Gary Johnson Passes The Moronic Wannabe Leader Test

It was startling to see a major third party candidate on live television instantly converted into a clueless  moron. In this case, Gary Johnson - the Libertarian candidate- yesterday  on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe', got this question from Mike Barnacle: "What would you do, if elected President, about Aleppo?"

Johnson suddenly appeared pop-eyed and asked: "What's Aleppo?"

To which Barnacle replied:  "Are you serious?"

Because every sentient being with a consciousness somewhat higher than a kindergartner's knows Aleppo is a besieged city in Syria  and the epicenter of a humanitarian crisis. Indeed, tens of thousands have been killed there after five years of the Syrian Civil War.  Yet Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, and the Libertarians' presidential hopeful - didn't know that.

On the dooofus scale for presidential disqualification, Johnson's answer puts him on a par with Ben Carson, who in one forum (in 2015) suggested the Baltic states (Croatia, Slovenia etc.) were not part of NATO.  His faux pas also rivals that of Rick Perry who - in a 2012 debate, failed to recall the DOE (Dept. of Energy)  as one  of the main federal agencies.

Let us agree then, that for any given forum - whether formal presidential debate, or even informal appearance on cable TV, there are certain "deal breakers" in terms of  candidate's fitness for office. One of these is failing to exhibit knowledge of basic current events especially in relation to existing world problems, crises or global policies. On this score, Johnson failed the leadership test just as Carson and Perry did earlier.

Johnson attempted to explain his reaction by later saying he "understood the significance of Aleppo but blanked out".  Now, let's process this, please. He is claiming that in an informal setting, on an early morning cable TV  show - usually watched by fewer than 1 million - he lost command of his brain for the duration and reverted to a default zombie condition..

One is then led to ask, assuming Johnson were to actually become President, what we might expect if he had a face off with Vladimir Putin at a high powered meeting on one crisis or other. And let's say Putin asked him point blank what he and his administration intended to do about the Chechen terrorists? Would Johnson "blank out" just then and ask "What's a Chechen?"  Subsequently correcting himself and saying "I know the significance of Chechnya but I blanked out?"  What do you suppose Mr. Putin would think? (Apart from wondering how Americans could be so stupid as to elect this guy to be President.)

Or, suddenly the nation is under nuclear threat from China and the Joint Chiefs advise going to Defcon 2. Will Johnson then blank out and ask: "What's Defcon 2?"  Then, after it's too late blurt out "I REALLY did understand the significance of defcon 2  but blanked out!"

You see where I am going with this? The excuse of blanking out is no excuse at all, period, because anyone in the position of commander -in -chief simply can't afford to do that. You are no longer an average Joe Citizen allowed the luxury of blanking out, forgetting key information, or falling asleep on the job.  You are now responsible directly for the nation's security as that commander -in -chief so can no longer have the luxury of lapses that might be afforded anyone else.

Johnson's spin is not satisfactory, therefore, and that means while he passes the "moron wannabe leader test' he fails the real leader test.  This comes at a time when Johnson has been trying to raise his profile and meet the 15 percent poll threshold (based on 5 national polls) to secure a spot with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the debates. Currently, he is hovering at nine percent. One certainly is left to argue  that Johnson's blanking out was perhaps a "mercy killing" for his debate chances. This is given how he'd look blanking out in front of tens of millions if asked, say by Martha Raddatz: "Mr. Johnson, how would you propose to resolve the Spratly Islands dispute with China?"

Even Johnson has acknowledged how he brought himself to such a precarious position. In a different interview yesterday he acknowledged the consequences for a candidate seeming to lack a basic understanding of a major foreign policy issue. He actually  said:

"For those who believe this is a disqualifier, so be it."

Of course, the blatant missteps and interview blunders of one Libertarian presidential candidate will hardly dissuade the high IQ members of Mensa and Intertel from continuing to glamorize Libertarianism as the choice of the brilliant cognoscenti (i.e. that they fancy themselves to be.)  They fetishize this misbegotten ideology because they are anti-statist at the core, and use it as a convenient economic vehicle to denounce everything from taxes for support of social insurance, to climate change. (Not wanting taxes to support gov't research, or have any carbon taxes or rationing.)

