Open Door Policy—————————————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

President Barack Obama is seemingly powerless to act to defend America’s vital interests abroad but there is something he could do to defend them right here at home. Our own nation’s southern border is out of control and needs to be fixed now. We’ve talked about it long enough. Illegal crossings are on the rise again and now large numbers of unaccompanied minors, mostly from Central America, are crossing the Rio Grande into Texas. They have been instructed to make contact with border patrol agents who will transport them, at taxpayer expense, to holding centers. From there, many have been transported elsewhere in the country, again at taxpayer expense, some to be united with relatives or alleged relatives.

Holding facilities and local law enforcement personnel in Texas and other border states have been overwhelmed, diminishing the ability of local authorities to provide for emergencies such as disaster relief. The word is out in Latin American countries, promulgated largely by human smugglers, that these unaccompanied children will not be deported, so they keep coming. Once across the porous Mexican southern border they make their way north. Mexico and Central American countries are doing little to discourage this illegal and hazardous human trafficking and are, in fact, likely encouraging it. This is outrageous and has to be stopped now. Diplomatic talks will not work. Economic sanctions just might. So might militarizing the border as many nations do, including those who export their unwanted people to us.

Forget about immigration policy reform, at least until we figure out a way to secure the southern border. The federal government has consistently failed to do this and the Border Patrol is not remotely up to the job. It is long past time to take border security seriously because the patience of border state citizens is not limitless. A nation that cannot control its borders will sooner or later be unable to provide security for its citizens, which is the primary responsibility of government.

Progressives and immigrant advocates babble incessantly about America’s legacy as a welcoming nation; a nation of immigrants. That’s true enough but it was largely out of necessity. We had a huge wilderness to develop and a nation to build and populate. We needed labor to build its roads, bridges, railroads and cities. But that was then. Our population now exceeds 300 million and is growing rapidly. Continued excess growth will put a strain on scarce resources, notably water.

Our nation’s need for more immigrants has drastically changed. We now have an abundance of unskilled labor. Needed now are more scientists, engineers, technically skilled workers and entrepreneurs. Instead, we are being flooded with unskilled, under-educated people from Mexico and Central America adding to those already here, many of whom are unemployed or under-employed and many dependent on social and welfare programs. But to even point out this obvious demographic is to invite charges of bigotry and insensitivity.

We are also a nation of laws. A nation’s immigration policy and laws should primarily reflect a nation’s needs, not primarily the needs of the world’s downtrodden which are more than any one nation can deal with. Their problems cannot be solved primarily by immigration. The United States has always been a magnet for immigrants because of the opportunities and freedoms we enjoy and which we fought and died to defend throughout our history but increasingly we are also a magnet for those seeking our liberal social services and those trying to escape from the drug and gang-related violence in their own countries. But proximity to the United States should not confer a favored status. There are millions throughout the world in places like Sudan, Somalia, and other violence-wracked nations in Africa and the Middle East who desperately would like to immigrate to the U.S. too, but lack the proximity that Mexico and Central America enjoy.

The current administration is unlikely to act because allowing a continuing influx of unskilled, under-educated manual workers is compatible with the interests of Democratic politicians who are eager to recruit potential Democratic voters nor will it risk alienating Hispanic voters, a majority of whom vote reliably Democratic. It does not, however, favor the interests of the United States.

To those who believe that the United States must forever be a welcoming refuge for all the world’s weary and oppressed and especially to religious charities and advocacy organizations that cater to the needs of illegal aliens, thereby encouraging more of them to break the law and come here illegally, here’s a simple suggestion. Think about the future of your own country and put the best interests of our own citizens first. Devote more energy and resources to helping the world’s neediest build a better life in their own countries rather than sneak into ours.

June 21, 2014

Losing Iraq

Losing Iraq———————————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Iraq is collapsing into civil war and collapsing also are whatever gains and objectives we managed to achieve there at a heavy cost in humanity and treasure. It is painful, especially for those brave warriors who fought, died and were wounded there to establish a stable democracy that would not be a haven for anti-west terrorists, to realize that their efforts may have been in vain.

They fought with honor, even though support back home, for what many characterized as “Bush’s war”, became tepid as it dragged on. But, as in the Vietnam Conflict, their valiant efforts were eventually undone by political incompetence. It was political mismanagement that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam and more of the same, this time on the part of Iraq’s leaders, is erasing the gains we won there. A similar outcome undoubtedly awaits us as we prepare to pull out of Afghanistan.

Originally, I was under the impression that our mission in the second Iraq war was to remove from power Saddam Hussein and any weapons of mass destruction that might be there. In other words, our job was to kill the alligators as it were, not to drain the swamp. We didn’t find the expected weapons of mass destruction, but we accomplished the other part of that mission even though George W. Bush was ridiculed for saying so at the time of Saddam’s death. But we stayed on in an attempt to gain hearts and minds and nation-build in order to transform Iraq into a stable democracy.

