We don't discriminate, we're Democrats

'After careful consideration of the issues, I vote for the female'

Vetting Refugees from the Middle East

Balancing American Values with 

Actually Getting Something Done

We Could Save More

Ok, granted, the Syrian situation is not a holocaust, but after three years the U.S. has been little more than a witness to the 230,000 deaths and 4.7 million refugees running from the Syrian civil war.

Between the barrel bombs of Assad and numerous ISIS atrocities, almost half the 11 million population has had to flee the country.  While many wait in nearby Arab countries, Europe has stepped up over this last year to take in vast numbers.  Still, there's no end in sight, supplies are needed and winter is coming.

Winter is Coming

The Obama Administration has allowed only 1800 Syrian refugees into the U.S. over the last three years.  It was a decision based on country of origin and, evidently, by sex and age since only 2% of the these refugees were men of "fighting age."

The current refugee screening process involves up to nine government agencies (moving at DMV-like speeds) scanning available information to see if any red flags are raised.  If not, they are let in after one-and-a-half to three years.

A number of Republicans and the American population itself have expressed significant reticence to allow in Muslims.  A few days ago the House passed (with a bipartisan vote) a fairly watered-down measure that simply requires the three main directors of such agencies to positively assert that they believe the refugee not to be a threat.  Unfortunately, this will screen out refugees with little verifiable background, but it also prevents extremists from getting in who simply didn't have their name on a watch list. 
Despite the bipartisan support, President Obama roused himself from his on-going Syria-strategy formulation to threaten to veto any change to the current process.  He also raised the U.S. target to 10,000 refugees from Syria over the next year.  President Obama then climbed up on his soapbox of moral rectitude to roundly decry the possible separation of Muslim refugees as "not the American way."

- - -

Now we get to the crux of the matter.  Considering that the overwhelming concern is U.S. acceptance of Islamic extremists, or those most likely to turn that direction, perhaps we could do MORE for the Syrian refugees.

Remember, it was the Administration itself that was fine with the de facto age and gender discrimination on the mere 1800 Syrian refugees accepted so far.  So, yes, it would be discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation to screen out Muslims, but simultaneously that is virtually the only factor that matters.  Religious discrimination of some form is entirely the motivation behind Islamic extremists - as we've seen; it's the Yazidis, Christians and Jews that get the special treatment from ISIS (and the Assad regime in the past).    

What if the United States carefully vets the Administration's proposed 10,000 refugees of any religion, but then accepts another 140,000 refugees whose non-Muslim religious affiliation can be positively confirmed?  The screening gets much simpler.  That's 140,000 less people shivering in cold refugee camps through two more winters in the Balkans, and essentially a relief valve that allows the European refugee agencies to concentrate on those remaining.

Is it worth it?  Is saving more lives worth the hit to our non-discriminatory value system?

In order to expedite refugee processing,

the FBI has decided to employ

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

(The editorial above is a follow-on to my brief proposal made here, back in September.)

And you thought jail time was only a requirement in Louisiana...

Aside from the grievous disservice and abuse of the public’s trust in the course of the corruption,

“Ganim had…cost the Bridgeport community millions of dollars.”

I am all for reform of the nation's criminals and accepting them back into society, but maybe the good people of Bridgeport should have considered a trial position such as City Treasurer or Tax Collector before entrusting him to such a responsible position.

Bill Will Be There for Us Too

Bill Clinton, "First Dude" - What Could Go Wrong?

Former President Bill Clinton is the consummate campaigner, and represents the likable softer side of the Clinton duo.  With Hillary's campaign in "prevent mode," and Senator Sanders swinging for the fences since his virtual concession at the first Democratic debate, some sort of excitement was in order.  

So Bill was called in, but apparently even Hillary has to dangle the right carrot to secure his services.

Bill would like to say 'Thank You' personally 

And we'll see more of her later

This way, Bill.  The audience is up here...

Apparently you can take the dog out of the Lincoln Bedroom, but you can't take the bedroom out of the dog.

   

The Presidency: How Hard Can It Be?

Lack of Experience and Qualifications

Shouldn't Be a Résumé Highlight

This week in the polls we have a new Republican front-runner in Dr. Ben Carson, edging out the similarly qualified Donald Trump for the nation's top elected position.  Somehow, the basic job requirements for President of the United States seem to be less demanding than what we expect from just about anyone applying for a skilled labor job.
                                                                       
Carson and Trump, as well as Carly Fiorina, are riding a wave of voter disgust with the status quo.  The fact that they are successfully touting their utter lack of governing experience and extreme outsider "cred" to the Republican base shows that either the faithful are still punishing their GOP leaders before relenting, or that a virulent portion of the Republican voting public is committed enough to run their own ship aground out of spite.   

Dr. Carson addressed the experience question, or lack thereof, head-on:

"I would like to deal with one question tonight in some detail," he wrote. "The issue is experience. Several people ask what they should tell their friends when people say 'I like Carson but he has no political experience.'"

To answer that argument, Carson agreed, writing, "I have no political experience. The current Members of Congress have a combined 8,700 years of political experience. Are we sure political experience is what we need?"

Carson asserted that every signer of the Declaration of Independence had "no elected office experience. What they had was a deep belief that freedom is a gift from God. They had a determination to rise up against a tyrannical King." **

Turns out, at least 27 of the 51 people signing the Declaration of Independence had held elective office according to the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, and none of these people were running for President at the time.  ==> Swing and a miss

Confronted with this information, Dr. Carson's website was changed to read:  "Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no federal elected office experience."

Since the Declaration preceded the establishment of the U.S. federal government, those of us not running for president can understand why.  ==> Really should have some high-schoolers who HAVE taken U.S. History oversee what goes in the web-site  (but points for political sleight of hand)

Dr. Carson is by all accounts a very likable fellow and accomplished surgeon, perhaps even a good department head.  But that alone should not be considered sufficient training for a job that has a few important responsibilities that begin on Day One.