There is something about the dawning of a new year that reveals the Nostradamus hidden in many of us. Everyone from political pundits to economists weigh in with forecasts and predictions for the upcoming 12 months. Most prognosis turn out to be erroneous, but thankfully, quickly forgotten.
If he were alive today, Nostradamus might be amused by the number of imitators who issue prognostications. In his day, the 16th century French philosopher, who studied astrology and various occult sciences, had few disciples. It wasn't until after his death that he found fame.
Claims have been made over the years by ardent apostles that Nostradamus predicted everything from the rise of Adolph Hitler to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in the more than 6,338 prophecies he penned in a number of volumes.
Unlike the prolific Frenchman, these annual predictions will be limited to ten. However, in the spirit of Nostradamus, this year we confess to using unscientific tools, such as Ouija boards, crystal balls, hallucinogenic mushrooms and a spiritual seance, to aid in the prophecies.
1. After a long bull run, the Dow comes thudding down as rising interest rates, a strong dollar, the spiraling junk bond crisis and a soft global economy weigh on U.S. stocks. The Dow finishes at 16,600 after another roller coaster year, exacerbated by an all too familiar tech bubble. Without the Federal Reserve propping up the market, stocks suddenly look pricey causing investors to flee for the exits.
2. For the eleventh straight year, the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) under performs, finishing at 2.4 percent. U.S. economic growth has not reached the 3.0 percent benchmark for a robust economy since 2005, the longest swoon in the modern era. A strengthening dollar, slower demand for resources and global economic weakness, especially in China, will undermine America's economic comeback.
3. The Federal Reserve raises interest rates by 0.25 points in the first quarter of the new year, but then drops plans to increase the key standard any further because economic signals are flashing yellow. By year's end, the Fed rate is 0.50 percent instead of the 1% chairwoman Janet Yellen had predicted. The anemic stock market also weighs on the Fed's decision.
4. With smartphone penetration levels rising to all-time highs, the big manufacturers, like Apple and Samsung, branch out into new businesses. Competition and price-cutting squeeze margins, leading the major players to launch a buying spree. Apple, with $200 billion in cash, will make a key acquisition to advance its goal of dominating the self-driving automobile market.
5. After years of dashed hopes and 413 unsuccessful clinical trials, a promising new drug appears on the market to slow the signs of Alzheimer's disease. There are 93 drugs currently in the pipeline as pharmaceutical firms invest millions in research to capture the mushrooming market created by the aging of America. An estimated $226 billion was spent in 2015 for the care of Alzheimer's patients.
6. State-sponsored cyber attacks reach epidemic proportions, culminating with an attack on a power substation that shuts down electricity to an American city. After years of warnings about the vulnerability of the nation's electric grid, the power disruption finally mobilizes the industry to harden their systems against cyber terrorist threats.
7. Crude oil prices briefly rise after the holiday driving spike, but the cost of a barrel ends the year at below $42. Excessive stockpiles of crude oil, OPEC's increased production and booming U.S. oil exports produce a worldwide glut that keeps average annual prices at the pump below $2.05 per gallon. Big oil companies begin lay-offs as profits slump and their stock prices tumble.
8. President Obama issues an executive order aimed at making it harder for Americans to purchase guns with stricter background checks and bans on some weapons, fueling a Second Amendment fight that goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Mr. Obama's directive thrusts gun control to the front as an issue in the presidential election.
9. Iran is accused of breaking the nuclear agreement it signed by secretly increasing its supply of centrifuges and building a second underground facility. President Obama demands the Iranians open their facilities to inspectors, but its leaders stall and equivocate. Meanwhile, Israel warns it will destroy the nuclear facilities if the world fails to act. Russia threatens to retaliate for any attack on Iran.
10. The presidential race comes down to Democrat Hillary Clinton versus Republican Ted Cruz. Donald Trump's lack of a strong field operation hurts turnout for the billionaire in the Super Tuesday primaries, forcing him to reconsider his candidacy. With a superior organization, Cruz outlasts the field to win the Republican primary. He picks North Carolina governor Nikki Haley as his running mate. Clinton opts for former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro. After a nick-and-tuck electoral battle, Cruz emerges the victor by the narrowest of margins, but the GOP loses its majority in the Senate.