But bright though they are, these same high IQ Libbies can't seem to see the paradox of their positions in terms of national governance.  To wit, their entire premise is opposed to any rational and practical governance.  Recall the Libertarian Party Principles state:

“We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

This has been further amplified via Charles Murray's statement in What it means to be a Libertarian (p. 6):

“It is wrong for me to use force against you, because it violates your right to control of your person....I may have the purest motive in the world. I may even have the best idea in the world. But even these give me no right to make you do something just because I think it's a good idea. This truth translates into the first libertarian principle of governance: In a free society individuals may not initiate the use of force against any other individual or group”

But if one considers the context,  such a “libertarian principle of governance" emerges as an oxymoron! Governance presumes and demands the non-passive act of governing, which means the projection of force for enforcement of laws including for national security.  Someone is invariably and actively setting standards of expected action, and also providing the means to uphold the standards. In other words, force inevitably backs up governance. Why do you think cities maintain police forces, and the nation a large volunteer standing army - along with assorted weapons to control crowds?  It is to sustain coherent and FORCE-ful governance. The libertarians, then, espouse a philosophy which cannot possibly work in the real world - because that world implicitly recognizes and declares government the primary agent of force, i.e. to enforce laws. Look around for a "force-less" government, i.e. which retains adherence and respect for its laws with no use of force.

If governments aren't enabled to enforce their laws , what’s the point? It’s all an exercise in mental masturbation. People can do whatever the hell they want!  Set up sex store emporiums or pot shops next to schools, or sell cocaine  and semi-automatic weapons in open stalls on the sidewalks of major cities!  Freedom thereby becomes perverted into a veritable "free for ALL". In other words, unless governance declares limits to actions - and someone (coercively) enforces governance, a functional society becomes  impossible.

All of this shows that the high IQ Libertarians inhabit a sheltered world of their own with no practical touch points to reality.  In this sense Johnson's blank out breakdown ought to have been a wake up call, but more than likely will just elicit more rationalizations - just as those they've used to defend Ayn Rand.

Thankfully, the chances of Gary Johnson becoming the first Libertarian president are about the same as his forlorn party ever becoming competitive in national politics.

A Ground War - The Only Way To Crush The ISIS Bugs

John Sawer, in his Weekend Financial Times article  on ISIS and the Paris terror attacks,  put it bluntly and best on what ISIS absolutely does not want (among two things):

"First, ISIS does not want a ground intervention by NATO or Russia, as this would quickly cost the militants their base in eastern Syria and western Iraq".

However, he noted they have probably already calculated there is not stomach for such intervention in the NATO nations, despite 12 months of nonstop bombing having little effect. This 'no ground war' sentiment certainly holds in the U.S., despite Jeb Bush's call to "declare war", forgetting the attack was on France not the U.S.. With $18 trillion in debt  (and counting) already,  there is only a limited amount of further  trillions to support more wars, all Marco Rubio's jingoistic bloviations notwithstanding.

The second thing ISIS fears, according to Sawer, is "a peace deal bringing a new government to Syria"  Especially if the new deal accommodated the Syrian Sunnis (remember ISIS is largely comprised of Iraqi Sunnis who were disallowed in the gov't mutation later formed by the U.S. - comprised largely of Shi'ites).  This would "cause ISIS to lose its appeal"

But the probability of getting to that desirable state is a lot less than orchestrating a limited ground war.

Given the U.S. should stay out of such a ground war, for various reasons including we've already started enough of them with zero success, the question emerges as WHO should undertake it. (Note when I say 'stay out' I only mean only in terms of dispatching tens of thousands of ground pounders, but support and logistics advisors are a different matter, and perhaps small strike teams such as recently rescued ISIS prisoners in Iraq who were about to be slaughtered).

But the main thrust must come from: the Muslim nations in the region. They'd be fortified by two legitimate "outsiders",   Russia and France - the most recent ISIS victims. (Also their peoples would be most likely to support a ground invasion after what happened to their fellow citizens.)  Other NATO members from the EU may also join in support by invoking a NATO clause that "an attack on one is an attack on all". But the U.S., for all the reasons Obama laid out in his press conference this morning, has to leave the provision of sufficient ground troops to others. We've had our turn, now it's theirs.

Again, just as ISIS would most fear a peace settlement that includes Sunnis, so also they would most fear a ground war alliance that includes both the Sunnis (in Saudi Arabia) and the Shia (from Iran).  Such an entity would be seen as a "devil's alliance"  (much as Hitler saw the U.S. and U.S.S.R. joining forces in WWII) because two nations representing the antipodes of Islam (mutual enemies) would be seen to be strong -willed enough to band together to remove a scourge. This would send chills through all of the ISIS vermin.

