Certain countries harbor criminals and are known to provide safety to those the rest of us consider less savory. 
So intent on increasing Muslim immigration, the Obama Administration has eased restrictions on asylum seekers with terrorist ties. Apparently, if their terrorism is “minimal” it’s ok, and they will still be welcome in America.
“The change, approved by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry, was announced Wednesday in the Federal Register. It would allow some individuals who provided ‘limited material support’ to terror groups to be considered for entry into the U.S.”
In the same old, same old victimizing political correctness, those endorsing the change call the previous security measures unfair to deserving people seeking asylum. But if they aided and abetted terrorists, how can they be deserving?
Compare the situation to a regular murder case. In most states, there is a felony murder rule, which allows the police to arrest on murder charges all those involved in a premeditated commission of a felony which resulted in murder. For example, if five people came up with a plan to rob someone, but one of them kills the robbery victim, even if the other four protested this murder, all five can be arrested on murder charges. This includes everyone involved, even people who played minor roles in the robbery. By law, they are all murderers. And rightly so. Laws like this act as deterrents. Maybe you’ll think twice before partaking in felony crimes if the consequences could ruin the rest of your life.
Take away the punishment and take away the deterrent. The Obama Administration is basically saying, “if you’re kind of a terrorist, no problem.” A “little bit of terror” is not enough to turn you away. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., was disappointed with the changes. “We need to tighten security standards for asylum, not relax them even further,” he said.
This loosening of restrictions means that discretion will be used for each case, but can we trust someone’s opinion? Whether or not the applicant is a threat will be debatable, and while it is better to err on the side of caution, this change will allow for mistakes to be made and is leaving the United States vulnerable.
In the past, as the US government welcomed more and more Muslim refugees, the FBI would be forced to work doubly hard in order to keep track of those who posed a threat. But our national security is changing in this regard as well. Attorney General Eric Holder, in his quest to make everything equal and eliminate discrimination, has deemed such activity wrongful. The Justice Department is broadening its definition of racial profiling “to prohibit federal agents from considering religion, national origin, gender and sexual orientation in their investigations,” according to a New York Times article.
Civil rights groups say that Muslims are being unfairly targeted. While details of this change are still lacking, it is unclear whether or not this will affect cases of national security. However, it may be open to interpretation, and we may see a future case taken to court based on “discrimination,” because after all, “discriminating” against a terrorist because he is Muslim is more important than protecting our nation and the innocent lives which could be lost.
Political correctness. Again. Without question, unjust discrimination is wrong, but when the world is under the constant threat of Islamic terrorism which is based on religion, whether Eric Holder likes it or not, religion is a factor.
In the UK, it’s the same story. “Muslims feel ‘scapegoated’ by Britain’s anti-(Muslim) terror campaign called ‘Prevent’.” Evidently it is “‘Islamophobic’ to blame Islam for Islamic terrorism.” It certainly goes against political correctness. Screaming “Allahu Akbar” and holding up the Quran while committing acts of terror have nothing to do with religion of course.
Obama’s desire to change the face of the nation with fewer Christian immigrants in lieu of more Muslims has led him to welcome terrorists while denying entry to the truly persecuted, the Coptic Christians. “The State Department has rejected virtually all of the 20,000 asylum applications from Coptic Christians trying to escape Egypt since the toppling of its pro-American regime. Meanwhile, it’s welcoming terrorist supporters pushed out by Cairo’s renewed military crackdown on the Brotherhood.”
These terror organizations are also allowed to broadcast to Americans via the Hamas-affiliated Al Aqsa television network and the Hezbollah-affiliated Al Manar satellite network, which encourage children to become suicide bombers. “It’s unthinkable, especially in light of the Boston terror attacks, that our government continues to allow Hamas and Hezbollah, two designated foreign terrorist organizations, to openly and illegally broadcast their stations within our borders, stations aimed at radicalizing and recruiting Muslim youth towards violence, a most egregious form of child abuse,” Lawfare project director Brooke Goldstein said.
Would stopping these broadcasts be considered discrimination by the Arab community? After all, they deserve the right to watch their television programs.
Brainwashing our Arab-speaking children to become suicide bombers here in the US via television is a troubling realization, but equally disturbing is the Obama Administration’s strong ties to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). According to its own website, CAIR is characterized as an “organization that challenges stereotypes of Islam and Muslims”, a “Washington-based Islamic advocacy group” and an “organization dedicated to providing an Islamic perspective on issues of importance to the American public.” Sounds perfectly benign and actually a wonderful group defending the rights of the “poor”, “innocent”, “victimized” Muslim Americans.
CAIR officials are big buddies with someone in the White House. The group has support from many leading
Democrats in Washington – including senior White House officials. Secret Service entry logs show CAIR officials have visited the White House several times during the Obama administration, according to a WND article.
The actions of the Obama Administration regarding terrorism and the security of our nation are questionable to say the least. In 2011, in a move that is truly mind-boggling, Obama put Israel, which is in a constant struggle to fight terrorism, on the list of 36 countries which promote terrorism. Yes, promote terrorism. Israel.
There were only five nations on the list that were not Muslim majority nations but that had substantial Muslim populations and have struggled with terrorism. Israel has certainly struggled with terrorism, but the US has also had to deal with it, so after 9/11, should other nations have begun special checks on American travelers since they were the victims of Islamic terrorism?
“The U.S. does not and never has considered Israel to have links to terrorism, but rather they are a partner in our efforts to combat global terrorism,” ICE Spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said in a written statement. She further stated that ICE did not create the list, which was supposedly created seven years earlier during the Bush Administration. However, at that time, Israel was not on the list but North Korea was. Now that Obama is President, that is reversed. Our ally, Israel, who helps us in the fight against terrorism, is on a list of countries promoting terrorism. Are we in the Twilight Zone?
Regardless of who is on the list, airport security was supposed to tighten after 9/11, but things have certainly changed now that Obama thinks the war on terror is over. Recently, author and professor Phyllis Chesler got stopped by airport security in New York for reading a Jewish newspaper. According to the account as reported by the very newspaper Chesler was reading, while she was waiting for her flight, she pulled out a copy of The Jewish Press when one of the security agents “looked at her sharply. He came over and asked to see her newspaper. After looking at the cover, the agent then took The Jewish Press and brought it over to another security agent. The two agents then had a discussion, apparently about the newspaper and about Chesler. She was then told to open her luggage, which the agents proceeded to search.”
While agents interrogated Chesler and searched her luggage, another woman breezed through without so much as a second look. That woman was wearing a niqab, a face veil. A covered face is not suspicious, but a woman reading a Jewish newspaper is a threat?
Last time I flew a domestic flight in the US, I was wearing a long black “maxi” skirt, and the TSA agent apologized as he told me he had to scan me because of the skirt. I happily obliged thinking if he’s scanning me, he must be scanning others wearing clothing that can conceal dangerous items, and that’s a good thing. However, it is more common that people in Islamic attire are not checked. The group to which nearly all the terrorists in the world belong cannot be discriminated against.
And so people like me and my senior citizen mother, who flies more frequently than I do and is often targeted by security, are searched (because they like to search completely normal looking Americans, especially the elderly). I don’t complain about them searching us though because we have nothing to hide, and if Muslims have nothing to hide, why should they cry foul? Just let them search you and move on with life.
But this is Obama’s America. Potential terrorists cannot be searched in airports because of political correctness, Israel is placed on a list of nations that promote terrorism, groups with direct links to terrorism are schmoozing with high officials at the White House, and refugees with ties to terrorism are offered a safe haven in the United States. I sure feel secure- don’t you?
By: Rachel Molschky
