All politicians these days seem to think this way:
"We don't care what you think, ever since you decided to defer your rights and responsibilities to think for your selves by hiring ('electing') us to do all of your thinking for you, peons!"
As soon as they're elected, they become arrogant elitists.
Do these TRAITORS ever even bother to ask WHY all the muslim Arab countries adjacent to Syria itself – like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, or even Iran – had the means to accommodate those rapefugees, yet CHOSE not to take in ANY of them?
Do they ask their constituent citizens if any of them WANTED to take money for such a risky endeavor?
Do they or do they not take oaths of office to defend the safety of their constituent citizens, or do they take oaths to take our tax monies to support our sworn foreign enemies instead?
Were they elected to local and national governments, or were they, as they all seem to presume, elected to the global leadership of all of "diverse" mankind, "fairly" and "equally"?!
And – what was that penalty for TREASON, again?
PEOPLE - ESPECIALLY YOUNG PEOPLE - NEED TO BE MADE TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT AND CRIMINAL SOCIALISM:
The purpose of government is that it's to act as an insurance company, based on temporary needs.
The purpose of socialism is to act as slanderous extortion, based on idolatrous, static wants: to have "equality." To permanently have rights without any concomitant corollary responsibilities.
All children are born with nothing, but have parents to sustain them until they can compete. Whether they choose to compete or not, and how much effort they are willing to expend on it, is entirely up to them - it's a choice.
Government does not exist to support their choices, either way. If and when they choose to compete, government is not there to reward them at the expense of other people's tax money.
If and when they choose not to compete, they aren't victims of anyone or anything else save their own choices, and so are not to be bailed out by everyone else's taxes for that choice.
But socialists proclaim that everyone must have an equality of outcome, not only an equality of opportunity; thus they would enslave those who would compete to those who would not do so.
Socialists are delinquent criminally negligent parasites who assert that there is no free-will choice, and that we are really ever only all helpless victims of inevitable, predetermined, predestined forces.
And no reciprocal concomitant corollary responsibilities are allowed to infringe on "victims" rights!
Parents who make more than others are to have their wealth confiscated to pay for the other, lesser-competitor's children. In fact, to be "fair" and "equal" all children should then be removed from their birth parents entirely, and put into the "care" of the government systems.
Competitive men should be enslaved to support women, but no woman should be chained to a man.
Socialists hold that women are smaller, weaker, less competitive than men; therefore, as perpetual, inherent "victims," they cannot ever be held to have any responsibilities, only permanent rights over men.
When people are born under socialist governments, they can - and will be, deliberately - fooled into conflating and equating the two diametrically-opposed proposals as being one natural "system."
Government - an enforced (taxed) and unrivaled insurance company monopoly - resembles socialism.
But socialism is not a legitimate form of government: it's nothing more of less than slanderous criminal extortion leading to slavery.
Contrast the political parties' constant schemes to increase and divide up the tax-pie among their largest victim-groups of supporters at everyone else's expense, with Government's basic function (best conceived of by Albert Einstein as the largest collectively-owned insurance company) it's a great idea if and when it doesn't compete with (much less pre-empt) private enterprise; it's OK for the government to buy food to feed the poor, but not to demand that only it is qualified to regulate food growing everywhere, much less to restrict and deny private individuals from growing or stockpiling their own food. Same goes for defending every other need: government can defend the country, but not restrict the citizens' rights to also own and bear their own arms to defend them selves; government can and should enhance private defense, but never replace it!
And it's based on individual property rights and people's free-will choice to associate with others:
People have rights to freely associate and form insurance companies, and to restrict others within their own properties to, say, buy insurance while therein.
BOTTOM LINE? We can expect that ALL of these political parasites will keep letting endless hordes of "muslim" criminals come in and murder us forever, bilking us endlessly out of our tax money for "more studies to understand radicalization" until we're all completely broke and dead. Their sick criminally negligent motto has always been "THERE'S NO MONEY IN SOLUTIONS!"