The question is whether the Saudis and Iranians could put aside their differences long enough to bring down these pests.

As I noted in my post yesterday, on the Dem debates:

"as geopolitical expert Hillary Mann Leavitt noted this morning, the ISIS attacks are not intended to "take away our freedoms", but to change our policy. In other words, their desire is to get the West to go off half cocked and unilaterally launch a full scale war without ANY Muslim allies involved - so they can garner recruits and justify full out jihad. This is why it is essential that taking out the ISIS bugs be a full collaborative effort, not just with NATO and Russia involved, but ALL the Muslim nations in the region too. "

Meanwhile, there is the serious matter of ISIS local extremist recruitment and involvement and we now know that the two renegades who killed 89 innocents at the Paris concert hall were French nationals. How did they get recruited? Evidently, the vermin have been using apps like 'What's App' and also game platforms like Playstation which allows players to make contact with any others around the world and also text on the side while gaming.  Everything's hidden from prying eyes so it's the perfect medium with which to sneak plans by the authorities in whatever country.

These are all encrypted apps which have the following features:

- All messages are protected from surveillance

- Communications are set to delete

- It is difficult to break the encryption

Former CIA assistant director Michael Morrell, on CBS this morning, agreed that all of this is a result of the Edward Snowden debate. But why such encryptions should be stronger for games on PlayStation as well as chat apps is puzzling - say compared to internet sites for which more or less full surveillance still applies.

Morrell did go on to state that now, in the wake of the Paris attacks, a "new debate" will unfold on "whether the government should have access to the keys to open this stuff up and the result may be different".

I definitely agree, but the problem is, once the ISIS bugs are exterminated, can we then return to the non-surveilled state before?  The problem, as before, is fighting these vermin, subduing them - but not sacrificing our civil liberties in the process including those of the 4th amendment and "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"

Obama -ites Need to Grow Up And Work With Putin - Not Against Him!

"Jeebus, do I really got to shake this thug's hand! Drat!"

The news in The Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal is that the meeting of Obama with Vladimir Putin Monday did not go well. This was regarding what to do about the nest of terrorist vipers (ISIS or ISIL)  breeding in Syria and undermining that nation, creating havoc and causing millions to flee. (As a reality check, let's also bear in mind nearly 60 percent of the fleeing Syrian refugees are Assad supporters.).

According to the WSJ's account (Monday, A1):

"President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin clashed publicly over how to resolve the conflict in Syria, in a showdown in front of the rest of the world's leaders that added uncertainty to the burgeoning crisis in the Middle East"

Then:

"The U.S. and Russian leaders traded barbs in dueling speeches to the United Nations General Assembly then later clinked champagne glasses at a luncheon."

Left unsaid is that Mr. Putin had by far the more powerful "ammo" packed into his speech, compared to Obama. This was in respect to his mention that the Pentagon had admitted $500m in weapons and equipment had been handed over to Al Qaeda by U.S.-backed Syrian rebels. See e.g.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/09/26/us-backed-syrian-rebels-handed-over-equipment-al-qaeda-affiliate-military-admits

This could no doubt also have fallen into the hands of ISIS. The point is, it means the Obama plan to somehow create a Syrian opposition "counter force" to Bashar al Assad is a failure. It can't work and won't work.  Like it or not, Assad's gov't is the one with UN representation and is the legitimate one.

Putin also made it clear to Obama and the U.S. that Russia has a vested interest in fighting ISIS too, given "2,000 Russians have left for Syria to join ISIS" and he told Charlie Rose in a powerful interview on '60 Minutes' that he'd prefer to fight them in Syria.  As one administration official put it regarding the meeting between Obama and Putin:

"This was not a situation where either of them was seeking to score points".

Which is good, because it must be 'all hands on deck' to fight the ISIS vermin. Of course, the WSJ's editorial minions screeched their usual hysteria about Putin seeking to form a coalition against the Islamic State (which is a damned GOOD idea) but which they portray on "Russian and Iranian terms" adding "which means supporting Bashar al Assad's regime against all opponents".

