As a heads up for more sensitive readers, there are photos of terrorist attacks in this post further down.
Obama was just on TV and radio this morning saying how “we cannot” stop taking in refugees into neighborhoods in the US that Obama and his political donors and cronies will never live in, and the usual bleeding heart political BS that’s supposed to make people feel guilty for not taking in diseased strays. Much of it is probably in response to governors across the country saying “no more refugees”. (Edit: In the time it took me to write this, another governor – a Democrat – was added to that list refusing “refugees”.)
If Obama hadn’t abandoned actual success in Iraq, the Middle East wouldn’t be producing the swarms of refugees that have invaded Europe and that he wants to bring here. We already fought the bad guys over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them here, and so their people could live free there (including the actual refugees in the bunch). There wouldn’t be an ISIS for them to run from but for him. He’s the one who lost the war.
Like most politicians, he has the objective of building his party, and as a hard leftist who pledged to “fundamentally transform” the US, he’s doing his best to turn us into a third world hole. In the last couple years there have been the swarms of teenage “children” from central America who knew how to game the US immigration system and who were allowed to stay as “refugees”, even though they were just opportunists taking advantage of a president who actively wants “social justice” through redistribution of American capital to the rest of the world. If we’re brought down from inside and made miserable in front of the world, in his mind that would begin to make up for the fictional oppression that he believes the US must be punished for. It’s first world guilt that manifests as self-flagellation and self-destruction, and doubles as political power-building when he imports people who will vote Democrat forever.
When more moderate people begin to look at the problem of Islamic terrorism and say “why do you want to bring in the kinds of people who bring in terrorists with them?”, the left with Obama as its mouthpiece declares that’s racist and islamophobic and everyone needs to shut up. Meanwhile France, the nation that Obama said “represents the timeless values of human progress”, has discovered common sense and decided to seal its borders and take in no more so-called “refugees” because at least some of the terrorists that attacked Paris were those “refugees”.
This inevitably leads to the “not all Muslims are terrorists” argument, which is true. One bad apple does not spoil the bunch. Except that saying can still be horribly wrong in practice. One person sick from e coli or listeria will have a responsible business shut themselves down or have the FDA on them a heartbeat later to shut them down. If only 1% of your food is liable to be dangerous, you don’t get to keep putting it on the market – it’d be wildly irresponsible. If only 1% of 100,000 people you import support terrorism, then you’ve imported 1,000 potential terrorists.
If you care about your nation, you don’t bring in people who wish to do it harm.
Hollande is a French leftist, but is still French. He understands that protecting France is a priority. I haven’t heard him say he wants to “fundamentally change” France (at least not on this topic). He also seems to understand that if you have an outbreak of terrorism, it might be worthwhile to look at the vector that terrorists are using to attack you, and the populations they come from, especially when so many of them are military-aged males.
Most are coming for free stuff given away by brain-dead-liberal western democracies. They aren’t coming to assimilate to their new countries, they are far from peaceful, and they bring their animosities and wars with them.
These are not the poor tired huddled masses seeking escape from despotism and yearning to breathe free. If they really wanted freedom they’d be fighting for it in their homelands. They’re bypassing nations that don’t give handouts to make it to the ones that do. They’re not looking for a place to be free of oppression of Islamic states and cast off the miserable lot they had and work to become citizens of their new nation, they’re looking to exploit the naivety of brain-dead-liberal societies – and then there are some who are looking to expand those Islamic states.
So you start with a group that demands that other nations give them things simply because they’re there. They demand asylum and they demand the necessities of life because someone else has them and they want them. Those are the regular “refugees”. The brain-dead-liberal west thinks that we’re somehow obligated to take care of people out of some “common bond of humanity” or some such nonsense.
Thing is, within that population of “refugees” is still the “radical muslim minority” like the would-be dominators pictured above. And it’s not exactly a small number.
Ben Shapiro did a good breakdown on the myth of the radical muslim minority last year. It’s good to assess what the numbers say:
At 4:40 he looks very briefly at numbers in France.
“France: 4.7 million muslims live there. A 2007 poll showed 35% of French muslims said suicide bombings could sometimes be justified. That’s 1.6 million radical muslims living in France.”
From Pew Research, and a favorable poll (and you can find plenty of such polls):
If you take those numbers and read what they actually say, you have 20% of American-born muslims who believe that suicide bombing is justified – and believe it to the point that they’d admit it.
The question is “suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies.” Would you say it’s “often”, “sometimes” or “rarely” or never justified?
If you answer with “rarely”, you’re still saying that once in a while it’s okay to murder a bunch of Parisians at a concert who have nothing to do with world conflicts aside from being Westerners.
So in order to “defend” Islam from it’s “enemies”, 20% of American born Muslims – and much higher numbers in other countries – think this is okay at least every once in a while:
And that this is acceptable:
There is no reason for any nation to invite that inside their borders, because it’s a predictable result of importing populations that harbor terrorist tendencies.
For the US and the coalition countries who fought overseas to shut down Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and dozens of other terrorist groups, many of which converged as the Islamic State, there is no reason ever to import the same mayhem that we fought against overseas with the intention to prevent having to fight it stateside.
It’s especially offensive as the interpreters (mostly muslim themselves) who helped us in mid-east conflicts aren’t being allowed into the US.
Last week, President Obama decided to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States. But there’s another group of foreigners who deserve our help much more – the 50,000 men and women who served as interpreters for American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They’ve already put their lives on the line – and often their families’ lives and friends’ lives as well – to show who they stand with. They’re struggling to do everything the legal way and they’re being left hung out to dry, or killed trying to dodge vindictive terrorists overseas while US bureaucrats ignore their paperwork.
They really are the people who fought the hard fight to protect their homelands as best they could, they’re the people who saw western virtues as something that could help them, they’re the people who’d integrate into western society, and they really are the ones yearning to breathe free. They’re the ones who aren’t looking for handouts, just looking for a safe place to live and become productive citizens. They’re the ones who paid their dues in advance, actively fighting against islamic terrorists – and they’re the ones being ignored.