial regulation, etc. all would consolidate power on the Federal government. To the Democratic leadership, name the problem, more government seemed to be their solution. This of course was contrary to the TPM’s message, that saw too much government intervention and spending as the problem. To accomplish this the Administration and the Democratic Leadership set about in motion several actions to prove the not only the need for government intervention but that it could deliver the goods.

Fast and Furious– To prove the need for stricter gun control, it revived a Bush Administration program that was intended to track guns purchased in the US and sold to Mexican Drug Cartels, only this time the amount of guns would be much larger and no attempt would be made to track the guns across the border, we also would not notify the Mexican authorities of it. The hope was that when those guns would turn up in Mexico and traced back to the US, it would lend impetus to gun control legislation. This led to these guns being used to kill at least 2 US border agents and hundreds more dead in Mexico, including several massacres in Mexico.

Solyndra and others– To prove that the government could stimulate and replace the use of fossil fuels, millions of dollars were given to Solyndra and other renewable energy companies most have ceased operations, a few are limping along but the program has been a colossal waste of taxpayers money.

Benghazi and Arab Spring To demonstrate the new approach to Foreign relations, the Administration backed the rise of Islamist factions in allied countries, Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Syria and Libya, the rebellions in those countries have thrown them all into chaos. Secular Tunisia is in turmoil by the new proposed constitution based on Sharia Law, Libya is split in two and in a continuing civil war, Yemen has been split with large portions in control by al-Qaeda, Syria was plunged into a civil war that has more that 150, 000 dead and millions residing in refugee camps, Egypt rejected the rule of the Islamist with a coup by the military who now rule the country. Also worth mentioning the rise al-Qaeda related groups in Mali that required the intervention of the French, or Boko Haram in Nigeria and neighboring countries. In Benghazi the same groups that we assisted in overthrowing the government attacked our Consulate which led to the deaths of our Ambassador and 3 others. In Syria the rebels that we were supporting have now turned around and have conquered large portions of Iraq, possibly leading to the partition of the country into 3 different factions.

Ukraine and Russia– The “reset” with Russia has worked about as well as can be expected with this Administration with the Ukraine losing the Crimea and in danger of losing the Eastern half of the country after we supported the Maidan pro-Western uprising against its elected government. Russia is also supporting the Syrian government which we are opposing and strengthening ties with China.

VA scandal– The Administration pointed to the VA as the standard and goal of its Health Care ambitions, it paid bonuses to their officials for delivering the quality of care that showed how a government could take over the health system and provide a quality service. Instead those bonuses helped to incentivize a system that failed to perform and hid the results of its failure with mock lists when those waiting to receive care died while waiting to see a doctor.  At the same time whistleblowers were harassed and fired when they brought the failures to light.  Meanwhile millions were paid to the families of the dead veterans in settlements to cover their failures to provide care.

IRS scandal To prevent the TPM from spreading its message, the IRS was weaponized to prevent local groups of TPM and Conservative groups the means to organize as an entity. The groups were investigated, slow walked and people on donor lists were investigated and audited.  Unlike the DNC and RNC the TPM is not one national organization but a conglomeration of smaller regional entities working together. They also did not share a single platform as some shared some social goals but others didn’t. The end result was that the TPM was mostly silent in the run-up to the 2014 Presidential Elections, which was immensely helpful in the re-election of the Obama Administration. Without their local voices the TPM, and the marginalization of the “teabaggers” by the MSM it blunted and silenced the TPM.

There other instances of actions that were caused by the TPM but as you can see the Administration and Establishment Republicans have taken measures to quashed the TPM. Just yesterday Senator Cochran won the primary in Mississippi over a TPM,  Conservative challenger by depicting his challenger as racist and directly appealing to the black community for its votes.  One black pastor who helped to organize votes against Cochran opponent, was asked why he was supporting Cochran over his challenger, he said because he that his challenger Chris McDaniel was a tea partier and a racist so he was helping Cochran win.  Oh by the way he also said that he would work hard come November to elect the Democratic nominee.

Like I said at the beginning, the Tea Party is to blame.

Iraq, Afghanistan the making of our generations Vietnam

As the situation in Iraq gets more dire, with ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) forces just outside of Baghdad and the seemingly inevitable collapse of the Iraqi government and forces it is well worth remembering how this has come to be. The similarities to Vietnam are striking , Iraq and Afghanistan both are headed in the same direction, defeat by lesser enemy because we gave up. The defeat was not on the battlefield in those far of places but on a different arena thousands of miles away in Washington.