Like Nostradamus, your scribe may be a few years off on some of these predictions. But at sometime in the future, they are bound to prove correct. It is called the law of averages, the best friend of any prognosticator.
Monday, December 28, 2015
Monday, December 21, 2015
Santa Tosses Stocking Cap in the Political Ring
Santa Claus, surrounded by nine reindeer, announced today that he was declaring his candidacy for the president of the United States. Decked out in his traditional red Christmas costume, the white-bearded political novice promised to visit every person in the country at least once a year.
With Mrs. Claus dutifully at his side, the jocular Christmas icon made his announcement at a packed news conference at the North Pole. His surprise revelation promised to shake up the presidential race, trumping the celebrity candidacy of at least one contender for the White House.
Mr. Claus read his statement from a list that appeared to have children's names written in the margins. Once he finished, he opened the floor to media questions. Here is a partial transcript from the media briefing attended by journalists and a diminutive contingent of red-and-green dressed elves.
Q: Mr. Claus, what party primary will you enter?
A: I thought about running as a Democrat, since I have been giving away free stuff for centuries. It seemed like a good fit. But my surname isn't Clinton, so I'm pretty sure I'm prohibited from running.
Q: So, you'll campaign as a Republican?
Are you kidding me? That party has like 200 candidates. They don't need another outsider without political experience.
Q: You're saying you'll run as an independent?
There you go putting words in my mouth. I prefer to think of my candidacy as a way for people to express their gratitude for the millions of gifts I have showered on them through the years.
Q. What about your age? There are references to Santa Claus in 1773 in a New York newspaper. That would make you 242 years old. Isn't that too old to be president?
A. Even at 242, that makes me two years younger than Bernie Sanders. No one talks about his age.
Q. Are you aware that the last major party candidate to wear a beard was Republican Charles Evan Hughes, who was defeated in 1916?
A. Have you seen that awful comb-over on Donald Trump? The man would look better with a beard. Besides, I think voters are looking for a fatherly figure in the White House after eight years of a man-child in the Oval Office.
Q: Will you campaign in your Christmas garb? Isn't it a little old fashioned?
A. Check out those baggy pantsuits Hillary is wearing. Talk about dowdy. Red is so chic by comparison. Besides the coat hides my ample belly. It works for Hillary, it should work for me.
Q: What will be the focus of your campaign?
A. The theme will be lowering the voting age. I think it is time we gave two year olds and older the right to cast a ballot. Heck, we let illegal immigrants vote, so why not children?
Q: Your opponents may argue you just want kids to vote because it would be to your political advantage?
A. Listen that is nothing but political claptrap. Children's futures are at stake in this election. They should have a voice in the country's direction. No one complains about dead people voting Democrat in Chicago. Why would anyone object to a sweet innocent child showing up at the polls?
Q: Where do you stand on climate change?
A. You obviously haven't spent much time at the North Pole. We have miserable freezing temperatures every day. Mrs. Claus hates the cold. We are both praying for global warming.
Q: You have no experience in foreign policy. How will you overcome that disadvantage?
A. Look I have spent years circling the globe. I know every village, town and city in every country in the world. Well, except for those Middle Eastern countries. I am known there as The Infidel Who Shimmies Down The Filthy Chimney.
Q: Do you have a campaign slogan?
A. I kinda like, "Put a little Ho-Ho-Ho in the White House." But Mrs. Claus didn't want to be known as the wife of a "ho." So, we have changed it to, "Santa Will Make America Merry Again."
Q. What about a running mate? Have you thought about a vice presidential choice?
A. I have already asked Rudolph to run as the first reindeer vice president. I know it may raise a few eyebrows, but honestly, he can't be any worse than Joe Biden. Like Biden, Rudolph will only be allowed to appear in public once a year.
Q: If you're elected, will you continue to deliver toys to children every Christmas?
A. Of course! Especially once we have lowered the voting age. It will make a second term a cinch.
With Mrs. Claus dutifully at his side, the jocular Christmas icon made his announcement at a packed news conference at the North Pole. His surprise revelation promised to shake up the presidential race, trumping the celebrity candidacy of at least one contender for the White House.
Mr. Claus read his statement from a list that appeared to have children's names written in the margins. Once he finished, he opened the floor to media questions. Here is a partial transcript from the media briefing attended by journalists and a diminutive contingent of red-and-green dressed elves.