So? What is the alternative? There is none! The real threat (as disclosed in the previous link) is sending lethal weapons to the jihadis in Syria seeking to overthrow Assad- only to have them fall into the hands of ISIS and al Qaeda..  Hence, this misbegotten U.S. mission as Putin notes, must end and all the anti-ISIS forces must get on the same page. ISIS must be eliminated first - THEN we can talk about replacing Assad in the future in an electoral transition.

Meanwhile this morning, the Saudi Prime Minister-  in an interview with Nora O'Donnell on CBS-  was outraged...outraged, that the Russians were entering the Syrian fray. Yet this mealy-mouthed wimp,  presiding over a backward nation that still delivers 1,000 lashes to females who violate their primitive laws,  had no answers himself. Other than to suggest the existing coalition of ten nations had to work harder so why didn't the Russians just join them? Well, mayhap because the Russians also see the need for more than remote air strikes.  In addition, these Saudi rats (from which the 9/11 hijackers hailed) haven't delivered a dime for the refugee camps or taken any of them in - so fuck their 'holier than thou', officious attitude. The only reason the U.S. remains chummy with their lot of regressive slime is because it still needs Saudi light sweet crude to deliver the energy 'bang' the degraded fracked crap (kerogen)  can't.

 Any sober realist will assure you there's not even a semi-legit alternative to take the place of Assad now which could also provide stable governance. (And we saw how it played out in Iraq when a Shia U.S. puppet gov't was put in charge - directly paving the way for the spawning of the Sunni ISIS.)  To believe so, as Obama and his bud David Cameron appear to, is to be drinking the Neolib dreamer kool aid. For more on this please do read the FT article below (sign up for the free limited access if you have to!):

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/96bf7e48-6041-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3mSz73FXD

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/margaret-kimberley/64096/putin-trumps-obama-at-the-u-n


Excerpt:

Presidents Obama and Putin both made their respective cases before the United Nations General Assembly at its annual meeting. Obama’s speech was an apologia for imperialism and American aggressions. He repeated the lies which no one except uninformed Americans believe....

The world ought to fear pax Americana, not a Russian military presence in Syria. There cannot be true peace and stability unless nations and peoples are left to their own devices. The helping hand of United States democracy is anything but. It is a recipe for disaster and requires forceful opposition. If Russia can be a reliable counterforce the whole world will benefit, even if Barack Obama frowns before the cameras.

Pope Francis Calls Out Greedheads and Power Mongers At UN - Is Anyone Paying Attention?

Pope Francis called out world leaders at the UN yesterday  morning, calling for an end to the "selfish and boundless thirst for power ...fueling poverty, inequality and destruction of the environment". He nailed it but one had to wonder how many of these leaders were really paying attention or merely pretending to, in an act of formal respect.

He added that: "The unfettered pursuit of money rules and leads to the misuse of natural resources and the exclusion of the weak. . Once capital becomes an idol and guides people's decisions, and greed for money presides over the entire socio-economic system, the service of the common good is left behind."

The Pope particularly referenced the "financial agencies and the groups or mechanisms specifically created to deal with economic crises" a potent reference to the IMF, the World Bank and others, In case people may have forgotten, all of these agencies are dedicated to the Neoliberal imperative whose prime directive is to remove security for people worldwide. As Francis noted:

"And these agencies should not subject countries to oppressive lending systems. Far from promoting progress, these subject people to greater poverty, inequality and dependence."

Thus, the agencies' yen to cut pensions in Greece as well as social supports, and to privatize pensions in Barbados and to push for currency devaluation in many other less developed nations (such as already been done in Jamaica, Guyana and Trinidad).

The Pope, let's make no mistake, hit one of the prime targets (along with religious fanaticism) for what's wrong with this world.

Francis also referred to "World War III" going on right now,  yet most of us are somnolent, or better, comatose under the haze of Neoliberal puppet media propaganda - especially economic. The barrage on the nightly news has been so effective, that the poorly informed are left with their mouths agape  while those of us who know a thing or two are left to battle newly minted Zombies and attempt to get their brains liberated from the dross.

And, of course, like the Pope we are often attacked for our stance and arguing for a saner world where inequality and financial manipulation are finally wiped out. No surprise there, or that the Neoliberal media - which tolerates no efforts at others competing - viciously attacks Jeremy Corbin in the UK and Sen. Bernie Sanders in the U.S. for their efforts to upend the imperative.