The transformation clearly didn’t last. Iraq is not ready for prime time, as we are finding out. The Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis can’t seem to get along, thanks largely to an incompetent government, and probably never will, at least in our lifetimes. The distrust is just too great. As Vice-president Joe Biden once suggested, perhaps a three-way partition is the only solution but, of course, they probably wouldn’t agree on that either.

Politicians, pundits and various “experts” are calling for President Obama to authorize military aid and provide some sort of military presence short of combat boots on the ground. But what makes them think we’d be any more successful than before? American-trained Iraqi troops performed poorly against ISIS forces, surrendering American weapons which are now in the hands of terrorists. Iraq is still less of a unified nation than a collection of tribes and religious sects that dislike and distrust each other.

It has long since become a matter of the utmost indifference to many Americans what becomes of Iraq now and who ends up ruling it so long as it does not become a threat to us or a haven for terrorists plotting attacks on Americans. They, of course, lament the violence against innocent civilians, but that’s going on in many other places, too, and we can’t be everywhere to clean up these messes. We gave Iraq a chance to become a free and stable nation by removing a despot and lavishing billions in aid and nation-building. Baghdad refused to grant a status of forces agreement necessary to protect our service-members remaining there so we pulled out. If it becomes a refuge for terrorists targeting Americans, we need to deal with that by whatever means necessary short of troops on the ground while attempting to minimize the inevitable civilian casualties that will result.

The Kurds, being largely concentrated in the north and having displayed an ability to govern and defend themselves, will be far better off demanding independence from the incompetents in Baghdad. As for the Shiites and Sunnis, let them sort things out for themselves. Not only should we not supply Baghdad with military aid or advisors, we should suspend all economic aid until the Iraqis demonstrate the ability to govern and defend themselves and provide security for their people.

Critics of President Obama fault him for withdrawing prematurely from Iraq and for planning to do so again in Afghanistan. They warn of dire events to follow our withdrawal in Afghanistan. But there would be, I believe, dire events there even if we delayed our departure for another decade. Anyone for that?

We cannot fight a perpetual battle for hearts and minds in the Middle East. The hearts and minds there will be won, but only for the moment, by whoever provides them with security, weapons and aid. That cannot be us forever.

June 15, 2014

Losing Iraq

His Majesty, the President

His Majesty, the President——————————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr

Unable to have his way with a Republican-controlled House, but determined to use the remainder of his reign to enhance his legacy, President Barack Obama is increasingly ruling by royal proclamation or, as it is otherwise known, executive order. As he has recently said, he still has his pen and phone which he will use to make things happen if Congress refuses to cooperate or if inconvenient laws get in the way.

Recent examples include (1) implementing the so-called Dream Act without benefit of legislation; (2) the exchange of five terrorists, who had been confined at Guantanamo Bay because they were considered too dangerous to release, for a U.S. soldier who may have been a deserter and who had reportedly expressed shame at being an American, without consulting Congress and (3) advancing the war on carbon-based fuels by issuing new restrictions on carbon emissions, again without the benefit of legislation.

The soldier, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, has been repatriated and will be questioned regarding his actions that led to his capture in Afghanistan by the Taliban which, according to eye witness reports, include abandoning his post and wandering into Taliban-controlled territory. If an investigation results in charges, he will likely face a court-martial. He does not, in any event, appear to have served entirely with honor as National Security Advisor Susan Rice claimed on TV. Ms. Rice, who famously blamed Benghazi on an anti-Muslim video, seems to have difficulty getting her facts straight in her eagerness to defend her boss from criticism.

To free Bergdahl, Mr. Obama paid a steep price by releasing five dangerous and unrepentant terrorist leaders who will soon be free to plot attacks on Americans again. He should have consulted with Congress as required by law. Both his secretary of state and press secretary had, on separate occasions, promised to comply with this law. But this president will not let laws or promises get in the way of his agenda which includes closing Guantanamo even if he has to do so by emptying out the place five at a time. Also, by his own timetable, we’ll be out of Afghanistan before the end of his term so the freed terrorists will be somebody else’s problem to deal with.  

Mr. Obama is quick to invoke the powers of a wartime commander-in-chief when it suits him, but this conflict is not even a declared war. His powers as commander-in-chief extend largely to the armed forces and should not include the right to release dangerous terrorists without consulting Congress. Defenders of this action contend that it is customary as wars wind down for both sides to exchange prisoners of war and that we have a tradition of not leaving troops behind. But we left some behind in Vietnam. And this is not a “customary” war. Are the terrorists in Guantanamo now to be regarded as prisoners of war? It seems to me that this administration has argued before that they are civilian “detainees” who need to be brought to justice and tried in civilian courts. So what is it to be, war or just a police action?