Q: Mr. Claus, what party primary will you enter?
A: I thought about running as a Democrat, since I have been giving away free stuff for centuries. It seemed like a good fit. But my surname isn't Clinton, so I'm pretty sure I'm prohibited from running.
Q: So, you'll campaign as a Republican?
Are you kidding me? That party has like 200 candidates. They don't need another outsider without political experience.
Q: You're saying you'll run as an independent?
There you go putting words in my mouth. I prefer to think of my candidacy as a way for people to express their gratitude for the millions of gifts I have showered on them through the years.
Q. What about your age? There are references to Santa Claus in 1773 in a New York newspaper. That would make you 242 years old. Isn't that too old to be president?
A. Even at 242, that makes me two years younger than Bernie Sanders. No one talks about his age.
Q. Are you aware that the last major party candidate to wear a beard was Republican Charles Evan Hughes, who was defeated in 1916?
A. Have you seen that awful comb-over on Donald Trump? The man would look better with a beard. Besides, I think voters are looking for a fatherly figure in the White House after eight years of a man-child in the Oval Office.
Q: Will you campaign in your Christmas garb? Isn't it a little old fashioned?
A. Check out those baggy pantsuits Hillary is wearing. Talk about dowdy. Red is so chic by comparison. Besides the coat hides my ample belly. It works for Hillary, it should work for me.
Q: What will be the focus of your campaign?
A. The theme will be lowering the voting age. I think it is time we gave two year olds and older the right to cast a ballot. Heck, we let illegal immigrants vote, so why not children?
Q: Your opponents may argue you just want kids to vote because it would be to your political advantage?
A. Listen that is nothing but political claptrap. Children's futures are at stake in this election. They should have a voice in the country's direction. No one complains about dead people voting Democrat in Chicago. Why would anyone object to a sweet innocent child showing up at the polls?
Q: Where do you stand on climate change?
A. You obviously haven't spent much time at the North Pole. We have miserable freezing temperatures every day. Mrs. Claus hates the cold. We are both praying for global warming.
Q: You have no experience in foreign policy. How will you overcome that disadvantage?
A. Look I have spent years circling the globe. I know every village, town and city in every country in the world. Well, except for those Middle Eastern countries. I am known there as The Infidel Who Shimmies Down The Filthy Chimney.
Q: Do you have a campaign slogan?
A. I kinda like, "Put a little Ho-Ho-Ho in the White House." But Mrs. Claus didn't want to be known as the wife of a "ho." So, we have changed it to, "Santa Will Make America Merry Again."
Q. What about a running mate? Have you thought about a vice presidential choice?
A. I have already asked Rudolph to run as the first reindeer vice president. I know it may raise a few eyebrows, but honestly, he can't be any worse than Joe Biden. Like Biden, Rudolph will only be allowed to appear in public once a year.
Q: If you're elected, will you continue to deliver toys to children every Christmas?
A. Of course! Especially once we have lowered the voting age. It will make a second term a cinch.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Gun Solutions: Just The Facts Please
The terrorist killing spree in San Bernardino provided ammunition for President Obama's echo chamber in the media to renew their evangelism for stricter gun control laws. The media reaction was equal parts hysteria and factual fraud, rendering it counterproductive to finding solutions.
News outlets, in an effort to politicize the shootings, deliberately distorted gun violence statistics in the aftermath of the mass killings. The media relies on the shock-value of numbers to bolster their propaganda push for gun control without addressing if tighter laws would actually reduce violence.
That makes it difficult for the average American to determine the best solution for preventing mass shootings. Politicians, the media, gun advocates and gun opponents jigger statistics to suit their own positions. None of this helps the country to reach a consensus on what should be done.
There must be agreement on the facts for any serious discussion to yield effective solutions. Just doing something may convince the uninitiated that knee-jerk politicians care about gun violence, but it is irresponsible to enact laws without a scrupulous analysis of the incidents and the causes.
For starters, below are facts about shootings involving guns in the United States. The statistics are mostly derived from FBI reports, a non-partisan source for the facts on the ground. No figures from the major gun rights organization, the National Rifle Association, are used in this analysis.