No surprise then that like the brainwashed denizens of Oceania - in the scene where the Über villain Emmanuel Goldstein is depicted on the giant theater screen - the stooges of the Neoliberal state likewise go nuts clamoring for blood and action. Hence, the jubilation of the Tea Party nuts after Boehner resigned, so they believe they can now tear into Obama's legislation even more.   Having lost the ability to critically and logically think, thanks to the bastardized vocabulary of Neolib Newspeak, the brains of these pawns have now been colonized by "Big Brother" to his own ends. Those of us who inveigh against it are the new "Emmanuel Goldsteins".

The people of Oceania were no longer authentic beings in their own right but mere extensions of Big Brother and his will to power, to keep grinding their bodies and state resources up in a never-ending war to attain global domination. So it is with the "Neoliberal Frankenstein" and how it now seeks to grind nation after nation into more fodder for its misbegotten global ends. Ends which elevate and reify a global elite but which denigrate everyone else - offering only "gigs" for jobs. This is exactly what Francis condemned.

In a slashing salon.com piece last year Patrick Smith correctly asserted  that "Neoliberalism is our Frankenstein" and also noted:  "it is profoundly undemocratic, never mind that the English and American variants of democracy are the mulch from which it arises." He also added:  "It is also unrelentingly absolutist because it is intimately related to the myth of America’s providential exception, neoliberalism can tolerate no alternative".  His definition (formal) starts out:

"Neoliberalism denotes the revival since the 1970s, plus or minus, of English liberalism as expounded by Locke in the 17th century and numerous others in the 18th—Adam Smith and his “invisible hand,” most famously. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarian, are notable among 19th century apostles."

But then went into a lengthy discourse comparing early and 18th century forms of  liberalism to the neo-mutant. Let's just cut to the chase here and give Smith's core definition:

"Classical liberalism in its 'neo'  phase denotes not thought but belief, ideological conviction. It is the ideology of radical deregulation, radical corporatization, radical privatization—prisons? water? kindergartens? human health?—maximal profit without regard to consequences, and the radical devaluation of any serious consciousness of the communities in which all individuals are suspended."

I would add to this columnist Jay Bookman's insight from a 1998 Baltimore Sun piece ('The New World Disorder Evident Here, Abroad'):

“The global economy has been constructed on the premise that government guarantees of security and protection must be avoided at all costs, because they discourage personal initiative."

And there is Henry Giroux's insight on Neoliberalism:

"As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy, consuming as the only operable form of citizenship, and upholds the irrational belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for structuring all social relations. "

Thus we see where the yen to cut social insurance arises, and why profit and enormous wealth is amplified for the richest, and  also how  the wealthier nations  especially benefit by placing desperate or unstable ones in regimes of adversely structured debt. This is exactly why the West's Neolibs are determined to make Ukraine part of the Neoliberal imperative and orbit. And also why they've arrogantly refused thus far to cooperate with Putin and Russia (as well as Assad)  to rein in the radical jihadi rebels and ISIS vermin seeking to wreck the rest of that forlorn country and send its remaining 11.5 million into permanent refugee flight.

 It follows from this that the true liberal must inveigh against this mission and that means siding with Russia and Putin (who will be giving a '60 Minutes' interview Sunday that I advise everyone to watch for a great example of a rational man). "Siding" at least to the extent that we agree the Ukraine outcome ends essentially in a draw - translated to mean neither in the West's orbit or Russia's but a separate buffer state. (This was advocated by Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson two years ago.)

It further means that we agree Syria be returned to stability and a stable government - even if we may not like that government. Tough shit! In our history we have tolerated tyrants before - think of Papa Doc Duvalier in Haiti, or Manuel Noriega in Panama, or Fulgencio Batista in Cuba - and we can do so now if it means lessening the refugee chaos and migrant crisis.

But this may be difficult given as Smith writes:

"I was astonished many times as a correspondent to see how readily foreign leaders and their finance ministries drank the Anglo-American Kool-Aid. Here I single out Continental Europe as especially disappointing. A long social-democratic tradition notwithstanding, almost all European leaders—and every last technocrat in Brussels—went down like sticks of butter when neoliberals at State, Treasury and in the think tanks launched the post-Berlin Wall campaign."