Similarly, the president’s determination to wage a one-nation battle against global warming has been frustrated by congressional reluctance to move fast enough to suit him. After all, he only has a couple of years left in which to save the world, so to hell with Congress. He’ll use executive power. Global warming is an existential threat, is it not? Hence , a new royal decree: a carbon emission control plan under which the Environmental Protection Agency will set limits on carbon emissions caused by burning carbon-based fuels such as coal which provides nearly half of America’s electrical power.

This mandate will affect various parts of the country very differently since some states are more dependent on high carbon-emitting fuels than others. The restrictions could seriously impact their economies and jobs. China, India and other emerging economies with large populations and carbon footprints will be unaffected and remain the biggest carbon polluters. Don’t expect them to sacrifice jobs and growth to join America’s holy crusade against global warming. Nor will poor nations, struggling to provide even the basics for their people like clean water and electricity. Windmills and solar panels probably aren’t the answer for them.

All of this is happening without the proper debate in Congress called for in our constitution., mostly based on the agenda of one man, all-knowing and all-powerful. This is not the way democracy is supposed to work.

June 7, 2014

Inmates Running the Asylums

Inmates Running the Asylums——————————————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr

“To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge of which we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.”

-Frederich A. Hyeck  (On accepting the Nobel Prize)

This graduation season has produced the usual silliness on campus only this year it seems somehow worse. Some students at some universities apparently have acquired over the course of an undergraduate education such a sense of importance and power that they actually believe they are entitled to select who may address them and who may not and what they may or may not say.

For the most part, the administrators, who are supposedly in charge of running the schools, seem to agree. Among the would-be commencement speakers who have been “dis-invited” in response to student and faculty tantrums were three distinguished and intelligent women. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has written and lectured on abuses against women in the Muslim world, had her invitation to speak at Brandeis withdrawn because some of her past statements were deemed “inconsistent with the university’s core values” which evidently do not include freedom of speech.

Former Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice had the good sense to decline her invitation after students and faculty at Rutgers threw a fit because, apparently, they blame her for the second Iraq war. Oh, well. Nobody ever dies for dear, old Rutgers. It’s just not worth it.

Christine Lagarde, the first woman to head the International Monetary Fund, was scratched by Smith College after students and faculty complained that she represented an organization that runs directly against Smith’s values regarding equality for all women. No way are the Smithies going to listen to this accomplished woman who heads the prestigious IMF.

An Academy Award-winning screenwriter was asked not to show up to address Pasadena City College grads reportedly because of a stolen photo which allegedly depicted a homosexual act. His replacement, the Pasadena Public Health Director and a local pastor, fared no better because of a sermon denouncing homosexuality. No word yet on whether the students might allow someone of bi-sexual or cross-gender orientation to address them.

And so it goes on campus these days. Political correctness and thought policing is running amuck. It’s hard to say who’s mostly at fault, the student body, or the 90%-plus of faculty who identify themselves as liberals, or the spineless administrators who are supposed to be the adults in charge. The students and faculty apparently think they run the colleges. The administrators are under no such illusion. They know that the American university has become the clearest example of a loosely-coupled organization. Nobody really runs it; it just sort of runs itself and often not very well.

Whatever gave students the idea that they have a right to decide who may address them and what they may address? Aren’t they there to learn and doesn’t that involve listening to different viewpoints? Isn’t the university supposed to be a bastion of free speech? And what gave faculty members the idea that they have the right to censor speech? Isn’t censorship anathema to academic freedom? And why do administrators so shamefully cave in to student and faculty demands?

Regarding these questions, herewith some brief thoughts. Too many of today’s youngsters are imbued by their parents and teachers with a highly-inflated sense of their own importance. They are so special that their views, based on little or no real world experience, are given equal rank and value as the seasoned views of mature adults with real world experience and actual management responsibilities. As for the faculty, teaching has become at best a collateral duty. They have causes—overwhelmingly liberal ones—to promote. They seek the approval of their adoring student disciples. That leaves the administrators. I can think of no valid excuse whatever for their spinelessness except that they apparently just don’t want make waves and agitate the students or faculty, lest they take over campus buildings and start tearing up the place.

What to do about this? If you are an alum and this is going on at your alma mater, let them know that they needn’t expect that check from you for their annual fund-raising campaign this year or ever until they put responsible adults back in charge of who gets invited to speak on campus and receive honorary degrees. That might get their attention. If it’s a state school, also contact your state legislators and tell them that you are tired of your tax dollars going to schools that tolerate letting juveniles dictate university policies.

May 31, 2014