Post-Paris, Obama Doubles Down: More Refugees Coming

Frontpagemagazine ^ | November 17, 2015 | Robert Spencer

[SJackson]

Post-Paris, Obama Doubles Down: More Refugees Coming

The President seems intent on creating the circumstances for a Paris-style jihad attack on U.S. soil.

November 17, 2015

Robert Spencer

  

Despite what he termed the “setback” of last Friday’s jihad massacre in Paris, Barack Obama announced Monday that he was pressing forward with his scheme to flood the U.S. with at least 10,000 refugees from Syria, terming opposition to his plan “shameful.” Obama seems intent on recreating in the U.S. the circumstances that led to the jihad attacks in Paris – which were perpetrated by at least two “refugees” who had just recently arrived in Europe.

“We have to, each of us, do our part, and the United States has to step up and do its part,” Obama said. He didn’t explain why Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar don’t have to do their part, and have taken no refugees at all, citing the risk of terrorism. Repeat that concern in the U.S., as have the Governors of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Massachusetts, and Texas, and you’ll be charged with “racism,” “bigotry” and “Islamophobia.”

Obama was ready with his own charges: “When I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims. When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted. When some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution — That’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

Indeed. But there were other issues that did not involve “religious tests to our compassion.” President’s statement neatly ignored the uncomfortable fact that Christians are not waging jihad around the world. It was not a Christian terrorist group, but a Muslim one, that boasted last February that it would soon inundate Europe with 500,000 refugees. The Lebanese Education Minister recently warned that there were 20,000 Islamic jihadi terrorists, not Christian “extremists,” among the refugees in camps in his country. It was not a “right-wing” Christian, but an Islamic State operative who boasted in September, shortly after the migrant influx began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 terrorists had already entered Europe. 

Obama has never acknowledged any of those facts. Robert Bentley, the Governor of Alabama, was more realistic, explaining that he did not want any of the refugees in Alabama because “I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm’s way.” The Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, noted that “a Syrian ‘refugee’ appears to have been part of the Paris terror attack. American humanitarian compassion could be exploited to expose Americans to similar deadly danger.” Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson stated that taking Syrian refugees at this time “is not the right strategy.” Even the Governor of Massachusetts, Charlie Baker, came out against Obama’s plan: “No, I’m not interested in accepting refugees from Syria,” he said. “My view on this is the safety and security of the people of the Commonwealth of Mass. is my highest priority. So I would set the bar very high on this.”

Obama brushed all such concerns aside: “The people who are fleeing Syria,” he asserted, “are the most harmed by terrorism…It is very important...that we do not close our hearts to these victims of such violence and somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.” He didn’t address the possibility that jihadis might be among the refugees, but deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes attempted to reassure the American people by claiming that the Obama Administration had “very extensive screening procedures” to weed out jihadis from among the refugees. Former NATO supreme commanded James Stavridis also claimed that U.S. officials would be able to vet the refugees “safely and appropriately.” He added: “We should continue to take a substantial number of Syrian refugees because it is the right thing to do for the international community and because over time they will prove to be citizens of real capability and true grit, like many who immigrated before them in troubled times. The key is serious vetting using all the tools at our disposal.”

Yet FBI director James Comey was not so sanguine about the possibility of vetting the refugees: “If we have no information on someone, they’ve never crossed our radar screen...it will be challenging,” he said – and most jihadis from Syria have not crossed the U.S. radar screen, as the U.S. has not had a military presence there comparable to that in Iraq.

What’s more, the Obama Administration’s ability to distinguish “moderates” from “extremists” has already been tested and found wanting. Former Defense Intelligence Agency director Michael Flynn recently confirmed that while it was claiming to be supporting “vetted moderates” in Syria, the Administration was actually supporting al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, and directly enabled the rise of the Islamic State. This is also the Administration that spent $500 million to find and train “moderates” in Syria, and could only come up with fifty trainees – all of whom immediately melted away after being let loose in Syria.

Now the same Administration is going to vet the refugees? To entrust Obama’s team with such a task is to invite a Paris-style jihad attack in an American city, courtesy of one or more of his “vetted” refugees. It’s only a matter of time.