The common perception is that the United States lost the war in Vietnam, but the reality is that we won the war but lost the Peace. After Nixon launched the Linebacker I and Linebacker II air bombardments of North Vietnam it was them who sought the peace accords on our terms, which were signed on January 27th, 1973.  What should have been a victory was lost as a result of the politics that would follow. We withdrew militarily and due to the politics involving Watergate, the new Democratic Congress we abandoned South Vietnam financially. It was the lack of military aid that left South Vietnam defenseless after 2 decades of war, while the North Vietnamese were being replenished militarily by both the Soviet Union and China.

At the time of the Paris Peace Accords, the North Vietnamese did not possess the capability to fight but after the treaty was signed they embarked on rebuilding their military and their war making capabilities, South Vietnam which had been the front lines for much of the war was facing similar devastation but the Democratic Congress embarked on a mission to deny them the aid necessary for them rebuild. It is not a surprised that when the North launch their Spring offensive in March 1975, that it did not take long to for them to finished the South and by June, barely a 3 months into the offensive Saigon the capital had fallen. It was lack of political will and partisan politics that allowed the South to fall as soon as it did.

In 2005, Iraq held the first free elections in its history. After the Surge in 2007 to  put down the insurgency of the Mahdi Army, a second election was held on 2010.  The Surge was immediately opposed by the Democrats who now controlled the Congress. Many were calling it a folly to increase the military involvement in Iraq.  “McCain’s Idea”  after Senator John McCain who served and was a POW during the war in Vietnam and was running for President in 2008 elections, was reminiscent of the escalation of troops in Vietnam by the Johnson Administration in the 60’s and the Democrats thought that it would end just as disastrously. Yet, the Surge worked and by 2008 the Iraqi nation showed signs of turning the corner.  Civilians deaths, sectarian attacks and military attacks were at their lowest since the Invasion in 2003. It seemed that we had won the war, now we needed to win the peace.

The last Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA, was signed in December of 2008, calling for the final withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2011. Could a new SOFA agreement been negotiated by the Obama Administration in light of the divisions still in existence in Iraq? We will never know as President Obama ran on the promise to end our involvement in Iraq and they never tried. The divisions in Iraq were well-known and the country was pretty much divided into 3 sections with the Kurds controlling the North and Northeast bordering Turkey and Iran, the Sunnis controlling the West and center bordering Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and the Shia controlling the South and East bordering Iran and Kuwait, as well as the Federal government in Iraq.

This has been a point of contention and criticism of President Bush, as many thought that the solution to Iraq’s problems would be to partition the country along those lines. The decision not to was political as Turkey a member of NATO did not want a Kurdish State on its borders due to their own problems with the Kurdish minority bordering it.  The Saudis another ally, did not want an Shia state that could become a vassal of Iran on its borders and both Syria and Jordan did not want a Sunni State on its borders to destabilize their own countries. It is worth noting that all these divisions were religious in nature, the Kurds are Christian, the other two are competing Islamic sects which have battled each other for centuries. The last one was the First Persian War between Iraq and Iran from 1980 to 1988 which ended in a stalemate.

While President Bush can be faulted for not dividing the country along its sectarian and religious areas, it is important to keep in mind that it was not just the Bush Administration that saw Iraq as a destabilizing force in the Middle East. As I already mention the First Persian War, the Second Persian War was after Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia and many before Bush was elected saw them as a threat to our interest in the area and beyond. As the partial list of quotes bellow;

 “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” —President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
— Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
— Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
— Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking n

— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

As the quotes suggests, it is evident that the Clinton Administration long before Bush was elected saw Iraq as a threat and believed that it possessed WMA’s that could destabilize the area.  It was for sheer political expediency and gain support of a growing anti-war movement in the US that the Democratic Party decided that supporting the war was not in their best political interest. This change in attitude helped to create the atmosphere that allowed the Obama candidacy to win on the promise of ending our involvement.  At the same time it allowed for us backing other poor thought out insurgencies in the Middle East during the “Arab Spring”.

In February 2010, on “Larry King Live” no less, a grinning Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed that Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.” Wow. Less than three years after Sen. Harry Reid (D., Global Caliphate.) declared the war lost, and less than three years after then-Sen. Barack Obama — with his usual fierce moral urgency — opposed the Bush administration’s military surge, Obama’s veep takes credit for victory.

