Liberal hypocrisy

George Clooney, the multi-millionaire, who loves immigrants, open borders and jihadists, is leaving Europe because he fears the jihadist terrorism is dangerous.

 

That one sentence says all one needs to know about Hollywood liberals. Mr Clooney has actively campaigned for increased immigration into Europe. He has actively supported the jihadists, specifically the White Helmets, who he has lauded as heroes. However, as the millions of immigrants he demanded be welcomed arrived on his doorstep, he has quickly retreated. Mr Clooney is selling his European mansions, in the English countryside and on Lake Como, because he and his wife are afraid of the immigrants from Africa and the middle east and Afghanistan and the terrorist attacks they have brought to Europe.

 

Mr Clooney and family are moving to America, the country they have repeatedly criticised for not taking enough immigrants from the middle east, Africa and Afghanistan. They are relocating to their Los Angeles mansion, which is well isolated. From the safety and security of their walled off mansion, Clooney intends to make a film glorifying the jihadist White Helmets, whilst his wife will practise international human rights law on behalf of the very people they are fleeing.

 

The behaviour of Clooney and his wife is hardly exceptional. Many liberals with luxury life-styles advocate open borders and support jihadists, accusing anyone who dissents of xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia and any other nasty name they can think of. Yet, their commitment to immigrants is mere lip-service. Mr Clooney, with a net worth of five hundred million dollars, hasn't helped a single immigrant: he expects ordinary taxpayers to provide help, he expects the immigrants to live with the ordinary people, certainly not anywhere near him or his wife.

 

Mr Clooney is a hypocrite.

 

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (7)

  1. RRoe

    What’s Mr. Clooney’s story on his move back to the U.S.? Europe has a much tougher problem than we do .. vetting is much easier when there is a ocean as a buffer to immigration. Our southern neighbor and friend, Mexico is nothing like Syria, etc. That said, I am reluctant to make comparisons with Europe when discussing immigration … we live in a much different world.

    July 12, 2017
    1. stevehayes13

      Mr Clooney’s story is the jihadist terrorism in Europe is too dangerous, as I thought I had made clear.

      July 13, 2017
  2. GovMisdirection

    Well put!

    July 12, 2017
  3. fuall

    I put a little thought (just a little) into the immigration issue and have decided that I’m on board with letting absolutely anyone into the country with just a couple of small caveats.
    .
    First, the prospective immigrant would need to have a sponsor after being vetted and cleared as having never committed a serious or violent offense in their country of origin. That means a natural-born citizen age 21 or over, not a naturalized citizen, and can only be a one-to-one ratio, meaning that for every immigrant there HAS to be an individual sponsor. Yes, you AND your spouse may both apply if you file separate taxes and otherwise qualify on an individual basis.
    .
    Second, that sponsor must be able to provide 100% of the expected expenses. Absolutely ZERO dollars to be spent by the US government for anything outside of deportations and prosecutions of violations of the terms of their immigration should the sponsor run out of funds prior to the completion of the legal proceedings. The sponsor would have to prove their financial ability before being allowed to enter into the sponsorship program and provide acceptable supporting documentation, such as tax returns, pay stubs, etc. If approved they would have to sign an agreement making sure they understood that they are now 100% financially responsible for their sponsored immigrant for any and all expenses they may incur while in this country. NO EXCEPTIONS FOR ANY REASON!
    .
    Third, their sponsored immigrant MUST live with them. NO EXCEPTIONS FOR ANY REASON! (I think this would be the biggest “deal-breaker” that would make the liberals cringe and STFU, in and of itself.)
    .
    And last, make the sponsor not just financially responsible, but legally responsible as well. When I say “responsible”, I don’t mean just pay their fines if they can’t, or bail them out of jail. No, I mean that if you are a sponsor and your “ward” murders someone, YOU BOTH STAND TRIAL FOR MURDER. Whatever the sentence is, you BOTH receive it and must comply. If your ward bails and gets away from law enforcement, too bad for you, you STILL stand trial and get your sentence AND THEIRS unless they are recaptured and brought to justice. If there are any problems, issues, or fuck-ups, the immigrant would be immediately deported and banned from EVER returning to US soil for any reason, the sponsor would immediately be banned from the immigration program for life, and possibly fined or imprisoned, depending on the circumstances, for causing a problem that required intervention by the program admin. The overall intent is to bind the immigrant to their sponsor in every conceivable way short of actual adoption.
    .
    Now, who wants to be part of immigration!?

    July 12, 2017
    1. Munkyman

      I like it. I worked in a restaurant that participated in a guest worker program that was not far from what you describe… a couple decades ago. We’d get a nice high quality international chef in & he’d have a guaranteed job, the boss was responsible for him & to INS if he were to fire him, so the restaurant basically owned the guy in question for a year & then another guy in question, etc.. That’s where it becomes an issue because now we’re getting to the point that a citizen can own an immigrant… just one. Say you got here & hated our little town, your co-workers & everything else… you can go back & be liable for all expenses… ruined.

      July 13, 2017
      1. fuall

        Sure, on the surface it may seem like you have ownership of someone, but it just seems that way. You wouldn’t be able to forbid them from doing anything or going anywhere that any otherwise lawfully residing person could. You wouldn’t be able to force them to work for you, you’d just be responsible for their care and maintenance should they be unable or unwilling to find employment. In short, they’d be like your kids, albeit foreign adult kids. They are still human beings and have the same freedoms that pretty much any foreign national would expect to have, (including the right to go back home) the difference being that there’s a definite source of support, oversight, and accountability by some responsible party that we can actually be sure we have vetted. As part of the financial responsibility vetting, the program sponsors would be required to place in escrow an amount equal to the return travel expenses for their prospective immigrant for just such an eventuality. And not stated above, but was implied, all sources of income for purposes of this program MUST originate with the sponsor. And again, NO EXCEPTIONS FOR ANY REASON! We can’t have terrorist organizations providing financial backing to domestic radicals to provide sponsorship for their agents of terror. If you can’t prove where your $$ comes from you can’t be a sponsor. And I’d take it a step further and actually ban anyone working with, in, for, around, near, adjacent to….any foreign government from entering the sponsorship program. As well as anyone else that has all or a portion of their income which is derived from any other country than the USA. No foreign money or US state or federal taxpayer dollars would be allowed to enter this program.

        July 13, 2017
      2. fuall

        I think we have this sponsorship program down to about ZERO now! lol!

        July 13, 2017