Fight Them Over Here Or
Fight Them Over There
On November 21st 2015 then president George W. Bush, echoing the words of Winston Churchill, said of Muslim terrorists, we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Let us reflect a moment on that. Not for the first time have I wished that the dead might testify. If such a thing might be I would ask the unconsoled dead of the terror bombing in Manchester, or those mangled in the attacks in London how that has worked out for them. What cautionary advice might those innocents provide for us from beyond the grave? Since President Bush's’ explanation for our military actions in the Middle East, our foreign policy as to where we intend to fight the enemy has shifted westward around 5000 miles. The refugee act of 1980 set the stage for bringing in roughly three million refugees based on the noble proposition that those who are well off have a responsibility to give refuge to persons fleeing persecution or tyranny. Setting aside the fact that few, if any of those refugees have been settled into gated communities, resettling refugees from countries to which we brought war and poverty, the very things they seek refuge from, seems to spring, not from compassion, but from questionable reasoning; perhaps outright stupidity. Does anyone really believe that it's a good idea to take those whose fundamentalist ideology is so directly at odds with our own, and settle them in the midst of our unsuspecting citizenry? Given the state of division suffered by the American people, do we really want a few hundred thousand resentful citizens of our enemy nations escorted into our midst, that they might serve as the focus for further division? Islam is a competing ideology! Islam forthrightly rejects those forms of religion which currently coexist peacefully in America. When Muslim clerics pronounce that the only acceptable end game describes one religion, Islam, for the world, and we provide transportation, housing, food, and necessities to practitioners of Islam, what does that say about our leaders, and their support for the polyglot of American religions who have no defense against jihad? About 84,000 refugees have been settled in America under the Obama administration. Is it Elitism? Is it yet another attack on labor? Are we bringing in yet more cheap labor? Or is it something darker?
I once worked with a defense lawyer who told me that the least important aspect of probable cause was motive, as means and opportunity lend themselves so much more handily to building a forensic case. But I for one want more than anything else to know why. Why are we settling such a corrosive influence on our culture right here in the heart of the homeland? I have tried to learn both directly and indirectly from my own congressmen, and from others. What I encountered was a wall of indifference. Personally, I feel that 880 million dollars ought to at least buy us some answers, if not a better congress. My heart goes out to those in Europe, whose constituents have no second amendment. At least in America we have an immediate first line of defense. I'll bet more than one dead Englishman wishes he or she had been carrying something more deadly than a cell phone on London bridge. That way they might at least have fought them where they were; right in their midst.
Fight Them Over There
On November 21st 2015 then president George W. Bush, echoing the words of Winston Churchill, said of Muslim terrorists, we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Let us reflect a moment on that. Not for the first time have I wished that the dead might testify. If such a thing might be I would ask the unconsoled dead of the terror bombing in Manchester, or those mangled in the attacks in London how that has worked out for them. What cautionary advice might those innocents provide for us from beyond the grave? Since President Bush's’ explanation for our military actions in the Middle East, our foreign policy as to where we intend to fight the enemy has shifted westward around 5000 miles. The refugee act of 1980 set the stage for bringing in roughly three million refugees based on the noble proposition that those who are well off have a responsibility to give refuge to persons fleeing persecution or tyranny. Setting aside the fact that few, if any of those refugees have been settled into gated communities, resettling refugees from countries to which we brought war and poverty, the very things they seek refuge from, seems to spring, not from compassion, but from questionable reasoning; perhaps outright stupidity. Does anyone really believe that it's a good idea to take those whose fundamentalist ideology is so directly at odds with our own, and settle them in the midst of our unsuspecting citizenry? Given the state of division suffered by the American people, do we really want a few hundred thousand resentful citizens of our enemy nations escorted into our midst, that they might serve as the focus for further division? Islam is a competing ideology! Islam forthrightly rejects those forms of religion which currently coexist peacefully in America. When Muslim clerics pronounce that the only acceptable end game describes one religion, Islam, for the world, and we provide transportation, housing, food, and necessities to practitioners of Islam, what does that say about our leaders, and their support for the polyglot of American religions who have no defense against jihad? About 84,000 refugees have been settled in America under the Obama administration. Is it Elitism? Is it yet another attack on labor? Are we bringing in yet more cheap labor? Or is it something darker?
I once worked with a defense lawyer who told me that the least important aspect of probable cause was motive, as means and opportunity lend themselves so much more handily to building a forensic case. But I for one want more than anything else to know why. Why are we settling such a corrosive influence on our culture right here in the heart of the homeland? I have tried to learn both directly and indirectly from my own congressmen, and from others. What I encountered was a wall of indifference. Personally, I feel that 880 million dollars ought to at least buy us some answers, if not a better congress. My heart goes out to those in Europe, whose constituents have no second amendment. At least in America we have an immediate first line of defense. I'll bet more than one dead Englishman wishes he or she had been carrying something more deadly than a cell phone on London bridge. That way they might at least have fought them where they were; right in their midst.
No comments:
Post a Comment