Egregious Propaganda From Our Government On Syrian Refugees to Enter Our Country

Is Anyone Surprised?

Before truly beginning this, the title contains the word "propaganda". What do I mean by this?

An accepted definition is: "Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." In order for propaganda to be truly effective it must contain specifics - some actually facts and others not so much. In general, the propagandists rely on the fact that the vast majority of people will not do the research necessary to uncover their duplicity.


Many have expressed legitimate concerns over the president's plan to bring in some 10,000 Syrian refugees to reside among us. The concerns relate to proper "vetting" of said refugees as to any ties, potential or real, to terrorism. These concerns stem from the issues relating to the hundreds of thousands of "Syrian" refugees streaming into Europe and the disaster that is becoming. The Paris terrorists were among this group as well as this "stellar" group of people.

And, not for a second be deluded by the liberal media's portrayal of those fearful of the refugees being motivated by a desire to have no Muslims or other foreigners in our Country. Hey, our Nation was founded by "foreigners" - ask any Native American. While you're at it, ask them how it has worked out for them so far. No, any/all concerns on this issue have only to do with National and personal safety and security. Quite reasonably, safety and security seem to trump compassion - as much as the American people strive to be compassionate. NOTE: I won't even get into the issues of who pays for all these people's upkeep.

In a partial response to these concerns, Jeh Johnson, Secretary for Homeland Security, has put out an "infomercial" of sorts on the subject. Click Here to see his offering.

When first I saw it I had serious concerns about the total veracity of his product. I will address each as I go along.


First, however, I'll present my "executive summary" of the research I did on the refugee status processes (it is repeated at the end):

"A person appeals to the UN for refugee status. Lacking any background information and not strictly applying requirements of evidence, the UN gives this person the "benefit of the doubt". If that same person comes to the US, a "deep background check" is done with no database of information on that person to perform the "check". Then, the person is interviewed with the presumption that such a person would never lie.



On to my analysis of the Secretary's video:

He states that the refugees are "mostly women, children, and families." Let's take a look at some facts.

After some detailed research it is clear that there is no way to validate his assertion. It is possible, however, to seriously question the accuracy of his assertion.

The problems with validation come from 'how is this stuff counted?'.

A State Department quote will offer a clue as to how the question of "counting" arises:

Continuing, “Our emphasis is on admitting the most vulnerable Syrians – particularly survivors of violence and torture, those with severe medical conditions, and women and children – in a manner that is consistent with U.S. national security,” a State Department spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. “Military-aged males unattached to families comprise only approximately two percent of Syrian refugee admissions to date.”

So far the quotes match the assertion.

But, notice the words "unattached to families" used in the above. Seeing this a warning bell went off. So, if a military-aged male had a wife and family or was the son in a family unit somewhere, they weren't counted? Am I just being "picky" here? Not at all. It is statements like these that the propagandists employ to mislead.

Later, a senior administration official (not identified) noted that, "One half of the Syrian refugees brought to the U.S. so far have been children; a quarter are adults over 60. And I think you will have heard that only 2 percent are single males of combat age. So we – there’s slightly more – it’s roughly 50/50 men and women, slightly more men I would say, but not – not a lot more men…" Seems as though this statement is veering away from the Secretary's assertion a "bit".

Later still, a correction was issued saying that rather than the "25% were over 60", that it was really 2.5%. Just a one place movement of a decimal point. Think about that. That one decimal point move changes the potential numbers of military-aged males dramatically. Don't really see that such a decimal point "error" makes a big difference? It's the difference between you making $100,000 a year and you making $10,000 a year.

And remember, our government considers anyone 18 or younger "children". As anyone who can read (and does) knows, ISIS is comprised of many, many who are in their teens - and even younger in some cases.

Mr. Johnson (in the video) states: "Refugees must "SHOW" - "driven from home due to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion".

How does one "show" this? Oh, I know, via the next item.

Johnson continues, " . . Refugee will have a deep background check.."

Just like Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernardino woman went through. This "deep background check" failed to uncover her obvious fake "home address" in addition to anything else, obviously. People, just ordinary people, were able to discern the address she gave was a fake just by doing a Google search. Maybe I need an alternative definition of "deep".

Even things going on under our noses is not detected. The Mosque cleric at the Mosque which Syed Farook, one of the San Bernardino shooters, attended communicated with Farook in a very questionable manner.

But, it gets better.

Johnson adds, "Refugee information will be cross checked against law enforcement and intelligence databases."

I am not quite certain how "deep background checks" and "cross checking" would work as the government's own people have acknowledged that no databases exist with that information. Further still, Malik, it has been discovered, used "social media" discussing the intent of her and her husband's actions in San Bernardino. However, as a related aside, it seems unconscionable that the current administration forbids checking "social media" ( Facebook, Twitter, etc.) due to a possible civil liberties backlash and “bad public relations.”

Well, I have to assume to supposedly fill that obvious "background check" gap, Johnson added, "...Also have to pass an in-depth interview."

I have but to assume that he was referring to questions such as are depicted below. The ones depicted are actual, real questions asked of refugees. Of course, these are a subset. However, for anyone who has watched the TV show 'House', you'll remember one of Gregory House's oft used lines, "Everybody lies!". And, I'm fairly certain that would include terrorists. Because, how else would these 30 individuals be allowed in the country?