Thus, the Europeans have now become puppets of the U.S. which let's face it, is the primary force bearer - the 'cop of the world' - enjoined to enforce Neolib standards. Hence, the threat to send lethal weapons to the Ukrainians - just as they have kept arming the jihadis in Syria seeking to overthrow Assad. But which any sober realist will assure you can never happen - and also never lead to an alternative rebel governance. For more on this please do read the FT article below (sign up for the free limited access if you have to!):

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/96bf7e48-6041-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3mSz73FXD

Again, what it's about is the Neoliberal imperative,  to convert nations into dependent debt slavery states and their citizens into slaves for the Neoliberals.  How accomplished? Well, via the draconian conditions required by the World Bank and the IMF: the privatization of numerous state-held assets, including airports, rails and even pensions. Also,  divestment of the most profitable of these first.  Leaving the governments impecunious, essentially beggars beholden to the Neoliberal empire.

If you consider yourself to have any skin at all in this ongoing war, you need to back Vladimir Putin and Russia as bulwarks against Neoliberal advance. If not, then you are part of the problem not the solution and if the whole world turns into a slave state for the richest, you must share the blame for the "boundless thirst for power and money" that the Pope vehemently condemned.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/64016/the-pope-says-greed-is-not-good

And:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f7cd3f4c-6472-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3mtG3qQGY

  

Will The Repukes Behave Themselves for the Pope's Congressional Address? Or Act Like 'Pukes?

Pope Francis addressing the White House gathering this morning, warning that "climate change is a problem that can no longer be left to future generations." He also emphasized his own immigrant origins.

As Pope Francis received a rock star welcome in Washington this morning, on his way to the White House, many of us turn our minds to his congressional address tomorrow and how that will be received - especially by Republicans. Already one GOOP has vowed to "boycott" the address - immature brat that he is - and also Okie Jim Inhofe has already made disparaging remarks about the Pope and his previous pronouncements on climate change.

The 'pukes are also skittish about Francis' previous stands against run amuck capitalism calling him a "leftist" and other nonsense, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/bravo-to-pope-francis-for-warning-of.html

Most of them don't grasp that the Pope's visit is based on his pastoral message, which is really addressed to the nation's 70 million Catholics but could also have meaning for many others -including those of us who are hardcore secularists, or even Muslims and evangelicals. A "pastoral" message is based on the question "What would Jesus do?" as pointed out by Monsignor Anthony Figueredo on CBS this morning. He noted, however, the pastoral can impinge on the political. Thus, we are obliged to act as stewards of the planet because it is "God's work". In a similar way, we are obliged to share its resources and not greedily shut the less fortunate out, recalling Christ's words: "Whatever ye do for these the least of my brethren that ye also do unto me."

In addition, this message applies to the refugee crisis now confronting the world. And we know Francis' stand here is to unambiguously help these teeming masses of destitute people yearning to breathe free. Indeed, 3 weeks ago while we were in Europe we heard Francis (over the BBC) ask every Catholic religious community and monastery in Europe to take in a refugee family - as well as parishioners.

The 'skinny' is that the Pope's main message tomorrow in his congressional address will be to ask the United States to do much more, perhaps to take in as many as a million or more Syrians and other refugees. This is  given the U.S.A.'s  much greater diversity of resources - far more than Europe -which will already have taken in over 1 million by year's end. Also, he'd be aware of the U.S. role in starting Mideast occupations and wars that prepared the way for al Qaeda and ISIS and the Syrian Civil War driving these millions far from their homes.

This is a message we fear the "raghead haters" amongst the Repukes will not wish to hear. They are, after all, stokers of anti-immigrant fever and rampant xenopbobia and are even too cowardly to call out Islamophobes as Trump's recent performance in NH showed.  So many of us are wondering what will the gathered Repukes do if the Pope brings this issue up.

Will they give him a "Bronx cheer", or will they yelp out "Liar!" or "No way!" like one R-moron did during an Obama State of the Union address? We don't know. We do know many of them are Tea Party adherents and boors, and know nothing of propriety - which most of them deem ?irrelevant?.

But the Pope will likely put it to them, many self-proclaimed "Christians": "What would Jesus do?"

Would their self-described Lord and master shut these people out?  Would he call them "ragheads" and tell them to "Go somewhere else". Hardly! And if they truly believe that they have no clue of what Christ's message in the scriptures was or how it is to be fulfilled. They are hollow men (and women) only given to subscribing to the outer forms of Christianity but not its deep message and substance.

