CONSERVATIVE AUTHOR, ACTIVIST, AND TV NEWS PERSONALITY

Friday, December 04, 2015

Why admitting Syrian refugees is a bad idea.

By Justin Esthay
"They're scared of widows and three-year-old orphans." - Barack Obama.
It should go without saying that only a fool would believe that no "threat" could be posed by Muslim women and children. Any yet it must be said; because some people are simply that estranged to reality.

I have no doubt the president's statement was prevarication; he knows the truth; he is complicit. But the average American is far too easily inveigled by demagogues who express ostensibly noble motivations. Thus it must be articulated, to the latter, why a seemingly good thing is in fact a bad thing.

Terrorists commonly exploit civilian populations for purposes of camouflage, indemnifying their operations, and propaganda. They do this because they know their opponents generally view such locations with less suspicion, and would be reluctant to damage or destroy them. That they do this reveals that they're both aware of their enemy's values, and have no compunction about exploiting them to nefarious ends. It's a win/win scenario for them, as it allows them to take advantage of an enemy's aversion to attacking certain demographics or locations, and should the enemy counter attack, allows them to vilify the enemy as murderers of innocents.

Whether the opposing force of the terrorists attack, or do not attack, they lose. Either they accept a tactical disadvantage in perpetuity, or they face being smeared as the killers of women and children.

The use of women and children as human shields, or clandestine agents, is also a common tactic of terrorists across the sea. And following all of this, it's no difficult conclusion to reach, that terrorists will likewise have little compunction about exploiting our society's tendency to view women and children with less scrutiny, if not to by default presume they cannot be other than helpless, innocent victims. What we deem virtue, or compassion, they view as a strategic weakness.

People have a dangerous propensity to project themselves onto other human beings. The simple fact is these people do not share our beliefs, or ethical standards regarding how human societies should operate, or how man should treat his fellow man. And they will (just like Socialists) use our values against us at every opportunity. Indeed, they believe the deception and exploitation of their fellow man a divine mandate.

Not acknowledging this or taking steps to counter it does not make us "better." It makes us stupid, and if we intransigently cling to this deluded notion, destined for defeat. You cannot overcome an enemy you perpetually allow a plethora of tactical advantages. The chivalrous war, waged against a unscrupulous opponent, is a deluded tactic which places comportment over survival. It's tantamount to a boxer fighting an opponent with razor tipped brass knuckles, but thinking he's winning some moral victory by refusing to "stoop to his level."

But enough metaphorical exposition. Let's get to the facts. And going forward it should be understood that this post, as most others I contribute, will contain links to websites which allow the reader to learn what I already know, and to better understand allusions I make to things which may not be commonly known to others.

The Islamic terrorists across the sea have already perpetrated to a far greater degree, that to which the Socialists across the sea merely aspired decades ago. In 1942 Nazi operatives seeking to sabotage or destroy American infrastructure illegally immigrated to the United States.


"The Nazis hoped that sabotage teams would be able to slip into America at the rate of one or two every six weeks."
It was only by fortuitous chance that they were discovered and subsequently thwarted. But imagine if we'd allowed tens of thousands of German speaking refugees into the U.S. That would arguably have been the preferred avenue for entering the country, and almost certainly would have been attempted by Nazi subversives.

Not only did Democrat FDR not accept droves of Japanese refugees into the U.S., but he interned Japanese Americans. Yet now we must be subjected to the paradigmatic, abject hypocrisy, of members of the party that threw people into camps domestically for potentially being sympathetic to the enemy, admonishing us on the indignity imposed by refusing entry to people we have no obligation to accept, and which have now been proven to have been infiltrated by terrorists.

It must be understood, despite what idiots on the left claim, that we are no less at war with Islamic Terrorists, than we were the National Socialist terrorists who sought to perpetrate destruction and murder on our shores during World War 2. And in a time of war, people from the countries of your enemies, are perhaps those it would be least prudent to admit into your own society.

There's also the fact the federal government has no Constitutional authority to allocate taxpayer funds to the care or support of foreign born refugees. (Parentheses mine.)
"Mr. Madison [...] acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - History of Congress, January, 1794.
"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. It would puzzle any gentleman to lay his finger on any part of the Constitution which would authorize the government to interpose in the relief of (foreign) sufferers." - James Madison, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4] On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees.

The Socialist left has no interest in "helping" Syrian refugees. Those who support the mass genocide of children domestically, citing the imagery of children drowning abroad as the basis of their support, is a moral farce only an abject dullard would imbibe.

Why do these images not stir their conscience and animate them to action?




Instead we shall be subjected to the party that murders their own children by the millions, defending a faith in which mothers rejoice when their children blow themselves up, lecturing us on the sanctity of life. And as usual I see no conservatives of prominence even acknowledging these things, much less rebuking these two colluding death cults, to any meaningful extent. They simply sit there and suffer the left's absurd bloviation.
   
The left's goal in this instance, as with their immigration policy at large, is to deluge the nation with large numbers of foreigners purely for the purposes of inducing a demographic shift in the Democrat party's favor. At some point the millions of immigrants allowed into the country illegally, for example, will be amnestied and allowed to vote. And they will naturally vote for the party that both supported their entry and subsequently provided them with generous stipends from the public treasury.

This has nothing to do with philanthropy, and everything to do with purchasing votes with funds from the public treasury; the purpose of all leftist derived or supported public "assistance."

Even the Hebrews, who suffered greatly from the unwillingness of others to accept their own refugees, refuse to accept large numbers of Syrian refugees.
"We must control our borders, against both illegal migrants and terrorism." - Benjamin Netanyahu.
Because Netanyahu correctly acknowledges, that accepting large influxes of foreigners serves only to dilute your own culture, and erode the stability and safety of your state. It's deleterious to your own interests, and even dangerous.

But just as dangerous as the left's policies, is the credulity of many on the Right, who are easily duped into embracing a policy based upon specious rhetoric. This is illustrated by the fact that millions of "Christians" promptly accepted the rationale for admitting Syrian refugees into the U.S., from what is indisputably the most anti-Christian president in American history; a man who often and openly expresses abject antipathy for Israel, Christianity, and America in general. But all he had to do, all any Socialist has to do, is dispense a few Christian-sounding platitudes, and mention the Bible or Jesus, and just like that the dimwitted Joel Osteens of the nation are sold.

This unacceptable stupidity, on which virtually all Socialist schemes rely for success, must stop.

Blogger Widgets

TODAYS DRUDGE REPORT AND FOX NEWS HEADLINES