Stain that would be on Obama's conscience — if he had one
By Selwyn Duke
While speaking at the United Nations last Tuesday and advocating more Muslim migration into the West, Barack Obama likened a refusal to accept the Muslims to the "turning away [of] Jews fleeing Nazi Germany," which he called "a stain on our collective conscience." But while Obama sought to lecture us, he actually condemned himself.
Of course, there is no equivalence between the WWII-era Jews and the Muslim migrants, as no one had to worry about terrorists being embedded among the former. In contrast, we know for a fact that terrorists are among the Muslim migrants. Without comprehensive Western-style databases in Syria (which is supposedly the focus) and with bribery getting you official government documents saying you're whoever you want to be in that nation, there simply is no way to vet these people. But that Obama would attempt a flawed analogy isn't his real shame here. It's that the real analogy isn't between the WWII Jews and today's Muslim migrants.
It's between the WWII Jews and another persecuted minority: the Middle East Christians.
They're also the people Obama won't lift a finger to help.
In fact, while Christians are 10 percent of Syria's population and are being targeted by Islamic State, only one half of one percent of Obama's Syrian migrants have been Christian.
That translates into 56 out of 10,801 "refugees."
It's so astounding that even liberal Newsweek ran an article titled "The U.S. Bars Christian, Not Muslim, Refugees From Syria." Really compassionate guy that Obama, huh? Have any more lectures for us, Barry?
Since it's clear Obama couldn't care less who lives or dies in the Middle East, the question is raised: what is his real agenda?
Try this on for size: the vast majority of U.S. Muslims now vote Democrat, with Obama having gotten 89 and 85 percent of their votes in, respectively, 2008 and 2012. In contrast, believing Christians are known to support conservatives. And it isn't as if Obama doesn't know this. He said last year that immigration was making America "more and more of a hodgepodge of folks" who he was "hopeful" would drown out conservatism (hey, didn't you always want to live in a hodgepodge?).
Of course, this only works if you have the right hodgepodge. And with 70 to 90 percent of today's immigrants voting Democrat upon being naturalized, liberals love the mix. Just keep the Christians out.
This is what Obama and his ilk mean when saying "Our strength lies in our diversity": "Our [Democrat political] strength lies in our [orchestrated] diversity." They're just not as blunt as was Andrew Neather, ex-advisor to former British prime minister Tony Blair, when he admitted that the massive Third World immigration into the U.K. was designed "to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date." Hey, it doesn't matter if it destroys Western culture. Why serve in Heaven when you can reign in Hell?
The reality, again, is that Obama cares as much about Mideastern lives as he does about Hillary's emails. Immigration, "refugee" acceptance, family reunification, etc. are all about one thing and one thing only: importing voters. If most new immigrants would support Republicans, we'd have about as much immigration as North Korea. And the border? There'd be an impenetrable wall, sunk down 100 feet into the earth, with an electrified fence on top of it and organ-disrupting, pain-inducing sound wave weapons mounted on turrets every thousand feet of its length.
Oh, and drones with heat and motion sensors would be buzzing about monitoring it 24/7/365.
Obama would have many stains on his conscience, if he actually had a conscience. But possession of such generally eludes twisted, evil, vile men.
By the way, here is a great 2015 interview with Dr. Mudar Zahran, a Jordanian academic and Muslim refugee living in the U.K. He explains why the notion that the current Muslim migrants are "refugees" is a con and issues a warning: keep the Muslim migrants out of the West.