Let us hope the Republicans behave themselves tomorrow and no matter what the Pope proposes including "welcoming the stranger with empathy and an open heart" - they receive it with civility and propriety and not as craven boors.

"Monitored by the Feds" For Proposing a Humanitarian Solution? Don't Be Stupid!

"Syrians meet any standard for recognition as refugees with a 'well-founded fear of persecution', under the terms of the UN convention on refugees. Helping Syrians is a clear moral duty.- The Economist, Sept. 12, p. 13.

It appears my conservo blogger pal has his knickers in a twist again over my proposal that the U.S. bear equal responsibility for the current migrant-refugee crisis, by allowing at least 2m refugees into the U.S. - fleeing from wars and destruction the U.S. started. What part of "fair" doesn't this guy grasp? Ok, let's even factor in his obvious Islamic-Muslim paranoia and methinks hostility, but if HIS family were in the same predicament as these Syrians - run from their bombed out homes, chased to primitive camps with no resources WTF would HE do? Sit there and cry?

Of course not, he'd try to seek out a place for safety! Thus, the "krauts", as he calls them,  are doing the right thing by admitting people driven out of their homes by wars the West started! This is a humanitarian response not "stupid" or "lamebrain" as he portrays it.  And if HE and his family were in a similar situation, irrespective of his religious beliefs, he'd want to find succor and safety as well. He'd certainly not be so stupid or ignorant as to think he could find his safe path on his own, by his own steam - given the conditions!

But what really pisses me off is how he actually makes the claim that we who propose an equitable sharing of these refugees - legitimate ones, not just economic migrants - are "ISIS sympathizers" and "ought to be monitored by the Feds". Here I believe his paranoia has gone off the rails into whacko land, especially when he proclaims "even one raghead is too many".  Here's a memo to him and others: If that is so then don't launch wars in their countries and expect not to have to clean up after!

Because one proposes an equitable sharing of responsibility - especially when one's own nation incepted the wars that have driven these people to flee for their lives-  does NOT make him an "ISIS sympathizer". This is hysterical, unreasoned balderdash that has no place in any serious discussion or in any serious blog. It is the stuff of extremist xenophobia. But then, as the Trump -driven madness has shown, this Islamophobic hysteria on the Right is now infecting many nativists (already up in arms against Mexicans) - especially the base of the Repub party which has always stoked "fear of the stranger". (As The Economist observed in its Sept. 12 issue.)  Heck. they've even forgotten Yeshua's own words  "Whatever ye do for these the least of my brethren that ye also do unto me".

Besides,  even the Pope, when he addresses congress in 2 days, will likely call for the U.S.  - as the richest nation on Earth- to do its part in this crisis. He will call for taking in many more Syrians - especially  - given they are the direct victims of our policies in that country, supporting jihadi and other rebels to try to take down Assad.

People are Muslims, or Syrians by accidents of birth - through no fault of their own. Barring them from humanitarian rescues or aid because of an accident of birth is insane. Also, barring them because of ISIS - the very ones destroying their hopes for a life in Syria - is insane. 

My blogger pal can call this "stupid" or "lamebrain" all he wants but it's the right thing to do and he knows it. He can twist it any way he wants by using false reports of "ISIS infiltrators" in Europe - when there is NO evidence for such apart from FAUX News baloney - but that will not change the moral obligation.

One hopes he can soon get out of his xenophobic stupor, but perhaps that is asking too much.


See  also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/63959/the-u-s-has-a-duty-to-the-tempest-tost-syrians

U.S. Needs To Take In At Least Two Million Refugees - And One Million from Syria!

Syrian boy cries amidst refugee crush to leave Tovarnik, Croatia

"Syrians meet any standard for recognition as refugees with a well-founded 'fear of persecution', under the terms of the UN convention on refugees of 1951. Helping Syrians is a clear moral duty." - The Economist, Sept. 12, p. 13.

The news on the front page of yesterday's Wall Street Journal ('U.S. To Raise Refugee Limit') was ludicrous to say the least. As reported, and as the European Union is flooded by up to one million Syrian, Afghan, Iraqi refugees now - the U.S. in its magnanimous heart - will raise its quota to 100,000 from 70,000 now. According to the piece:

"Mr. Kerry said that in fiscal year 2016 which starts in October, the U.S. would accept some 85,000 refugees including 10,000 Syrians the White House proposed earlier this month".

