Liberal LIES about Migrants Escalate

This is what passes for “rational” in the leftarded spewspaper I am forced to read here in Ottawa every day when I wake up:

From HERE:

“Canadians feel too much for Syrian refugees.” Several Canadian commentators issued this warning last week. Compassion is understandable, they say. Sweet, even. But emotions don’t make good policy.

So yes, let’s be rational about the Syrian refugee crisis. Let’s assess the most common logic of keeping people out.

The crisis is potentially limitless, bringing hundreds of thousands — millions! — to Canada.

Turkey hosts more Syrian refugees than any country, yet they don’t quite number two million. In all 28 EU countries, only 138,000 Syrian asylum claims were made in 2014. Migration ad infinitum to Canada seems less likely. The NDP wants Canada to resettle 46,000 Syrians over four years; the Liberals, to accept 25,000 now. Maybe emotions are obstructing the part of my brain reserved for simple math, but the last I checked, neither 46,000 nor 25,000 equals a few million or a few hundred thousand. Nor would they likely represent even one per cent of Syrian refugees.

Resettling Syrian refugees in Canada won’t solve everything.

True. We should urge Western allies to donate more. We should donate more. We should rescue Syrian people however we can. But aid and protection don’t preclude resettlement. Or does logic dictate that if a country does one thing in response to a global catastrophe, then it can’t do a complementary thing?

Canada can’t help everyone.

True again. We can help more, though.

Islam will take Canada over through immigration.

False. And paranoid. But we’re not talking about feelings, so I’ll leave it.

People from the Middle East hate the West.

Oh, now we talk about feelings. Then let’s talk about the love that a welcoming haven inspires. It’s not for her sparkling personality that Syrian refugees swear devotion to Angela Merkel. If some Syrians have “great grievances against the West,” as one commentator put it, the West can offer no better rebuttal than rescued Syrian lives.

Most are 20-something men

Most are women and children.

Yeah sure Shannon, “most are women and children!” This proves your lies to be lies:

Video: Muslim “migrants” screaming “ALLAHU AKBAR” attack police as crisis intensifies

But many Syrian men plan to send back for wives and children. They decide — rationally — to spare their families dangerous journeys. Rather than fear men who risk their lives for others, it’s more appropriate — more rational — to show them respect.

Canada previously resettled sophisticated people, unlike Syrians.

Let’s pretend “cultural advancement” is an objectively discernible quality. Let’s further imagine that a refugee’s legal asylum rights depend on her exposure to Caillebotte, the Mariinsky Ballet, and the Brandenburg Concertos. Even then, one would have to be truly delusional and, moreover, culturally unsophisticated, to believe that Syria — football-playing, poetry-reciting, architecture-loving Syria — wasn’t culturally sophisticated.

OR we could all pretend cultural indoctrinations of “THOU SHALT KILL!” get exactly the same socio-economic results as “THOU SHALT NOT KILL!” Because “all cultures are the same” – right, Shannon?

Some Syrians just exploit the crisis for their own economic gain.

The condition of being poor doesn’t nullify the condition of being physically endangered: the one usually exacerbates the other. Poor Syrian refugees are still refugees.

They’re not poor if they can afford the $40,000 price-tag demanded of them by people-smuggling pirates. Well OK, maybe AFTER paying for the privilege, they became poor!

Some Syrians have medical degrees and iPhones.

If cell-phone ownership voids asylum, countries ought to turn away even the occasional North Korean. Hold on, though: Doesn’t the fact of Syrian peoples’ resources and skill-sets negate the argument that they’re culturally bankrupt economic migrants? Well, no matter. We musn’t let rationality get in the way of an argument.

Syrians might be terrorists.

Your neighbor might be a terrorist. If he is, he may be trying to get into Syria. Mostly victims get out, and Western countries try to resettle the most vulnerable.