Violent Crime In the U.S. is Decreasing Not Increasing
FBI statistics on violent crime show a steady decline nationally. Violent crime in 2014 was 6.9 percent below the 2010 level and the number represented a 16.2 reduction from 2005. This downward trend has existed for more than a decade.
Gun Violence In the U.S. is Declining Not Rising
Murder rates are continuing to decrease nationally, the FBI reports. The murder rate has dipped 6.1 percent since 2010 and nearly 21 percent (20.8%) from the 2005 level. Murder accounted for just 1.2 percent of all the violent crime in the United States last year.
Of all the violent deaths, a firearm of some kind was used in 68 percent of the homicides. In 12.1 percent of the murders, the perpetrator wielded a knife. Violent deaths caused by firearms have declined in nearly every year since 2009. The lone exception was 2012.
Some gun control supporters often quote total firearms deaths, eschewing the homicide data. The numbers are very misleading, since the data includes suicides. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 63 percent of all firearm deaths are attributed to suicides.
The president has cited comparisons of gun homicides in other countries. However, the data is collected inconsistently and homicide is defined differently in each country. For example, the United Kingdom excludes gun homicides that do not result in a conviction from its statistics.
Even using the flawed data, Mexico's firearms homicide rate is three times higher than the United States, based on the latest figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Gun ownership laws are much stricter in Mexico than in the U.S.
Ten American Cities Account For 20 Percent Of All Gun Violence
Murderous shooting rampages have been a chronic problem in a handful of American cities. Chicago has consistently ranked among the top three cities with the most murders since 1985. Yet the city has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.
The ten most dangerous cities in order are Chicago, New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Houston, New Orleans, Memphis and Dallas. The cities are ranked by the total number of murders reported in 2013, the latest year for which statistics are available.
Subtract the gun deaths from those ten cities and national firearm violence figures have decreased significantly over the last decade.
Gun Ownership Has Risen as Gun Violence Has Fallen
There is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crimes. While gun murders have fallen, the number of people in the United States with firearms has skyrocketed. A 2012 Congressional Research Service report estimated there were 242 million firearms in the hands of civilians.
A recent Washington Post report estimated today's figure at roughly 357 million guns. The news organization's conclusion was based on data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). ATF figures show U.S. gun production has almost doubled since 2009.
Mass Shooting Data Lacks Credibility
Democrats have used data purporting to show that the U.S. has suffered 353 mass shootings this year, killing 462 people and injuring 1,312. The figures are not credible. The numbers come from a crowd-sourced website shootingtracker.com, which admits its contributors are non-professionals.
There are conflicting statistics from a variety of legitimate sources, including the FBI, because for years the agency had no official definition of a "mass shooting" on its books. However, in 2014 the agency defined a "mass killing" as an incident with three or more fatalities. That makes it impossible to compare today's numbers with past years.
Depending on your source, the number of mass shootings in the United States this year ranges from 353 to four. The lack of authentic data leads many to jump to conclusions about gun laws that are not supported by the facts.
For example, The Washington Post fact checker crew posted data this month analyzing the four worst mass shootings since 2012, concluding gun laws would not have prevented the carnage. In fact, in most of the slayings, current laws were either ignored or guns were illegally obtained.
Whatever your views on gun laws, the preponderance of data suggests there is no link between the number of individuals with firearms and gun crime. Yet the public perception created by the news media is exactly the opposite. This is a disservice to an honest debate about reducing mass shootings.
Americans need to be armed with the facts about gun violence to keep politicians from manipulating data to advance their agenda on firearm laws. This much is clear from the facts. The enemy is not law-abiding American gun owners.
News outlets, in an effort to politicize the shootings, deliberately distorted gun violence statistics in the aftermath of the mass killings. The media relies on the shock-value of numbers to bolster their propaganda push for gun control without addressing if tighter laws would actually reduce violence.
That makes it difficult for the average American to determine the best solution for preventing mass shootings. Politicians, the media, gun advocates and gun opponents jigger statistics to suit their own positions. None of this helps the country to reach a consensus on what should be done.
There must be agreement on the facts for any serious discussion to yield effective solutions. Just doing something may convince the uninitiated that knee-jerk politicians care about gun violence, but it is irresponsible to enact laws without a scrupulous analysis of the incidents and the causes.
