Abigail Blanco correctly observes that the left
has been very hypocritical with the refugee issues currently taking place. Where were the protests when the Obama
administration turned away Cuban refugees in the final weeks of his presidency?
However,
she also correctly asserts that in addition to being, in my opinion a product
of racist feelings, the ban will absolutely be ineffective. A slice:
“According to the Cato Institute, the United States admitted 3,252,493
refugees between 1975 and 2015. Twenty of them were terrorists. This represents
some 0.00062 percent of all refugees. Only three attacks carried out by these
refugees were successful.
In total, in a span of forty years, ‘terrorist
refugees’ have killed three people in the United States.
But what about the attacks in San Bernardino,
the Orlando Pulse Nightclub shooting, the Boston Marathon bombings, and 9/11?
Are these not “proof” that such a ban is warranted? After all, the individuals
responsible for the attacks had some connection to foreign countries.
The Pulse Nightclub shooter was born in New
York and was a U.S. citizen. Of the two San Bernardino shooters, one was born
in Chicago. The other, his wife, was born in Pakistan and lived in Saudi
Arabia—neither country is on the “banned” list. The Tsatnaev brothers, responsible
for the Boston bombings, were born in Kyrgyzstan. People from Kyrgyzstan aren’t
banned under the current executive order. Of the 19 people responsible for
hijacking four airplanes on 9/11, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the
UAE, one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon. Again, these countries
aren’t on the ‘banned’ list.”
Then she goes further to
prove the point I made yesterday regarding the probability of an attack being
the basis of a cost benefit analysis.
Clearly terrorism in the US is not a severe threat.
“Heart disease (35,079 times more likely to
kill you than a terrorist)
Cancer (33,842 times more likely to kill you
than a terrorist)
Medical Error
Alcohol (4,706 times more likely to kill you
than a terrorist)
Poisoning from prescription drugs
Suicide
HIV
Syphilis
Starvation (187 times more likely to kill you
than a terrorist)
Brain-eating parasites (22 times more likely
to kill you than a terrorist)
Food poisoning (110 times more likely to kill
you than a terrorist)
Drowning in a bathtub
Being struck by lightning (four times more
likely to kill you than a terrorist)
Dying in a fire
And my personal favorite—toddlers. Yes, you are more likely to be killed by a
gun-wielding toddler than a terrorist.”
David Harsanyi suggests something I have said
for a while now. Why do we have to be
all for or against some political candidate or party? This is asinine. Both parties are correct on some issues, both
parties are wrong on most issues. I
respect people like Ron Paul, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Lew Rockwell,
Murray Rothbard and more but I don’t agree with every last one of them. I voted for Evan McMullin. I still maintain he was the best candidate we
had for president. I am very critical of
his relation with the CIA, national security state and his hatred for
Russia. We need to view policies,
statements and views individually.
Unlike private property, ideas are not owned by the individual. One person does not, will not ever and cannot
possibly have a monopoly on good ideas.
“From Dan Griswold’s Mad About Trade: ‘Free trade gives
to each person sovereign control over that which is his own.’”
What an absolutely amazing concept. The morons running the government, current
and past, ought to read this.
No comments:
Post a Comment