Refugees - Or Embedded Terrorists?


This is mid-November, 2015. The news is awash with the Islamic "refugees" pouring into Europe. And, the "politically correct" European governments are doing nothing to assuage or curtail what is tantamount to an invasion. It has been estimated that well over 80% of these "refugees" are single males between the ages of 18 and 30, very fit males, and they are entering Europe without wives or children. So, one is left but to conclude that if these people truly are refugees, they have left their families to be enslaved, tortured, and/or killed. Just the kind of people I would want in my country - NOT!

OK! That's Europe. What about here in the good ole US of A?

It seems as though the same situation will be happening here - sooner than later, perhaps.

The president is seeking to allow 10,000 of the same types of "refugees" into our country. Further, Obama has stated that his intent is to drastically increase the number of "refugees" bound for our shores.

As a slight aside here: there are those who would argue that being a "refugee" is somehow different than some allowed here due to seeking "asylum". This nothing but wordsmithing - it is the same thing. More on this a little later.

There are many, myself included, who are totally opposed to an influx of such "refugees" - not just from the Middle East, but from across our Southern border as well. Why such opposition? The reasons are fairly obvious. So, let's start with this.

But, it goes further than simply not wanting hordes of people disrupting our way of life, threatening and harming our people, and adding fuel to the progressives' desire to forever change our culture. Because, compassion is one thing, rampant stupidity is another.

With large numbers of "refugees" entering our country, how are we to know who are the REAL refugees from those "refugees" who seek to do us harm?

With the current plague in Europe we know that at least some of the "refugees" are terrorists. Among the Paris attackers of November 13, 2015 were just that - "refugee" terrorists. We don't want that here. Further, it has been discovered that not just a few "refugees" entering into Europe are, indeed, terrorists. Even Gaddafi warned Tony Blair of Islamist attacks; but, he was ignored.

Some have offered that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides vetting of such persons. Well, that's a relief! They did such an outstanding job of vetting the Boston Marathon bombers - NOT! Of course there is THIS and, of course, this one - which sould be the pièce de résistance!

The DHS has such a sterling record with everything it does; such as the widely reported abuses, etc., with its arm, the TSA. Who could, or even wanted to, trust them to keep us safe? Especially when it admits it doesn't have a database on such "refugees". Even further, the Boston Marathon Bombers were officially listed as asylum seekers - not refugees. Such distinction is as egregious as Bill Clinton's: "..That depends on what the definition of is is."

As of this writing some 26 States have indicated they have no intention of allowing the federal government to infuse such "refugees" into their States. So far, all but one of these States are governed by Republicans.

These States do have a problem though. The Refugees Act of 1980 specifies that the federal government has the sole responsibility for the adjudicating and handling of "refugees". So, as I understand it, the States may not prohibit the government from accepting "refugees" into our Nation. And, the federal government has the funding to make this happen.

Now, there is a Bill being brought forth in Congress, the House at this point, to disallow any federal funding for such purpose(s). As recent history shows, the likelihood of this bill passing the Senate may be problematic. And, even if it does get sent to the president for signature, he, most likely, will veto it.

But, there is a recourse, I believe, which may obviate our States being infused with potentially dangerous "refugees".

The federal government, barring any action by Congress, may, indeed, fund, via tax payer dollars, the relocation of those it deems "refugees" into and across the United States. And, it can forward funds to the various States for the "refugees'" food, clothing, housing, etc. But, I am unable to find any law or statute that requires the States to accept such money for "refugee" upkeep.

Therefore, it could be that the States need only refuse federal funding. This would put the federal government in a real bind. Yes, the government could just dump these undersirables on the streets. However, the atmospherics of such would be so bad, more than likely, as to obviate the government from doing so.

No matter the course, this invasion must be stopped!

UPDATE:

On November 17, 2015 numerous State Governors participated with the White House on this issue.

The results of the meeting - and, I think I have this correct:

State Governors were told by the White House that the government will put so called "refugees" anywhere it wants, that the States can't say "no", and that it will not share with the States who is being resettled or where nor any information on them. For the story, Click Here.

And, of course, to add insult to lack of security concerns, There's This.

I believe the "until it's time..." part is upon us.