Expediting National Suicide with 'Refugees'

Should the United States take in (even more) Syrian refugees?

No.

And here’s why.

We have already committed to accepting thousands of Syrians over the course of the next five years.  So the decision to bring Syrians to our country is not one merely being debated, it is, regrettably, already well underway. (It is regrettable to have to say “regrettably” when talking about this, but Muslims pose a unique threat to free people everywhere.)

By the end of 2016, the State Department anticipates we will have brought as many as 10,000 Syrians to the United States. It’s safe to assume that number is low since just last month the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) submitted the names of more than 16,000 refugees from Syria for resettlement in the United States. Either way, this is just the beginning. The State Department expects the numbers to “surge” over the few years.

Numbers aside, the issue of Syrian refugees must be put into a larger context. (And, just for the record, the word refugees really should be put in quotes, as will be explained later.)

First, everyone must ask why so many Islamic nations are refusing these refugees. Breitbart reports:

“…amidst cries for Europe to do more, it has transpired that of the five wealthiest countries on the Arabian Peninsula, that is, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, not one has taken in a single refugee from Syria. Instead, they have argued that accepting large numbers of Syrians is a threat to their safety, as terrorists could be hiding within an influx of people….”

No doubt this fear of importing terrorists is sincere, if not also ironic coming from countries that enforce Sharia law. But there is likely another factor at play, which is hijrah, the Islamic doctrine of immigration whereby societies are overwhelmed with Muslims such that Muslims become the dominant force. Immigration jihad. As Robert Spencer writes in Front Page Magazine:

…evidence that this is a hijrah, not simply a humanitarian crisis, came last February.…  The Islamic State published a document entitled, “Libya: The Strategic Gateway for the Islamic State.” Gateway into Europe, that is: the document exhorted Muslims to go to Libya and cross from there as refugees into Europe. This document tells would-be jihadis that weapons from Gaddafi’s arsenal are plentiful and easy to obtain in Libya – and that the country “has a long coast and looks upon the southern Crusader states, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat.”

The Islamic State did not have in mind just a few jihadis crossing from Libya: it also emerged last February that the jihadis planned to flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. Now the number is shooting well beyond that in Germany alone. Of course, not all of these refugees are Islamic jihadis. Not all are even Muslims, although most are. However, no effort whatsoever is being made to determine the refugees’ adherence to Sharia and desire to bring it to their new land. Any such effort would be “Islamophobic.” Yet there are already hints that the Islamic State is putting its plan into effect: jihadis have already been found among the refugees trying to enter Europe. There will be many more such discoveries.

Eight hundred thousand Muslim refugees in one year alone. This will transform Germany, and Europe, forever, overtaxing the welfare economies of its wealthiest nations and altering the cultural landscape beyond recognition….

Meanwhile, no one is bothering even to ask, much less answer, one central question: why is it incumbent upon Europe have to absorb all these refugees? Why not Saudi Arabia or the other Muslim countries that are oil-rich and have plenty of space? The answer is unspoken because non-Muslim authorities refuse to believe it and Muslims don’t want it stated or known: these refugees have to go to Europe because this is a hijrah. 

Robert Spencer never backs down from the terrifying and sobering truth. Nor does Daniel Greenfield, who, also writing for Front Page Magazine, describes the heart of the problem in a brilliant piece I would urge readers to read in its entirety.

What is happening in Syria is a religious civil war fought over the same ideologies as the ones practiced by the vast majority of the refugees. This is an Islamic war fought to determine which branch of Islam will be supreme. It is not a war that started last week or last year, but 1,400 years ago.

We can’t make it go away by overthrowing Assad or supporting him, by giving out candy or taking in refugees. This conflict is in the cultural DNA of Islam. It is not going anywhere. (snip)

There are Christian and non-Muslim minorities who are genuine refugees, but the two Muslim sects whose militias are murdering each other are not victims, they are perpetrators. Just because Sunnis are running from a Shiite militia or Shiites from a Sunni militia right now doesn’t make them victims. (snip)

The refugees aren’t fleeing a dictator. They’re fleeing each other while carrying the hateful ideologies that caused this bloodshed with them. 

We aren’t taking in people fleeing the civil war. We’re taking in their civil war and giving it a good home.

And then there is the matter of so much hysteria over Syrian refugees when Christians persecuted in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East have been refused entry to the United States. Where has been our outrage and where has been the world’s commitment to make sure they are given safe haven in the West? (See here, here, here, and here.)

Of course we know the sickening and tragic answer to that question. We are living in an age when Christianity is demonized and Islam is elevated, thanks to the leftist/Islamic agenda along with a hefty dose of cowardice and ignorance on the part of those who passively sit on the sidelines.

So as the national dialogue continues to focus on illegal immigration from Mexico, Islamic immigration advances with little-to-no scrutiny or truth telling.