For starters, below are facts about shootings involving guns in the United States. The statistics are mostly derived from FBI reports, a non-partisan source for the facts on the ground. No figures from the major gun rights organization, the National Rifle Association, are used in this analysis.
Violent Crime In the U.S. is Decreasing Not Increasing
FBI statistics on violent crime show a steady decline nationally. Violent crime in 2014 was 6.9 percent below the 2010 level and the number represented a 16.2 reduction from 2005. This downward trend has existed for more than a decade.
Gun Violence In the U.S. is Declining Not Rising
Murder rates are continuing to decrease nationally, the FBI reports. The murder rate has dipped 6.1 percent since 2010 and nearly 21 percent (20.8%) from the 2005 level. Murder accounted for just 1.2 percent of all the violent crime in the United States last year.
Of all the violent deaths, a firearm of some kind was used in 68 percent of the homicides. In 12.1 percent of the murders, the perpetrator wielded a knife. Violent deaths caused by firearms have declined in nearly every year since 2009. The lone exception was 2012.
Some gun control supporters often quote total firearms deaths, eschewing the homicide data. The numbers are very misleading, since the data includes suicides. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 63 percent of all firearm deaths are attributed to suicides.
The president has cited comparisons of gun homicides in other countries. However, the data is collected inconsistently and homicide is defined differently in each country. For example, the United Kingdom excludes gun homicides that do not result in a conviction from its statistics.
Even using the flawed data, Mexico's firearms homicide rate is three times higher than the United States, based on the latest figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Gun ownership laws are much stricter in Mexico than in the U.S.
Ten American Cities Account For 20 Percent Of All Gun Violence
Murderous shooting rampages have been a chronic problem in a handful of American cities. Chicago has consistently ranked among the top three cities with the most murders since 1985. Yet the city has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.
The ten most dangerous cities in order are Chicago, New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Houston, New Orleans, Memphis and Dallas. The cities are ranked by the total number of murders reported in 2013, the latest year for which statistics are available.
Subtract the gun deaths from those ten cities and national firearm violence figures have decreased significantly over the last decade.
Gun Ownership Has Risen as Gun Violence Has Fallen
There is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crimes. While gun murders have fallen, the number of people in the United States with firearms has skyrocketed. A 2012 Congressional Research Service report estimated there were 242 million firearms in the hands of civilians.
A recent Washington Post report estimated today's figure at roughly 357 million guns. The news organization's conclusion was based on data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). ATF figures show U.S. gun production has almost doubled since 2009.
Mass Shooting Data Lacks Credibility
Democrats have used data purporting to show that the U.S. has suffered 353 mass shootings this year, killing 462 people and injuring 1,312. The figures are not credible. The numbers come from a crowd-sourced website shootingtracker.com, which admits its contributors are non-professionals.
There are conflicting statistics from a variety of legitimate sources, including the FBI, because for years the agency had no official definition of a "mass shooting" on its books. However, in 2014 the agency defined a "mass killing" as an incident with three or more fatalities. That makes it impossible to compare today's numbers with past years.
Depending on your source, the number of mass shootings in the United States this year ranges from 353 to four. The lack of authentic data leads many to jump to conclusions about gun laws that are not supported by the facts.
For example, The Washington Post fact checker crew posted data this month analyzing the four worst mass shootings since 2012, concluding gun laws would not have prevented the carnage. In fact, in most of the slayings, current laws were either ignored or guns were illegally obtained.
Whatever your views on gun laws, the preponderance of data suggests there is no link between the number of individuals with firearms and gun crime. Yet the public perception created by the news media is exactly the opposite. This is a disservice to an honest debate about reducing mass shootings.
Americans need to be armed with the facts about gun violence to keep politicians from manipulating data to advance their agenda on firearm laws. This much is clear from the facts. The enemy is not law-abiding American gun owners.
Monday, December 7, 2015
Vetting Obama's Claims About Syrian Refugees
President Obama and Democrats are openly mocking Americans who have expressed concerns about the impending flood of Syrian refugees into the country. Opponents of the Obama refugee doctrine have been dismissed as intolerant, anti-immigrant, bigoted and hateful.
The vitriolic verbal attacks are aimed at shutting down legitimate debate over the president's plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees this year, 85,000 in 2016 and 100,000 more in 2017 after Mr. Obama leaves office. About 2,200 Syrian refugees have been granted asylum in the last four years.
