“Why are we letting them in?” New video ad dismantles case for refugee influx

rrCenter for Security Policy, Dec. 6, 2015:

President Obama has ordered his administration to bring in ten thousand more refugees from the Syrian civil war over the next year alone. This represents nearly a tenfold increase in the number of refugees resettled in the United States since the beginning of that war, yet all in a single year. And that’s not all. Secretary of State Kerry says that, under this administration, the United States is “committed” to increasing the number of refugees it will accept. After a closed-door meeting with the President, Kerry made clear that Obama is personally invested in the United States taking “a leadership role” in the refugee issue. The Associated Press reminds us in its report on Kerry’s remarks that the United States took more than a million refugees after the fall of Vietnam, and speculates that the Obama administration may raise the annual limit above 70,000 refugees a year. Democratic leaders are already asking the President to consider a figure of 65,000.

The plan is strongly opposed by the American people. Nearly two thirds of state governors have taken formal steps to refuse to accept more refugees from Syria. The administration rejects their concerns. President Obama and his administration have repeatedly said that they recognize no legitimate state interest in the question, and that the President alone shall have power to decide how many refugees are put in their states.

The President says that Americans opposed to his plan are “shameful” for applying a “religious test” to American hospitality. He said that the Americans opposed to the plan, a strong majority of Americans according to polls, are cowards who are afraid of “widows and orphans.” In fact, the American people are chiefly concerned that the Syrian refugees may bring with them radicals and terrorists. More than half say that they have no confidence in the Federal government’s vetting program. That concern is echoed by no less than the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey. The FBI itself knows it cannot vet ten thousand refugees, coming from a place where any records of their lives will have been destroyed.

More, the truth is that the Obama administration already has a terrible record where refugee terrorism is concerned. Two Iraqis brought by the Obama administration in 2009 turned to terrorism within two years, attempting to send sniper rifles, Stinger missiles and cash to Al Qaeda. During the investigation one of them confessed to having been an insurgent in Iraq who destroyed American military vehicles and participated in attacks on US troops.

Just this year, six Bosnian immigrants were arrested in St. Louis for sending money and military equipment to terrorists including the Islamic State and Al Qaeda. This was more than a plan. They managed to fund and equip terrorist fighters who are some of the worst enemies of the United States of America.

And, of course, the female shooter in the recent San Berinadino terrorist attack actually had been vetted by the Federal government and she was approved. The process somehow completely failed to reject her despite her ties to a very radical Pakistani mosque, but instead waved her in on a fiancée visa. This process requires certification from police agencies in all the countries in which she lived, including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Unlike Syria, those countries’ police services are intact and could plausibly produce evidence of radicalization. The American Federal vetting process itself turns out to be unreliable.

No wonder that, in a recent Congressional hearing on refugee resettlement, administration officials were silent on the question of how we could be sure that we were not bringing in terrorists who had infiltrated the flow of Syrian refugees. We simply cannot be sure. Please watch our video on this question, and contact your Senators and Representatives today. Let them know that you are not afraid of widows or orphans, but of the proven danger of terrorism slipping past American defenses that have grown feeble under this President.

Also see:

2 thoughts on ““Why are we letting them in?” New video ad dismantles case for refugee influx

  1. America, Arise.Be careful about so called Syrian refugees.You are on the brink of destruction.Pray for your President Barrak Hussain.

  2. Adapted by anonymous editor from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam:

    “Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

    Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

    When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well..

    Here’s how it works:

    As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.

    It is a trick.

    United States — Muslim 0.6%

    Australia — Muslim 1.5%

    Canada — Muslim 1.9%

    China — Muslim 1.8%

    Italy — Muslim 1.5%

    Norway — Muslim 1.8%

    At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

    Denmark — Muslim 2%

    Germany — Muslim 3.7%

    United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%

    Spain — Muslim 4%

    Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

    From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

    For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.

    At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law.

    The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

    When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions.

    In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections.

    After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.

    At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks.

    From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels.

    After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim.”

    History of Islam: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/world/heres-the-true-non-politically-correct-history-of-islams-violence

Comments are closed.