Who among our presidential candidates is talking about this incredible danger?

Hardly a soul.

Here’s a snapshot of the top six GOP candidates (according to the latest RCP averages) stand on Syrian refugees:

When Donald Trump was asked whether the United States should accept some of the Syrian refugees, he said, “possibly, yes.”

Wrong. The answer must be an unequivocal “no, and here’s why.”

Marco Rubio expressed interest in accepting more Syrians if we could have a vetting process that would assure no terrorists got through.

Wrong. Of course we don’t want terrorists entering the United States, but this issue is about more than terrorists. It’s also about increasing Muslim immigration. (Not to mention the near impossibility of ensuring that no terrorists get through.)

As of this writing, perpetually wrong Jeb Bush does not appear to have made a statement on Syrian refugees, nor has Ben Carson or Ted Cruz.

When Carly Fiorina was asked about the Syrian refugee crisis, she said: “I think the United States, honestly, sadly, cannot relax our entrance criteria…We are having to be very careful about who we let enter this country from these war-torn regions to ensure that terrorists are not coming here.” She also said the United States has done “its fair share” in terms of humanitarian aid and “that the Europeans need to continue to step up,” while acknowledging with apparent approval that some European countries are beginning to accept these refugees.  

Fiorina’s first comment was too circumscribed. Again, this isn’t just about making sure we don’t import more terrorists; it’s also about the unique threats posed by Muslim immigrants – a threat no candidate appears willing to address.  And her comments about Europe were off the mark. This should not be Europe’s burden to bear. At the very least, Fiorina should have shined a light on the numerous Islamic nations that have closed their doors to these refugees.

All in all, the top GOP presidential candidates have been a profound disappointment regarding comment, or lack thereof, on the Syrian swarm into Europe and the United States. This should be a crystallizing moment to highlight the very issues raised by Robert Spencer and Daniel Greenfield. Instead, our candidates  are limping along in ignorance.

Where is Allen West when you need him? Or Geert Wilders, who knows precisely how to address the Syrian onslaught by speaking the truth?

We must close our borders to Syrians and all Muslims who want to live in the United States. There’s no room at the inn. We’re all filled up with mega mosques and Muslim schools that teach hate; with Muslim Brotherhood front groups, lawfare, and creeping Sharia. With beheadings and honor killings. And prison converts. And terror training camps. And deadly acts of jihad.

Should the United States take in (even more) Syrian refugees?

No.

And here’s why.

We have already committed to accepting thousands of Syrians over the course of the next five years.  So the decision to bring Syrians to our country is not one merely being debated, it is, regrettably, already well underway. (It is regrettable to have to say “regrettably” when talking about this, but Muslims pose a unique threat to free people everywhere.)

By the end of 2016, the State Department anticipates we will have brought as many as 10,000 Syrians to the United States. It’s safe to assume that number is low since just last month the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) submitted the names of more than 16,000 refugees from Syria for resettlement in the United States. Either way, this is just the beginning. The State Department expects the numbers to “surge” over the few years.

Numbers aside, the issue of Syrian refugees must be put into a larger context. (And, just for the record, the word refugees really should be put in quotes, as will be explained later.)

First, everyone must ask why so many Islamic nations are refusing these refugees. Breitbart reports:

“…amidst cries for Europe to do more, it has transpired that of the five wealthiest countries on the Arabian Peninsula, that is, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, not one has taken in a single refugee from Syria. Instead, they have argued that accepting large numbers of Syrians is a threat to their safety, as terrorists could be hiding within an influx of people….”

No doubt this fear of importing terrorists is sincere, if not also ironic coming from countries that enforce Sharia law. But there is likely another factor at play, which is hijrah, the Islamic doctrine of immigration whereby societies are overwhelmed with Muslims such that Muslims become the dominant force. Immigration jihad. As Robert Spencer writes in Front Page Magazine:

…evidence that this is a hijrah, not simply a humanitarian crisis, came last February.…  The Islamic State published a document entitled, “Libya: The Strategic Gateway for the Islamic State.” Gateway into Europe, that is: the document exhorted Muslims to go to Libya and cross from there as refugees into Europe. This document tells would-be jihadis that weapons from Gaddafi’s arsenal are plentiful and easy to obtain in Libya – and that the country “has a long coast and looks upon the southern Crusader states, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat.”

The Islamic State did not have in mind just a few jihadis crossing from Libya: it also emerged last February that the jihadis planned to flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. Now the number is shooting well beyond that in Germany alone. Of course, not all of these refugees are Islamic jihadis. Not all are even Muslims, although most are. However, no effort whatsoever is being made to determine the refugees’ adherence to Sharia and desire to bring it to their new land. Any such effort would be “Islamophobic.” Yet there are already hints that the Islamic State is putting its plan into effect: jihadis have already been found among the refugees trying to enter Europe. There will be many more such discoveries.