In ridiculing his critics, the president has made statements about the extensive vetting process for refugees designed to deter potential terrorists from entering the U.S. His claims have mostly gone unchallenged by a sympathetic media. However, the facts don't support Mr. Obama's rhetoric.
Here is a list of Mr. Obama's assertions with the accompanying facts that offer contradictory evidence to the president's statements.
"People should remember that no refugee can enter our borders until they undergo the highest security checks of anyone traveling to the United States," the president has steadfastly maintained.
The security vetting process is flawed and offers no guarantee terrorists will be blocked from entering the country. As proof, Senator Jeff Sessions recently released a list of 12 refugees who were allowed into the country this year and were subsequently arrested for conspiring to commit terrorism or for providing support to terrorists.
Moreover, FBI Director James Comey acknowledged last month that federal agencies had no fool-proof method to conduct background checks on refugees. "If we don't know much about somebody, there won't be anything in our data," he confided. "I can't sit here and offer anybody absolute assurance that there's no risk associated with this."
Unlike many Middle Eastern refugees, Syrians are more likely to sympathize with ISIS. A recent opinion poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies shows that 13 percent of Syrian refugees hold positive views of the terrorist group. That is an alarming number that underscores the need for a thorough vetting.
In the last week, Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar from Laredo on the Texas border revealed that groups of Syrians are already slipping into the U.S. from Mexico, surrendering to Border Patrol and requesting political asylum. The new arrivals can skip the vetting period and have the right to settle wherever they want in the U.S. under current immigration policy, asserts Cuellar.
The Congressman warns that likely more Syrians will use the same route into the United States and called for federal action to prevent a potential flood of Middle Eastern refugees through America's porous southern border.
Mr. Obama and other Democrats often contend that refugees are "not a burden" on America and represent "valuable, hardworking" additions to our communities.
While it is understandable that refugees may have difficulty securing a job, many are winding up on the government dole.
According this year's Annual Report to Congress by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), 39 percent of refugees received public assistance, 56 percent went on Medicaid, 74 percent signed up for food stamps and 23 percent obtained public housing assistance in fiscal year 2013. This year the ORR agency has spent nearly $1 billion ($999.4 million) to resettle and provide benefits to refugees.
"But they're (Republicans) scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion," Mr. Obama has argued.
Mr. Obama acts as if Republicans want to limit the number of refugees coming to America. Not many people are aware that it is the president who sets a ceiling each year on refugees. For fiscal year 2015, Mr. Obama fixed the number at 70,000. He made that decision, not Congress.
This assertion about widows and children is a canard used by Mr. Obama to tar his opponents. He knows it is not true. Republicans and many Americans are frightened of the prospect of adult refugees entering the country with the intent to kill and maim citizens.
For example, in 2013 two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky were arrested after they made claims they used explosive devices to kill U.S. soldiers in their country and were plotting attacks on our homeland. In another case, a Uzbek refugee in Idaho was found guilty of stockpiling explosives in support of a terrorist organization.
The Boston marathon bombers, who immigrated from Chechnya, were granted asylum in the United States, before killing three and injuring more than 250 people. Authorities claim they were fully vetted before being allowed in the country. That suggests the current system is unreliable.
The recent massacre in San Bernardino, California, was another wake-up call for the country's terror guardians. One of the killers, Tashfeen Malik, entered the country on a fiancee visa after being screened for jihadist connections.
How many more examples does the president need before he owns up to the fact there is no way to assure Americans that not a single Syrian refugee who enters in the country is a potential terrorist?
This is a rhetorical question. Mr. Obama knows that even the world's best vetting system cannot identify every terrorist threat. It would be refreshing to hear the president admit it. Instead, he disparages those with relevant apprehensions, spawning divisiveness over the issue.
Before another Syrian refugee is granted asylum, the United States needs to bolster its vetting process, implement increased screening for Middle Eastern applicants, improve the sharing of terrorist data across government agencies and enhance monitoring of the resettlement process.
Without these changes, no one, including President Obama, can assure Americans that newly arriving refugees will not pose a terrorist threat to the country.
