RE: Editorial, "Be Sensible About Syrian Refugees"

Hello all,

AM-NY is a newspaper that you can pick up for free at any of its ubiquitous "honor boxes" in the New York. I wrote a "letter to the editor" to respond to its November 23 editorial (attached), "Be Sensible About Syrian Refugees." Whether they'll print my letter is up in the air, but I think you might find its text interesting. It follows:

However many more Syrian refugees the Obama Administration wants to accept or the number that the United States should take as its "fair share," the cost for housing, feeding and entertaining these people will be paid for by taxpayers. That is a tacitly settled fact.

A more sensible and fairer way to deal with this situation, however, is to ask residents in the United States to sponsor the refugees. Let Obama ask these people to "take home a Syrian refugee" and let's see these people provide housing for the number of refugees they want to house, and most important, put up the money to maintain their new guests for however long they want to allow them to stay.

I am certain many people, including many CAIR members, will answer Obama's call to help these refugees. And these people will take in many more refugees than politicians now argue over and, most important, not a dime of taxpayer money will be used to pay to maintain these refugees.

Any comments will be appreciated.

Thanks for reading.

Alton

noon8window.pdf (36 Bytes)

Hi Alton,

Good point! Your suggestion that those who want to import refugees (of any place, I might add) sponsor them is excellent, and akin to my suggestion that those who want to wage war buy their own weapons and go fight themselves.

BTW, comparison of the old waves of immigrants that became the forefathers and foremothers of most of us to today's refugees does not hold water. Until relatively recently, it was indeed private sponsors who helped immigrant families get settled, now it is taxpayers.

More BTW, here is a question that I have not yet sorted out: why do we hear clamor for U.S. soldiers to go fight ISIS in Syria at the same time we hear clamor for healthy Syrian young men to come to the U.S.?

Marcy

Marcy and all.....the answer to your question is this?

The powers that be are trying to destabilize the world so they can control it.

Mike

Interestingly, at a meeting I went to last Saturday someone had a pretty good brief presentation on the background of today's increasing control by (this is obscure to me) government? corporations? "world powers that be?" But, the presenter was more of the opinion that at present government at all levels is the enabler that takes advantage of willing fools to increase power (for somebody, not clear to me who). I agree with that perspective. I am not inclined to accept the theories in the Tomatobubble piece. Unlike the Tomatobubble piece, I am more inclined to think that no leaders have been targeted because that is not the current strategy of the willing fools; their strategy of targeting you and me on the street is infinitely more effective in spreading terror, confusion, and bad decisions.

As to the specific question of why U.S. soldiers would go to Syria while Syrian healthy young men are welcomed here, the answer might better fit last Saturday's speaker's interpretation of events.

Marcy

First off, I don't believe that members of the Rothschild family -- as wealthy and influential as they may or may not be -- are secretly controlling world events! Ditto re: the Bilderbergers, the Freemasons, the British royal family, the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, etc. Those who promote theories like this are generally very lacking on recent specifics (as opposed to quotes, history, and documents from past decades or centuries), and in some cases I think they are coming from a place of racism (anti-Semitism) and hate, or simply distract people from blaming the actual, more visible architects of government policy. Not implying that at all about Mike Denny of course, but I'm less confident of the TomatoBubble.com site to which he provided the link.

  The site does offer a nice compendium of the history of political suicide assassinations around the late 19th/early 20th century though, and raises an interesting and provocative question about why there aren't more direct attacks on leaders today.

  While granting that some terrorist incidents are probably "false flag" attacks staged by governments themselves -- the FBI has admitted that almost all the "foiled" terror attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 were sting operations that the agency itself put in motion -- in most cases I think Marcy's explanation is accurate: Islamic jihadists simply see that they can do just as much to accomplish their aims of sowing terror, getting headlines, etc., by attacking random civilians than by going after more well-guarded targets. And, I would add, having a higher rate of "success" -- a significant percentage of the attempted assassinations noted at TomatoBubble.com failed.

  Nevertheless, the assassination disparity between now and a century and more ago suggests that something has changed in the calculation faced by would-be terrorists or assassins. I think what has changed is that random killings of civilians are more disruptive now, because people have become more fearful and safety-obsessed, and the reach of the media and communications insures more publicity. I think the media need to stop devoting so much press to terrorist attacks, lone shooter incidents, and the like, because paying attention to them actually increases the payoff for those who commit these attacks and incentives more such incidents. Ditto for government paying so much attention to such incidents. And the public should stop expecting high-level officials to make sentimental statements and pay their respects to victims' families every time such events occur. If the goal is to minimize acts of terrorism and violence, the current approach is very counter-productive.

  On the other hand, I'm sure that some in government and the establishment media do not consider it counter-productive, but perfectly in accord with their goals. They have motives to want such incidents to occur, and to want them to be aimed at random civilians rather than directed toward those in positions of real power, i.e. themselves.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

P.S. - Here is some info about refugee admissions that was posted on IPR (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/11/november-2015-open-thread/#comment-1268650) which you may find helpful, from someone who works in immigration law and describes how the process actually works:

Alton,

  One more point. Your suggestion of asking U.S. residents to sponsor refugees, instead of paying for their relocation with taxpayer dollars, has great potential. In fact I'd say a similar approach could be adopted with equal if not more justification for almost everything else on which the U.S. government currently spends money!

  For instance, instead of paying for customs, immigration, and border control police with taxpayer money, U.S. residents could be asked to cover these costs. Civic groups could even sponsor sections of the border walls and volunteer to be responsible for their maintenance and upkeep, in exchange for getting a sign posted with their name on it, as is done now with cleaning sections of highway. (This could also provide a helpful service to undocumented people coming into the country at various points along the borders, by educating them on which groups in American society are not their friends.)