Yes, if my neighbour is a liberal, then she’s definitely a terrorist like you, Shannon. And  I dearly wish you were trying to leave Canada to get into Syria. Why should Western countries try to resettle ANY of them, when the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Bahrainis, Qataris, Omanis, and Iranians refuse to?! Other than that, 


“Terrorism” is really only the simple crime of “extortion” writ large! Extortion is “threats!”

ALL Muslims are MURDERER-GANG MEMBERS. Their Quran COMMANDS murder. Therefore the only good Muslim, is a dead one. Unless he only commits “moderate” murder. Then give him “moderate” death.

ALL muslims are criminals, simply by being members of the world’s largest and most ancient yet ongoing crime-gang. Being a member of a crime-gang is a crime, even if the member hasn’t committed any specific crime beyond that of their general membership, because they represent the inherent public threat the crime-gang presents. It’s the LAW. Everything muslims pretend to believe is “holy” is already a crime!

Syrians are “country-shopping.”

If running for one’s life across continents is “shopping,” it’s the shopping trip from hell. Refugees can’t safely continue concentrating in countries like Lebanon, which the UNHCR calls a “tinder box.” Nor should refugees concentrate in poorest European entry points. Refugee flows have to be managed so host countries won’t be overwhelmed. Until then, refugees will manage themselves.

Sudden influxes of Syrians will inevitably be attacked.

Ah, yes: the “we’re excluding you to protect you” argument. A classic. Working women were warned that colleagues would harass them; gay military service-people warned that fellow officers would hurt them. But somehow, these warnings sound awfully like threats when the proposed remedy is to give attackers what they want instead of resolutely fending off their attacks.

OR they could be true, with sources cited, which you inevitably ignore:

Above all, those urging caution seem to believe that Canadians’ compassion came only from a picture. That picture certainly made support for resettlement boil over, but it’s been simmering throughout the long years that Syrian and international advocates argued that we have to let people in. There’s nothing rational about continuing to ignore them.










About unclevladdi

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Liberal LIES about Migrants Escalate

  1. vladdi says:

    Here’s what the Arab countries say is the reason they are refusing to take any of them in:

    According to Kuwait’s Fahd al-Shalami, Chairman of the Gulf Forum for Peace and Security, Kuwait refuses to take Arab/Muslim refugees because, “In the end, you cannot accept other people — from a different background, from another place, who have psychological or neurological problems, or trauma — and just bring them into your society.”

    Such are the words of an Arab Muslim concerning fellow Arab Muslims — the same ones the West is eager to accommodate.

    Imagine the more commonsensical reasons Shalami could’ve given if Kuwait were not Islamic, and those trying to enter it were screaming Islamic supremacist slogans — as they do in the West?

  2. vladdi says:

    The only valid and legitimate purpose of any government is to defend it’s OWN constituents from disasters both natural and man-made.

    Traitor morons from Angela Merkel on down seem to imagine they were hired, not by their constituents and public, but by God (assuming they believe in one) to save everyone in the world outside of their jurisdictions, and at the direct expense of their own citizens.

    This madness must be stopped – they have clearly renounced their oaths of office and have simultaneously abdicated their positions.

    Having abandoned their responsibilities, they are no longer entitled to the right to the salary or authority earned by accepting those responsibilities.

  3. vladdi says:

    And there is no arbitrary, imaginary “line” between where private property rights (where neighbours band together to share the infrastructure (roads, etc) maintenance burdens end, and where some imaginary entity called “the nation,” the country,” or “the state” begins!

    When one’s ‘government’ suddenly decides to open the borders, they are destroying their own citizens’ rights to own property!


    So OF COURSE people who had no interest in ‘the state’ (i.e: “German nationalism) but are still very concerned with their rights to keep their own families safe in their own homes, are allowed to show a sudden interest in politics when the politicians they thought they had hired to maintain their infrastructures and keep them and their families safe, suddenly start to become totally and dangerously irresponsible!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s