Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Political correctness will ensure the invasion of Europe is successful

Gosh, what a fun age we're living in. Progressivism, political correctness and bleeding-heart air-headedness has never ruled the planet—even Vatican City—so thoroughly, so completely.
Europe is set to nearly double its population in five years by sheltering migrants fleeing Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and sub-Saharan Africa. By "sheltering," I mean putting them on the dole and excusing their bad behavior, which they will no doubt engage in once they're cleaned up and refreshed, as a human right. And it's all because of one three-year-old boy.
Aylan Kurdi was found by police washed up dead on a beach in Turkey. Abdullah Kurdi, who survived, but who also lost his wife and an older boy, has been the face of true human tragedy. This man's pain is real, fierce and unrelenting. You do have to feel for him.
He never asked to become a cause célèbre, however. In fact, instead of blaming Europe, which he was trying to reach, he lambasted the Arab countries over his misfortune. "I want for Arab governments, not European countries, to see my children, and because of them to help people," Mr. Kurdi told reporters.
Spot on. Why aren't the Gulf States doing their bit for mainly Muslim refugees? Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman: Hello? Europe here. These are your co-religionists. How can you turn your backs on them?
"A sense of weary resignation at the plight of the Syrians—and hundreds of thousands of other refugees and migrants taking desperate risks to reach the safety of Europe—was briefly punctured by horrifying images of one of the young victims, a small boy whose body was discovered, face down in the sand, by a Turkish police officer," The NY Times informs us. Do you think by "weary resignation," they mean a general feeling of being fed up?
The New York Times opines that the "brutal image" of the drowned child must be seen. I will not link to the article, nor share the photo in this space. It has generated enough controversy, perverted enough minds and done the rounds 1,000 times over. But trust me, it exists, and it's pushed Europeans even faster into cultural and social suicide. We're talking maximum overdrive.
Hungary has been sending the refugees out as fast as its authorities can deal with them. A large putrid migrant camp still exists. Indeed, Budapest has become another Calais. But migrants don't want to be there, and Hungary knows it can do without them. Austria, understandably, has been reluctant to accept them through its country. Germany is the magnet attracting them. Angela Merkel, known as "Mama Merkel" to the refugee community, has announced that Germany will accept 800,000 migrants. If it wasn't for Merkel's Germany providing the incentive, perhaps this invasion of Europe would not be occurring.
Slovakia, meanwhile, has said it will not only accept only 200 refugees, but that they must be Christians. They know the deal. Yet, Pope Francis has said that it's the responsibility of every Catholic parish in Europe to shelter at least one refugee family. I think what the Pope is saying is that we might as well make use of these churches while Europe still has them. Fifty years from now, they very well might not exist.
In times of tragedy, cool heads prevail. And it is not cool-headedness to let hundreds of thousands more onto the continent simply because some photo made enough people weep. Amnesty International, Oxfam and other charities have said they have received calls from lots of British families who are willing to house one of the 20,000 refugees that David Cameron has announced will be allowed into the U.K. Of course, we will not vet these people at all. We will just open the door to them, clean them up, find them lodging, etc. And then we will be shocked when the next atrocity on behalf of the religion of peace happens. The news will demonstrate to us that Mohammed So-and-So came into the country as a migrant from Syria in 2015 ... yadda yadda yadda.
Yet what is well-known to those who prefer to use logic, and not emotion, to appraise the migrant crisis is that it is being organized by criminal gangs. Trevor Kavanagh's column in The Sun on August 24 stipulated, "Many migrants are genuinely fleeing for their lives. Most are economic opportunists paying gangsters big money to take them where they want to go." A report from RT informs us:
Police report Europe’s migrant crisis is getting more serious, with the interception of criminal trafficking networks having increased threefold in the last year. As the Mediterranean migrant crisis intensifies, the number of refugees in The Jungle camp in Calais has soared from 800 to 5,000. Many of its inhabitants have come from crisis-ridden states in Africa and the Middle East. Trafficking gangs, eager to cash in on their predicament, offer them hiding places in trucks and repeated attempts to enter Europe for a fixed price.
Ain't that swell? Yes, we're really helping these poor people out by encouraging this with our "humanitarian" principles.
The heads of Europe claim that women and children are in the mix and that it's not solely fit, young men coming in. Children? How long has the war in Syria been going on? Three years? So why are babies and infants being born into this hell, and then being put through another hell, on the dangerous journey to and through Europe? I hate to pick on Abdullah Kurdi, but why did he even have a 3-year-old son? I should think that in times of desperation and desolution, procreating would be the last thing on one's mind. Destruction is happening all around you, your state is gone, savages are taking over, and you need to plan for the future—so, hey, let's dip the wick and bring another life into this, that sounds like a brilliant idea. What is wrong with these people? And why is no-one asking the very question I just did?
But it doesn't matter. The migrant crisis has fueled a debate that is just as relevant to the United States as it is Europe: The issue of border controls. Kavanagh continues:
Ever-increasing numbers, a record 107,000 last month, have sparked dismay across Europe, not just in the UK. But scenes from Calais of angry and determined young men banging on the door to Britain is stoking particular outrage this side of the Channel. What gives them the right to demand entry? 
Yet there is a noisy minority on the political left who not only oppose border controls, but are doing everything in their power to subvert them. 
Supporters of Labour leader-in-waiting Jeremy Corbyn regard all forms of border control as "racism". So does a well-organised army of so-called charities such as Refugee Action and Asylum Aid, funded by the very taxpayers who want to know and choose who comes to these shores. They are backed by Labour luvvies, staffed by left-wing Labour activists and funded to the tune of millions of pounds by public money. 
And surprise, surprise, it is the BBC who offer them a loudhailer on primetime radio and TV. Tory ministers and critics of illegal immigration are portrayed by interviewers as heartless, while the pro-immigration lobby is heard with respect.
I don't know what Jorge Ramos thinks of the European migrant crisis, but he sure as heck wants the entire country of Mexico coming into the States. Do you think this can't happen in America? Do you think the same criminals organizing the rugby scrum into Europe aren't setting up a line of scrimmage South of the Border? As Jay Severin recently asked on his talk show, what if the entire population of Mexico, Central and South America decide to trek north in the millions, day after day? What would be America's response?
Meanwhile, while the citizenry of this country thinks it is being compassionate and tolerant with the housing of a Syrian refugee family having become the new keeping up with the Joneses, problems of our own will continue to fester. A recent letter in The Independent put things in stark perspective:
On the same day that Cameron announced giving away £100m to displaced people in Syria, NHS England announced the axing of 16 cancer drugs. 
We have now given £1bn towards displaced people in Syria. We also give £13bn annually in foreign aid. Could Mr Cameron please explain why Syrian migrants are now more important than English cancer patients?
Kavanagh concludes with, "Charity begins at home—not by encouraging millions of people to abandon theirs and demand a place in ours." I couldn't possibly agree more.