[SJackson]

****** Christians are 1% at most of the Syrians Obungu wants to bring in here. This arrogant power play is being noticed and is backfiring on the Obungu regime

I doubt refugees could be granted status based on religion. However they can and should be granted status based on persecution. And I'd suggest Christians are at more risk of persecution than Muslims in the region, who suffer from the mayhem created by their governments. Given that the Christian population of Syria was estimated at 10% pre war, and Iraq 5%, and they're clear victims of persecution, wonder why they're only 1% of the refugees. Someone is making decisions based on religion. A business with disparate hiring statistics like that, the Justice Department would be all over them.

[Calpublican]

Well, you know Republicans are the enemy per Hillary and no
doubt BO feels the same.

[Calpublican]

Truly I believe he is certifiable.

[dennisw]

This is the line I have heard on Syrian Christian refugees. This is the law according to the Obama administration.

THAT REFUGEES we admit to America are those who are being persecuted, killed by governments.
THAT since Syrian Christians are suffering from ISIS and other Jihadist organizations, that they do not qualify for admittance here as refugees. Because their suffering is not due to the actions of a government.

This seems like BS to me and that we have previously taken in refugees who were made refugees by guerrilla organizations despite any law the Obama regime claims to exist

[SJackson]

That’s the excuse I’ve heard too, that ISIS isn’t a state, thus they’re not refugees. My understanding is that the standard is that a refugee is out of his country of residence, unable to afford himself of the protection of such country because of persecution. Unless the Christian refugees are able to avail themselves of the protection of Syria or Iraq, which being persecuted by ISIS proves they’re not, the administration is wrong. Clearly the administration is making their judgement based on religion. Which is not authorized.

[NorthMountain]

Sooner or later, we’re going to have to kill them.

All of them.

They will give us no other option.

[SJackson]

This seems like BS to me and that we have previously taken in refugees who were made refugees by guerrilla organizations despite any law the Obama regime claims to exist

Might not have been clear in my comment. The standard isn't who is doing the persecution as much as the inability of the government to protect the refugee should he return. Persecution by a guerrilla organization would qualify it the government wouldn't or can't protect you.

The disparity between 10% Christian population and 1% Christian refugees along with the fact that it's Christians who are getting beheaded makes it clear there's a religious bias on the part of the administration. If Iraq and Syria hadn't cleansed their nations of Jews last century, they'd be in worse shape.

[Dick Bachert]

Hey, cut obozo some slack! He's just trying to pump up attendance for his last bash before leaving office or declaring martial law, whichever comes first!

[dennisw]

Thanks. One out of a thousand Joe average Americans understands these refugee laws. But I hope the point is brought home about the Obama’s regime discriminating against Christian and Yazidi refugees.

They are not saying it out loud but the Governors who are objecting to Syrian refugees know about the exclusion of Christian Syrian refugees. This pro-Muslim///anti-Christian scam adds to their objections. I hope some Governors start saying so publicly but as of now political correctness makes them cautious

[SJackson]

I don't, only people who have to understand the law are the refugee advocates and their lawyers. Like most laws if the populace doesn't understand them, that's a good thing for government.

Religion isn't ever an issue in these things, it's persecution. Yes, religion based on religion is relevant, but it's hard to make the case that Muslims are being persecuted ten times more than Christians for their faith. It's absurd.

Don't think there's anything the Governors can do anyway, noted that in a prior post. Refugees are legal day one, entitled to benefits, and can live where they want. The way the Feds run it, they'll want where their sponsors are, and the Feds pick the sponsors. But they should talk about the costs. Congress could act, but not to prefer Christians, just to shut off the spigots. I'd prefer we concentrate the Christians, the Kurds have indicated a willingness to take them in, and arm them. The Kurds can do the training.

[lentulusgracchus]

None of the people commenting on whether Syrians should be admitted willy-nilly on a plea of need, addresses the question of whether persons entering the U.S. as bona fide political refugees might not later on hear the "call" and turn jihadi.

So far, with Ipsos polling among ME Moslems telling us that a huge majority of them support ISIS terror-bombing, it's a pretty sure bet that Obama is offering us another poisoned chalice of pity-party.

This ploy makes last year's "poor immigrant children" political initiative look weak.

What's he going to do, prove how tough he is by limiting Syrian Moslems entering the U.S. to no more than three grenades apiece?