I would like to extend a big Shout Out and Thank You to the Lions Club, all their wonderful helpers and all the Young Lions (reindeer) for inviting us and serving a wonderful Christmas Dinner. Also, Thank You to all the Businesses that donated many gift certificates and prizes.

Sincerely,

Patti Forsyth

A Delighted Great Bend Senior

Do you appreciate the jewel of an institution in your community?

In mid November, I had a logging accident at my weekend camp. After a painful drive to Barnes Kasson (that jewel) Emergency Room I was received, treated then transferred to Scranton.

Courteous, common sense treatment was given, personal property was locked in my truck and parked safely until family could retrieve it.

I wish to thank the Doctor and staff, especially EMT Robin Holmes, EMT/Driver Tom Delaney, Paramedic Scott Rummage, Nurses Chad Wallace and Sandy Pickering.

Please support and maintain this local jewel and its staff.

Sincerely,

Andrew Stauffer

Harmony Township Weekender

And again, a typhoon of criticism swirls around Donald Trump. The front-runner among Republican presidential candidates called for a total and a complete shutdown of Muslim immigration into the US.

Politicos and pundits tripped over each other in a race to the nearest TV camera to distance themselves from his extremism. Or could it be the other way around? Could Trump be distancing himself from the pack leaving them once more to play catch-up?

It was 1940. More than 350 Japanese planes took off from six carriers. Their mission was to destroy the Pacific Fleet anchored at Pearl Harbor. Two hours after the attack, the fleet lay in ruins. Roosevelt, fearing a follow-up land attack on the West coast, ordered the forced internment of 120,000 Japanese, 60 percent of whom were US citizens. It wasn't war hysteria. It was survival.

Shortly after World War II, Americans faced another existential threat, this time from the Soviet Union. They called it the Cold War. Congress' response to the Soviets was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

The relevant part of the Act was to deny entry into the US based on political radicalism, accepting only those immigrants who were willing and able to assimilate into the economic, social, and political structure of the US.

Almost 30 years later during the Iranian hostage crisis, President Carter used the Immigration Act to ban Iranians from entering the US unless they opposed the Shite Islamist regime.

Now for the fourth time, the US is faced with another crisis, this time from Koranic Muslims. Make no mistake about it; they are an existential threat.

Imagine a Muslim, one who would obey the Koran's command to “kill all infidels.” Somehow he obtains a suitcase nuke. He goes to the 9/11 Memorial, sits on the suitcase, shouts, Allahu akbar, and presses the button. To the glory of Allah, he creates a 9/11 Jihadist Memorial, a mile-wide creator that was once New York City.

Our Dear Leader could invoke the 1952 Act to protect the nation against Muslim extremists. But to Mr. Obama, this would be unthinkable. However, to a future president, it might be unthinkable not to do so. The difficulty is this: How can we separate those who are not Koranic Muslims from those who by their adherence to the Koran are unassimilable and hostile to democracy?

For Syrian immigrants, this is not possible. Syria is a nation that no longer has birth, tax, health, marriage, political, or criminal records for any of its citizens. Syrian refugees cannot be screened.

FBI Director James Comey warned Congress that “admitting people from Syria into the US is fraught with risks that terrorist fighters could slip in.” Comey continued, “we can only query against [data] we have collected.” Without information from Syria, vetting is impossible.

At this point the safest course, if not the sanest one, is to disallow Syrian refugees entry into the US. Safe zones in Syria should be established providing shelter, food, and medical aid until they can return to their homes.

But Obama's solution is to import them.

In 2013, the US granted 117,000 Muslims permanent resident status; plus 123,000 Muslims, who were classified as temporary migrants (as were the 9/11 hijackers); and 40,000 Muslim refugees. That's 280,000 Muslims. Lastly, Obama wants 10,000 extra Muslim refugees bringing the total to 290,000 Muslims.

Now the cost.

The Center for Immigration Studies estimated that it costs $64,000 for every immigrant from a Middle Eastern nation. From 2000 to 2014, Muslim immigrants into the US from predominantly Muslim countries increased by 800,000. At $64,000/ immigrant the total taxpayer bill was $51 billion.

Trump's position is to stop all Muslim immigration until, in his words, “we can figure out what the hell is going on.” A moratorium on Muslim immigration seems to be the prudent course.

Then there are the illegals.

Annually 400,000 trespassers stroll across the southern border into the US. They are, to a man, all illegals, all unvetted, all unknowns. Could terrorists infiltrate their ranks?

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tx) revealed portions of a classified letter from the National Counterterrorism Center. The letter stated that the NCTC has identified “individuals with ties to terrorist groups in Syria [ISIS] attempting to gain entry to the US through the refugee program.”

Despite this, Senator Jeff Sessions, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration said that more than 90 percent of Syrian refugees who are allowed into the US have little or no background data. To be fair, Mr. Obama did find time to appoint two devout Muslims to the Department of Homeland Security. That should help.

Could Trump be right? Maybe banning Muslims is not extreme; it's just common sense. Perhaps we should call a timeout until “we can figure out what the hell is going on.”

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA

Perhaps the most repetitive nag of GOP politicians is this accusation against President Obama:  "He refuses to refer to it as Radical Islamic Terrorism!"  This is frequently followed by, "How can we possibly defeat them if we can't identify what it is we're fighting?"

We know full well who we're fighting, by whatever name.  The President has had ISIS bombed over 6000 times so far.  The real question is, why the insistence on the pet term of the Republicans?  The Cuban candidate from Canada, Rafael "Ted" Cruz, actually believes that all he has to do is stand up boldly and declare, "You're Muslim!" and they'll just wilt away to nothing immediately.  In this, he manages to be more grandiose than Trump.

Let me tell you why we're careful how we refer to who it is we're fighting.  Right now the vast majority of the over one billion Muslims in the world are not part of the Jihad.  The moment they're convinced that this is a War on Islam itself, we lose-- they badly outnumber us, and outzeal us, too.  Our only hope is to keep most of them on the sidelines.   We do that by stressing that we are not at war with Islam, only against a psychotic group of criminals who we must never credit with representing Islam.  That's what they want, and idiot Republicans are playing right into it.  Muslim critics of Jihad (right, there are too few of them) are begging us not to legitimize ISIS in this way.  Why won't Republicans listen?

And keep in mind that it makes sense to be on good terms with the Muslim world if we expect them to rat out their own when they go bad.  And sometimes they are helpful this way.  Insulting them, and Islam, just isn't smart-- so what, if we must pretend that it's better than it is?

Even a well-known dimwit like George W. Bush was persuaded of this, so why is the rest of his party so dense?  Are the candidates just cynically pandering for votes, only to take a more responsible tone once in office?  If a future President actually fails to take this more responsible tone (that both Bush and Obama have been excoriated for), this would be the biggest boon to the cause of Jihad.  Trump's demagogic call to ban all Muslims comes in second.

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck

Rushville, PA