And, it appears that Malik was not even asked the above simpleton questions.


As an aside here - am I implying that because a person is a Muslim they will lie? No, of course not. But, if a person is a practicing Muslim, then they should be following the Qur'an. And, if they are following the Qur'an, they should be aware of what it says/teaches. So, take a look at the Qur'an's teaching on lying. And, remember "House's" pronouncement.


Next, Johnson offers, (vetting) "...Process involves National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, DHS, Dept of State, and DoD."

As the San Bernardino terrorists (at least the woman, anyway), the Ft. Hood shooter, the Boston Bombers, etc., all went through this "vetting process" AND if all those agencies were involved, then GOD HELP US ALL!!!

In the above video Johnson refers to the initial "vetting process" of all refugees (not just the ones to come here) conducted by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

As I knew nothing about the organization nor its leadership nor its vetting process, I looked 'em up. I know you are not surprised by this admission.

What I found was interesting and pertinent to this subject. I looked up the leader of this UN organization and the document that supposedly defines the/any vetting process used for refugees.

First, the leader. His name is António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres and he is a devoted socialist. Knowing that socialists live for there to be people solely dependent upon the government, I was none too thrilled. But, maybe that's just me.

Next, is their (i.e., the UNHCR's) vetting process.


In it I found:

Refugee Definition: ... As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 (note: and thereafter) and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted ... is outside his country of nationality ...

Further: As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 (note: and thereafter) and owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.


28. A person is a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention as soon as he fulfils the criteria contained in the definition. This would necessarily occur prior to the time at which his refugee status is formally determined. Recognition of his refugee status does not therefore make him a refugee but declares him to be one. He does not become a refugee because of recognition, but is recognized because he is a refugee.

29. Determination of refugee status is a process which takes place in two stages. Firstly, it is necessary to ascertain the relevant facts of the case. Secondly, the definitions in the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol have to be applied to the facts thus ascertained.

Note: An Interesting Definition of sorts - denial of refugee status - ...he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee.

Question - So, if he only commits a crime such as murder, drug smuggling, etc., inside the country to which he seeks refugee status and not outside of that same country, then he's OK? I don't really think they thought this language all the way through.

Family Unity a Plus:

182. The Final Act of the Conference that adopted the 1951 Convention:

Recommends Governments to take the necessary measures for the protection of the refugee’s family, especially with a view to:

(1) Ensuring that the unity of the refugee’s family is maintained particularly in cases where the head of the family has fulfilled the necessary conditions for admission to a particular country.

(2) The protection of refugees who are minors, in particular unaccompanied children and girls, with special reference to guardianship and adoption.

So, a family member who is a terrorist is given special consideration due to the fact that the person seeking refugee status is not a terrorist?

Also, what is the UN's definition of a "child"? I could find none.

Establishing the facts:

196. It is a general legal principle that the burden of proof lies on the person submitting a claim. Often, however, an applicant may not be able to support his statements by documentary or other proof, and cases in which an applicant can provide evidence of all his statements will be the exception rather than the rule. In most cases a person fleeing from persecution will have arrived with the barest necessities and very frequently even without personal documents.

Thus, while the burden of proof in principle rests on the applicant, the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts is shared between the applicant and the examiner. Indeed, in some cases, it may be for the examiner to use all the means at his disposal to produce the necessary evidence in support of the application. Even such independent research may not, however, always be successful and there may also be statements that are not susceptible of proof. In such cases, if the applicant’s account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt.

197. The requirement of evidence should thus not be too strictly applied in view of the difficulty of proof inherent in the special situation in which an applicant for refugee status finds himself. Allowance for such possible lack of evidence does not, however, mean that unsupported statements must necessarily be accepted as true if they are inconsistent with the general account put forward by the applicant.

The items shown in RED are troublesome at best.

OK. Enough with all that.

The above document addresses its close relationship with the UN Human Rights Council. Sounds good, yes?

Seeing as how the entire subject matter's concern is with "questionable" Islamic intrusion into our country, and not just terrorists, the below should make some warning lights glow fairly brightly.

First though, what do I mean by non-terrorist Muslims? I mean those who desire an adherence to Sharia law over local governments' laws. You know, the ones that promote subjugation of women, the killing of homosexuals, the establishment of a world wide Caliphate, and the like. They may be not be terrorists, per se, but they are against the American way of life.

Below is the membership list of Nations who sit on the UN's Human Rights Council today:

Membership list showing % Muslim (note: if below 10% no data is shown):

It seems obvious that any nation which "enjoys" a goodly percentage of Muslims will not look too very hard at other Muslims in their adjudication - potential terrorist or not, adherents to Sharia law or not. And, the number of countries on this list with a good sized proportion of Muslims is troublesome.

So, to sort of summarize what the process is for "refugees" entering our country:

A person appeals to the UN for refugee status. Lacking any background information and not strictly applying requirements of evidence, the UN gives this person the "benefit of the doubt". If that same person comes to the US, a "deep background check" is done with no database of information on that person to perform the "check". Then, the person is interviewed with the presumption that such a person would never lie.


Repeating as I have often before, never believe anything you read, see, or hear these days without checking it out.