   Let Obama ask all the people demanding restrictions on immigration and refugees to "sponsor a Border Patrol or Customs agent's salary or pension" and let's see these people provide pay, health care, and benefits for the number of Jackbooted Thugs Movement Control Specialists they want to hire, and most important, put up the money to maintain their new employees for however long they want to allow them to remain on the job.

  I am certain many people, including many fans of Donald Trump and right-wing Minuteman vigilantes, will answer Obama's call to help these refugees.

  What do you say?

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

Correction: The phrase "Jackbooted Thugs" in my message below was supposed to have a strikethru line through it, but I guess this list does not support that particular form of enhanced text.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

Oops, one more error! Forgot to change "refugees" to "employees" in my final sentence (fixed below).

  I definitely look forward to the day when people have to sponsor those whom they want to receive government largess. Partly, I confess, because I would expect to save money -- I'm sure the cost of assisting poor refugees fleeing from war zones will be far less than the cost of all those border walls, police, immigration bureaucrats, detention centers, and so on that I dislike being forced to help pay for.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

Hi Marcy,

Thank you for your reply and supportive words.

I hear your suggestion: "those who want to wage war [should] buy their own weapons and go fight themselves." Can you imagine Barry, Hillary and Lurch pointing their store bought AR-15 assault rifles at . . . Republicans?

Anyhow, I recall reading a suggestion that volunteer militias should consist of gun enthusiasts who like to play soldier and conduct regular war game exercises. These people will be a better trained and motivated combat reserve who could be relied on to protect the nation from invasion from outside our shores and not act as a standing army for politicians.

You asked:

<< More BTW, here is a question that I have not yet sorted out: why do we hear clamor for U.S. soldiers to go fight ISIS in Syria at the same time we hear clamor for healthy Syrian young men to come to the U.S.? >>

Such an impertinent question! But a good one, nonetheless. There are serious suspicions that these "healthy Syrian young men" are "secretly" being brought into the U.S. to help fifth column "sleeper cells" within the U.S. foment jihad and terror in our streets. And the head of this fifth column is none other than our first Affirmative Action President, Barack Hussein Obama.

Another thing, I heard The Donald bring up the suggestion, which others made, that instead of allowing Syrians to flee as refugees, they should held in an area within Syria that's protected by outside armed forces. I think that's a good idea. And those "healthy Syrian young men" could help with their own protection.

Thanks again for your reply and supportive words.

Alton

---In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, <amarcyb@...> wrote :

Hi Alton,

Good point! Your suggestion that those who want to import refugees (of any place, I might add) sponsor them is excellent, and akin to my suggestion that those who want to wage war buy their own weapons and go fight themselves.

BTW, comparison of the old waves of immigrants that became the forefathers and foremothers of most of us to today's refugees does not hold water. Until relatively recently, it was indeed private sponsors who helped immigrant families get settled, now it is taxpayers.

More BTW, here is a question that I have not yet sorted out: why do we hear clamor for U.S. soldiers to go fight ISIS in Syria at the same time we hear clamor for healthy Syrian young men to come to the U.S.?

Marcy

Hi Starchild,

You are certainly a fount of knowledge and opinion. I'm glad to see that my letter to the editor provided you with a forum to present them.

I liked and agreed when you said:

  I think the media need to stop devoting so much press to terrorist attacks, lone shooter incidents, and the like, because paying attention to them actually increases the payoff for those who commit these attacks and incentives more such incidents. Ditto for government paying so much attention to such incidents. And the public should stop expecting high-level officials to make sentimental statements and pay their respects to victims' families every time such events occur. If the goal is to minimize acts of terrorism and violence, the current approach is very counter-productive.

I also agreed, perhaps more, when you said:

On the other hand, I'm sure that some in government and the establishment media do not consider it counter-productive, but perfectly in accord with their goals. They have motives to want such incidents to occur, and to want them to be aimed at random civilians rather than directed toward those in positions of real power, i.e. themselves.

How much do you think the "establishment media," a.k.a., "mainstream mass media," is controlled by the government? 100% as in the People's Socialist Paradise of North Korea? Or 50% as in most of the EU?

Anyhow, thanks for chiming in.

Alton

Starchild,

You're definitely on a roll and could I say, a "star-spangled one"? And I'm glad my letter to the editor started you rolling.

As for your editing of "Jackbooted Thugs Movement Control Specialists," I say STET.

You da man!

Alton

Hello again all,

I was heartened to see the thoughtful and spirited comments from the lights of Marcy and Starchild that my letter to the editor engendered. It would be nice if my letter was actually published. Who knows what comments other readers will make (or even think of).

But I have good news and bad news.

First, AM-NY editors have a rule that if they publish your letter to the editor, before they publish another letter you write, you will have to wait 30 days.

Good News: They published my letter in the November 25 issue!

Bad News: It's not the one about the Syrian Refugees. Rather, it's the one I wrote last week about the minimum wage, though they edited, or more accurately, butchered my original draft. I've attached a PDF of the page where my letter appeared. I also attached a PDF of another letter I wrote about the minimum wage that was published, unedited, in the April 22, 2015 Letters page of New York Metro, another freebie newspaper.

Anyhow, perhaps some of you might want to submit a letter to AM-NY with your thoughts about Syrian refugees or about any other topic. Send it to thoughts@am-ny.com. Their website is: http://www.amny.com/

Thanks much for reading and commenting.

Alton

noon8window.pdf (36 Bytes)

noon8window.pdf (36 Bytes)