The vitriolic verbal attacks are aimed at shutting down legitimate debate over the president's plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees this year, 85,000 in 2016 and 100,000 more in 2017 after Mr. Obama leaves office. About 2,200 Syrian refugees have been granted asylum in the last four years.
In ridiculing his critics, the president has made statements about the extensive vetting process for refugees designed to deter potential terrorists from entering the U.S. His claims have mostly gone unchallenged by a sympathetic media. However, the facts don't support Mr. Obama's rhetoric.
Here is a list of Mr. Obama's assertions with the accompanying facts that offer contradictory evidence to the president's statements.
"People should remember that no refugee can enter our borders until they undergo the highest security checks of anyone traveling to the United States," the president has steadfastly maintained.
The security vetting process is flawed and offers no guarantee terrorists will be blocked from entering the country. As proof, Senator Jeff Sessions recently released a list of 12 refugees who were allowed into the country this year and were subsequently arrested for conspiring to commit terrorism or for providing support to terrorists.
Moreover, FBI Director James Comey acknowledged last month that federal agencies had no fool-proof method to conduct background checks on refugees. "If we don't know much about somebody, there won't be anything in our data," he confided. "I can't sit here and offer anybody absolute assurance that there's no risk associated with this."
Unlike many Middle Eastern refugees, Syrians are more likely to sympathize with ISIS. A recent opinion poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies shows that 13 percent of Syrian refugees hold positive views of the terrorist group. That is an alarming number that underscores the need for a thorough vetting.
In the last week, Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar from Laredo on the Texas border revealed that groups of Syrians are already slipping into the U.S. from Mexico, surrendering to Border Patrol and requesting political asylum. The new arrivals can skip the vetting period and have the right to settle wherever they want in the U.S. under current immigration policy, asserts Cuellar.
The Congressman warns that likely more Syrians will use the same route into the United States and called for federal action to prevent a potential flood of Middle Eastern refugees through America's porous southern border.
Mr. Obama and other Democrats often contend that refugees are "not a burden" on America and represent "valuable, hardworking" additions to our communities.
While it is understandable that refugees may have difficulty securing a job, many are winding up on the government dole.
According this year's Annual Report to Congress by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), 39 percent of refugees received public assistance, 56 percent went on Medicaid, 74 percent signed up for food stamps and 23 percent obtained public housing assistance in fiscal year 2013. This year the ORR agency has spent nearly $1 billion ($999.4 million) to resettle and provide benefits to refugees.
"But they're (Republicans) scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion," Mr. Obama has argued.
Mr. Obama acts as if Republicans want to limit the number of refugees coming to America. Not many people are aware that it is the president who sets a ceiling each year on refugees. For fiscal year 2015, Mr. Obama fixed the number at 70,000. He made that decision, not Congress.
This assertion about widows and children is a canard used by Mr. Obama to tar his opponents. He knows it is not true. Republicans and many Americans are frightened of the prospect of adult refugees entering the country with the intent to kill and maim citizens.
For example, in 2013 two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky were arrested after they made claims they used explosive devices to kill U.S. soldiers in their country and were plotting attacks on our homeland. In another case, a Uzbek refugee in Idaho was found guilty of stockpiling explosives in support of a terrorist organization.
The Boston marathon bombers, who immigrated from Chechnya, were granted asylum in the United States, before killing three and injuring more than 250 people. Authorities claim they were fully vetted before being allowed in the country. That suggests the current system is unreliable.
The recent massacre in San Bernardino, California, was another wake-up call for the country's terror guardians. One of the killers, Tashfeen Malik, entered the country on a fiancee visa after being screened for jihadist connections.
How many more examples does the president need before he owns up to the fact there is no way to assure Americans that not a single Syrian refugee who enters in the country is a potential terrorist?
This is a rhetorical question. Mr. Obama knows that even the world's best vetting system cannot identify every terrorist threat. It would be refreshing to hear the president admit it. Instead, he disparages those with relevant apprehensions, spawning divisiveness over the issue.
Before another Syrian refugee is granted asylum, the United States needs to bolster its vetting process, implement increased screening for Middle Eastern applicants, improve the sharing of terrorist data across government agencies and enhance monitoring of the resettlement process.
Without these changes, no one, including President Obama, can assure Americans that newly arriving refugees will not pose a terrorist threat to the country.