Bill's Plan For Detroit

As you know, Barack Obama has made it a priority of his administration -- in spite of broad public opposition -- to bring in 10,000 Syrian refugees. He has exceeded that goal. More than 98% of them are Muslims.

As I have often noted, our vetting processes don't ask the right questions to find out whether they are bringing anti-Semitic, anti-American attitudes with them. But that's another issue for another time.

Bill Clinton has a plan for these refugees -- use them to rebuild Detroit.

At a Clinton Global Initiative event earlier this year, the former president declared the refugee crisis to be "an enormous opportunity" for America. Clinton added:
 

"Detroit has 10,000 empty, structurally sound houses -- 10,000. And a lot of jobs to be had repairing those houses. Detroit just came out of bankruptcy and the mayor's trying to do an innovative sort of urban homesteading program there. But it just gives you an example of what could be done. And I think . . . it's a pretty good deal."

Really?

I wonder if Bill bothered to ask the residents of Detroit what they think about his idea.

Why does Clinton appear to have more confidence in Syrian refugees than the people of Detroit? What about the African Americans in Detroit who struggle to find jobs? Is he suggesting that they can't rebuild their own city?

Do elitists like Clinton have any notion that Americans should come first in their own country?

According to one estimate, the five-year cost of resettling one Middle Eastern refugee is more than $64,000. Some political elites have suggested that we should bring in 500% more refugees -- almost the entire population of Detroit! Think of how much money that would cost.

A Rasmussen poll last year asked Americans whether they agreed with plans to take in 500% more refugees. An astonishing 85% of blacks said they opposed it.

Now imagine if we were spending that money on our own people? What if we gave tax incentives of an equal amount to businesses to relocate to Detroit and train people for jobs? Labor unions might be interested in cooperating on a plan like that.

Kerry: Just Ignore Terrorism

During an official visit to Bangladesh yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry made an astonishing statement. While addressing the dangers of terrorism, Kerry said the following:
 

"No country is immune from terrorism. It's easy to terrorize. Government and law enforcement have to be correct 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. But if you decide one day you're going to be a terrorist and you're willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn't cover it quite as much. People wouldn't know what's going on." [Emphasis added.]

Yes, he really said that. I double-checked the official transcript myself just to be sure. You can't make this stuff up!

But it gets even better. As National Review's Jim Geraghty noted Kerry's comments took place at the "Edward M. Kennedy Center in Dhaka, Bangladesh. . . The Center is 'committed to open dialogue, informed action, individual and artistic expression, and personal and professional development.'"

But when it comes to terrorism, Kerry evidently isn't committed to open dialogue and informed action.

I suppose this is a hint as to why the administration doesn't talk in any consequential way about "radical Islam" or the genocide taking place against Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East. Presumably, Kerry's philosophy also extends to ignoring mass graves, the obvious outcome of radical Islamic terrorism, when they are discovered.

Why bother bureaucrats like Kerry with mass graves when he can concentrate on real threats like climate change?