by Steven Neill
March 19, 2016
When Resisting Syrian “Refugees” Gets Personal
On November 16, 2015, Indiana Governor Mike Pence announced: “In the wake of the horrific attacks in Paris, effective immediately, I am directing all state agencies to suspend the resettlement of additional Syrian refugees in the state of Indiana pending assurances from the federal government that proper security measures have been achieved,”
The Governors of 25 other states joined Pence in refusing Syrian refugees asylum. Republican front presidential runner Donald Trump called accepting Syrian asylum seekers “insane.” President Obama responded by Tweeting;  “Slamming the door in the face of refugees would betray our deepest values. That’s not who we are. And it’s not what we’re going to do.”
On November 25th, the ACLU  filed a lawsuit against Pence in federal court on behalf of Exodus Refugee Immigration, the nonprofit that had planned to help a Syrian family of three resettle in Indiana. According to Judy Rabinovitz, deputy legal director of the ACLU’s immigrants’ rights project and spokesperson for the ACLU, “He does not have the power to pick and choose between which lawfully admitted refugees he is willing to accept. Singling out Syrian refugees for exclusion from Indiana is not only ethically wrong, it is unconstitutional. Period.”
On February 29, a federal court denied Indiana's effort to prevent resettlement of Syrian refugee families. The same Judy Rabinovitz, responded to the results of the lawsuit: “This ruling puts the brakes on Governor Pence's end run around the Constitution, no state can unilaterally ban a group of refugees that has been vetted and admitted by the federal government. By trying to block Syrian families based solely on their nationality, Indiana is flouting federal law, the U.S. Constitution, and our fundamental American values of providing refuge for families fleeing war and violence."
Six days later, Alinsky’s lackeys at the New York Times responded to the decision in an op-ed piece entitled “A Judge’s Message to the Xenophobes.”  True to their Leninist/Alinsky roots, the editors of the New York Times pull out the mockery tool from Alinsky’s handy toolbox and smear anyone who opposes the asylum of Syrian refugees in their state.
Using such inflammatory statements as “The shameless display of jingoism was prompted by the Paris shooting massacre in November and fears — wildly driven by the Republican presidential rivals — that terrorists could infiltrate the United States as refugees despite a resettlement process that is one of the strictest in the world;” and “The ruling delivered a jolt of reality to the xenophobic politics now inflaming the presidential primary campaign. The state was forced to concede that it does not really have the authority to bar refugees from crossing into Indiana, a concession that no Republican governor was willing to make in the states-rights bombast of last fall;” the article matches the best propaganda of Joseph Goebbels.
Terrorists could enter the US through the refugee program? Maybe if the editors spent more time reading newspapers other than their own rag they would understand that terrorists have entered the US through the refugee program. How about the machete wielding Mohamed Barry,  a Somalian Muslim immigrant that hacked four people in a Columbus Ohio Israeli owned restaurant; Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez,  the Kuwaiti born murderer of four marines in Chattanooga, TN; the Boston Marathon bombers , Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev,  were Russian Muslim Immigrants , Tamerlan had been given US citizenship three months before he and his brother set off the bombs which killed three and wounded more than 260 others; Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik,  the Muslim San Bernardino couple who killed fourteen and wounded another twenty two at a Christmas party, Syad was a natural born citizen but Tashfeen was an immigrant from Pakistan who went through the very same “resettlement process that is one of the strictest in the world” that the New York Times Alinskyites tells us to trust.
Then, in a masterpiece of deceit, the same editors that support every anti-Christian lawsuit the ACLU engages in, tells us how Donald Trump, with his “venomous nativism;” “falsely suggested that federal officials steered Syrian refugees to states with Republican governors, when in fact resettlement decisions are made by mainstream social agencies like the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Mr. Trump’s claim was one more example of propaganda being used to distort the truth on the refugee issue.” Let that sink in, the most rabid supporters  of the nonexistent Constitutional “separation of church and state” are telling us it is not the federal government that is selecting where the refugees are headed, but the Conference of CATHOLIC Bishops,  along with other social agencies (six out of ten are “Christian” based while the seventh is Hebrew). The other nine others are Catholic Charities USA;  Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Services;  World Relief Corporation;  Church World Services;  Episcopal Migration Ministries;  Hebrew International Aid Society;  International Rescue Committee;  US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants  and Ethiopian Community Development Council.  So the separation between church is solid when it comes time to block anything Christian but non-existent when it comes time to stop Muslim immigrants that are NOT properly vetted.  Once again, the level of treachery coming from the main stream media is staggering.
Continuing on with the Times opportunistic love for religion and the state together, they forget to mention how much money these same voluntary agencies (VOLAGs) make by being so charitable to these refugees. As Michael Patrick Leahy  explains; in 2015,  the State Department, through the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration and the Office of Refugee Resettlement, spent more than $1 billion on these programs, which settled international refugees “vetted” by the United Nations High Commission  on International Refugees in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Then these Ministry of Truth  wannabes close with this colossal lie: “The fact is, the refugee resettlement program in this country involves a cautiously paced investigative process that contrasts sharply with the uncontrollable floods of refugees in Europe that Republican politicians are using to arouse terrorist fears in this country. Over three million people fleeing persecution and war have been investigated and welcomed to the United States in the last four decades. Syrian refugees must be no less welcome.”
Oh really? Maybe the spin masters are right, maybe the 12-21million illegal aliens residing in the US do not constitute an “uncontrollable wave” of immigrants;” maybe it should be called Operation Barbarossa  on steroids.
© 2016 - Steven Neill - All Rights Reserved