In 2011 as we are making preparations to abandon Iraq, the Obama Administration was providing support to the “Arab Spring”. Our support led to rise of Islamic forces to take control of  and depose our allies in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and Libya. Yes Libya was our ally in that they were helping and providing intelligence on terrorist groups which had at one point found refuge in Libya. The results of which will be felt for years to come a quick rundown;

  • Yemen the country is now divided with large areas under control by al-Qaeda and other radical Muslims. In Tunisia the mostly secular government has been replaced by Islamist which aim to turn the country into a Islamic Republic, Muslim clerics serving as modesty police cane women who are dressed to immodestly.
  • Egypt after President Hosni Mubarak was deposed, Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi was elected President, hundreds of convicted terrorist from al-Qaeda, Hamas and other groups released from prison, hundreds of Egyptian artifacts destroyed by Islamist as pagan artifacts. The crackdown against any Western influence led to a coup by the Army and a new election. Now the Muslim Brotherhood is listed as a terrorist organization in Egypt with hundreds of its followers facing death sentences.
  • Tunisia the mostly secular government was overthrown and a new Islamist government has been installed. A new constitution with Sharia law as its basis has been imposed which have led to Modesty Police patrolling the streets and massive protests which are still ongoing.
  • Libya saw with the direct involvement of American forces the Gaddafi regime end. The intervention of the Western Armed forces was done to prevent any retaliation by Gaddafi of the separatist Benghazi Islamists. This led to his eventual defeat and killing. The new government in Libya has been unable to control the country which is pretty divided in two. In 2012 our Ambassador was killed in Benghazi by the same Islamist forces we helped to defeat Gaddafi.
  • Syria the country which until 2010 was regarded by the Obama Administration as reformist and a model of what a Islamic Republic would be like was plunged into a civil war which has seen more that 150,000 deaths and millions more in refugees. The Obama Administration has vacillated from fully supporting the rebels and secretly arming them to drawing “red lines” that he ignores to calling for negotiating with the current government even if it does keep the current government.

Algeria, Jordan, Oman, Djibouti, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco, Mauritania, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Palestine all had protests or insurgencies toppling some governments or getting some reforms adopted as a result. The only movement that the Administration failed to support in some way was the (2009-2010)  Green Movement in Iran which was a precursor to the Arab Spring of 2011.

The rise of Islamic factions as a result of the Arab Spring will be felt for years to come. In Mali the Islamic forces takeover of the northern parts of Mali, required the assistance of French forces to retake and stabilize the area. In Nigeria the Boko Haram which had until 2010 been a mostly peaceful group began carrying out terrorist attacks in Nigeria, robbing, killing, raping, kidnapping women and government officials. They have also conducted raids and attacks in the neighboring countries of Benin, Cameroon, Niger and Chad.

This has been made possible in part by the removal of Gaddafi in Libya. His vast stores of weapons fell into the hands of al-Qaeda and its affiliates which have funnelled those weapons south through Chad and Sudan into the hands of Boko Haram in Nigeria and  the Tuareg Islamists  in Mali. Some of these same weapons have also made their way into Yemen and Syria, some say with our assistance. In Syria those weapons have been used to prolong the civil war there and are being used by ISIS to fight not just the Syrian Army but other rebel groups. Now ISIS has turned around and is attacking Iraq, with the same weapons we provided to fight in Syria only this time they are attacking Iraq which we fought a war with and are poised to lose any gains there.

The Obama Doctrine of appeasement and withdrawal while supporting Islamic groups is backfiring. The Islamic factions are not satisfied with just their piece of the pie, the want the whole thing which is destabilizing the Middle East and Northern Africa.  Iraq rather than being a model of how different factions could come to terms and work together is now being torn apart by the same faction which we are supporting in another country. It is any wonder that the Obama Administration seems paralysed and unable to react to the attacks by ISIS in Iraq or failed to address the actions of Boko Haram or the ongoing unrest in Libya, Yemen and Syria. Their whole premise of the ME has been wrong from the beginning. Ignoring the radicalization of Islam, be it from the Iran backed Shia or the Qatar, Saudi backed Sunni, it is this radicalization that is the problem. Installing or supporting Islamic governments will not stabilize the region only help it spread to other areas by legitimizing their brand of fundamentalism.  Only thing is that democracy and Islamic Fundamentalism are incomparable.

In Afghanistan we are trying to negotiate with the Taliban, who we been fighting from the beginning. The current release of 5 of their top generals with the hope that they will not return to Afghanistan and cause us more trouble is naive at best, suicidal to our interests at worst. Hoping is not a sound strategy, as is ignoring the roots of the problems. It is hard for some to reconcile that religion is a driving force in society, especially in the West were we treat it so casually.  Ignoring it in the rest of the world is dangerous as we have seen and will continue to be so until we acknowledge that while it is the 21st century religion is as much a part of life to some today as it was in 18th, 19th or 20th centuries.

Meanwhile as we allow Afghanistan and Iraq to become our generations Vietnam we can console ourselves by knowing that we are politically correct and are not disparaging Islam as Pres. Obama once said ignorantly;

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

So to whom must the future belong to, as believing outside of Islam is to slander the Prophet, one cannot be done without doing the other.