Whoopee Do! 10,000 Syrians when Germany is on a path to accept possibly 1 million with only one sixth the population of the U.S. and fewer resources., This is disgraceful!

Look, since the U.S. had a major hand in driving all these people (up to 4 million) out from their homes because of arming Syrian rebels to take down Bashar al Assad, it certainly has a bigger responsibility to take at least as many as the Europeans, (Islamophobes like Trump be damned)

Columnist Michael Ignatieff, writing in the International Ed. of the New York Times ('This Isn't a European Problem', Sept. 7, p. 10), put it thusly:

"The Syrian War has created about 4 million refugees. The United States has taken in about 1,500 of them. The United States and its allies are at war with the Islamic State in Syria - fine, everyone agrees they are a threat- but don't we have some responsibility toward the refugees fleeing the combat? If we've been arming Syrian rebels (against Assad), shouldn't we also be helping the people trying to get out of their way? If we've failed to broker peace in Syria, can't we help the people who can't wait for peace any longer?"

Indeed.  And he goes on to note the forces driving the refugees to flee the camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon - including their filth and squalor and lack of basic food - with funding having already been cut severely in some cases and repealed in others. (The World Food Program was recently forced to slash food allocations for refugees in Lebanon to $13. 50 per person per month. Try to process that!)

As he notes:

"Now the refugees have decided that if the international community won't help them - if neither the United States or Russia is going to force the war to an end - they won't wait any longer. They are coming our way. Blaming the Europeans is an alibi and the rest of our excuses, like they 'don't have the right papers' are sickening."

Again, right on. Conservative NY Times columnist Ross Douthat is also clear when he makes the ":plausible proposition" (op.cit., p. 11) that:

"the world's powers, the United States chief among them, had a responsibility to prevent the Syrian war from developing and to protects its victims once it did",

Adding:

"And since our various Syrian forays: clandestine aid to rebels, airstrikes (then held back), explicit aid to rebels - look like failures at the moment, we're partially implicated in the continuing catastrophe".

That means, if one accepts the proposition of plausible culpability, the U.S. must accept at least as much responsibility as its NATO-EU allies to take refugees in. It means we can't just smugly look on at the European situation and make token gestures while we wash our hands under the worn out excuse "well, we can't do it or dem t'errorists will sneak in".  The Germans - also faced with that line of thought - knew they had a greater humanitarian duty and have accepted up to 800,000 refugees already.

The U.S., having fomented a Pax Americana war to not only overthrow Assad, but demolish ISIS, has a similar responsibility, You can't just help tear the shit out of a country - reduce it to rubble - then tell its fleeing victims to go suck salt. (The U.S. has, of this writing, donated $419m to help the refugees but this is a 'drop in the bucket' when well over $10b is needed given some 4 million are in camps.)

The need for the U.S. to offer more help becomes more evident when one realizes what's happening now in Europe is only the first phase of a massive migration-refugee wave likely to add millions more each year. Some articles in the same NY Times Int'l editions have forecast nearly all the 11 million displaced Syrians will be soon on the move, not to mention over 1m Afghans who see no future in their bombed out nation, and 2m Iraqis who are unable to have a life because of the ISIS vermin (who entered after we meddled in Iraq and removed the one secular force inhibiting Muslim factionalism)

Bottom line, the U.S. can't look on and pat itself on the back for taking in a mere 100,000 refugees and only 10,000 Syrians - when it had a major hand in stirring up the original Mideast shit storm by invading Iraq in 2003  Europe simply will not be able to absorb all the millions, and as one Syrian refugee put it (ibid.) "we are coming and nothing can stop us".

Thus, to fully acknowledge our role in creating the "catastrophe" as Douthat puts it, we are morally obliged to take in at least the same number of Syrians the Germans will, and 1m more Afghans and Iraqis.

We cannot, in good and decent conscience, look on as these millions (most of them middle class people who've had their homes, neighborhoods bombed out) either perish in frantic efforts to reach safety or return in defeat to their homelands to be slaughtered by the ISIS bugs. We did as much for the fleeing Cubans in the 1960s- 80s so we can do as much now for the fleeing Syrians and others!


See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/63959/the-u-s-has-a-duty-to-the-tempest-tost-Syrians



and:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/96bf7e48-6041-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3mSz73FXD