Eight hundred thousand Muslim refugees in one year alone. This will transform Germany, and Europe, forever, overtaxing the welfare economies of its wealthiest nations and altering the cultural landscape beyond recognition….

Meanwhile, no one is bothering even to ask, much less answer, one central question: why is it incumbent upon Europe have to absorb all these refugees? Why not Saudi Arabia or the other Muslim countries that are oil-rich and have plenty of space? The answer is unspoken because non-Muslim authorities refuse to believe it and Muslims don’t want it stated or known: these refugees have to go to Europe because this is a hijrah. 

Robert Spencer never backs down from the terrifying and sobering truth. Nor does Daniel Greenfield, who, also writing for Front Page Magazine, describes the heart of the problem in a brilliant piece I would urge readers to read in its entirety.

What is happening in Syria is a religious civil war fought over the same ideologies as the ones practiced by the vast majority of the refugees. This is an Islamic war fought to determine which branch of Islam will be supreme. It is not a war that started last week or last year, but 1,400 years ago.

We can’t make it go away by overthrowing Assad or supporting him, by giving out candy or taking in refugees. This conflict is in the cultural DNA of Islam. It is not going anywhere. (snip)

There are Christian and non-Muslim minorities who are genuine refugees, but the two Muslim sects whose militias are murdering each other are not victims, they are perpetrators. Just because Sunnis are running from a Shiite militia or Shiites from a Sunni militia right now doesn’t make them victims. (snip)

The refugees aren’t fleeing a dictator. They’re fleeing each other while carrying the hateful ideologies that caused this bloodshed with them. 

We aren’t taking in people fleeing the civil war. We’re taking in their civil war and giving it a good home.

And then there is the matter of so much hysteria over Syrian refugees when Christians persecuted in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East have been refused entry to the United States. Where has been our outrage and where has been the world’s commitment to make sure they are given safe haven in the West? (See here, here, here, and here.)

Of course we know the sickening and tragic answer to that question. We are living in an age when Christianity is demonized and Islam is elevated, thanks to the leftist/Islamic agenda along with a hefty dose of cowardice and ignorance on the part of those who passively sit on the sidelines.

So as the national dialogue continues to focus on illegal immigration from Mexico, Islamic immigration advances with little-to-no scrutiny or truth telling.

Who among our presidential candidates is talking about this incredible danger?

Hardly a soul.

Here’s a snapshot of the top six GOP candidates (according to the latest RCP averages) stand on Syrian refugees:

When Donald Trump was asked whether the United States should accept some of the Syrian refugees, he said, “possibly, yes.”

Wrong. The answer must be an unequivocal “no, and here’s why.”

Marco Rubio expressed interest in accepting more Syrians if we could have a vetting process that would assure no terrorists got through.

Wrong. Of course we don’t want terrorists entering the United States, but this issue is about more than terrorists. It’s also about increasing Muslim immigration. (Not to mention the near impossibility of ensuring that no terrorists get through.)

As of this writing, perpetually wrong Jeb Bush does not appear to have made a statement on Syrian refugees, nor has Ben Carson or Ted Cruz.

When Carly Fiorina was asked about the Syrian refugee crisis, she said: “I think the United States, honestly, sadly, cannot relax our entrance criteria…We are having to be very careful about who we let enter this country from these war-torn regions to ensure that terrorists are not coming here.” She also said the United States has done “its fair share” in terms of humanitarian aid and “that the Europeans need to continue to step up,” while acknowledging with apparent approval that some European countries are beginning to accept these refugees.  

Fiorina’s first comment was too circumscribed. Again, this isn’t just about making sure we don’t import more terrorists; it’s also about the unique threats posed by Muslim immigrants – a threat no candidate appears willing to address.  And her comments about Europe were off the mark. This should not be Europe’s burden to bear. At the very least, Fiorina should have shined a light on the numerous Islamic nations that have closed their doors to these refugees.

All in all, the top GOP presidential candidates have been a profound disappointment regarding comment, or lack thereof, on the Syrian swarm into Europe and the United States. This should be a crystallizing moment to highlight the very issues raised by Robert Spencer and Daniel Greenfield. Instead, our candidates  are limping along in ignorance.

Where is Allen West when you need him? Or Geert Wilders, who knows precisely how to address the Syrian onslaught by speaking the truth?

We must close our borders to Syrians and all Muslims who want to live in the United States. There’s no room at the inn. We’re all filled up with mega mosques and Muslim schools that teach hate; with Muslim Brotherhood front groups, lawfare, and creeping Sharia. With beheadings and honor killings. And prison converts. And terror training camps. And deadly acts of jihad.