No Christians and persecuted minorities allowed

Obama’s refugee strategy favors Muslims

By Abraham H. Miller, Washington Times

Standing before the cameras in Turkey, President Obama found his safe place to indict half his countrymen for raising the issue of religion in their concern over his plan to open America’s gates to tens of thousands of Muslim “refugees” from Syria. Subjecting refugees to a religious test runs counter to American values, said Mr. Obama.

The Harvard Law School graduate got it wrong, again. As Andrew McCarthy notes, the immigration law explicitly requires religious considerations. How could it do otherwise? Religion is a prime reason why people are persecuted and expelled from their homelands.

The Obama administration’s Department of State also considers religion. Syrian Muslims showing up at the border with Mexico are being welcomed, but Chaldean Christians fleeing the horror and brutality of the Islamic State are being incarcerated in a federal detention center outside of San Diego, and Yazidis are not even on the administration’s radar.

Chaldean Christians and Yazidis cannot get into the United Nations refugee camps and, consequently, are not certified as refugees. You cannot be a refugee unless you are certified, and the Muslims, who dominate the camps, do not want the Christians and Yazidis in the camps. Still, the Muslims prefer refuge in predominantly Christian countries. Moreover, Muslims perpetuate their persecution of Christians in resettlement centers in Europe.

When you belong to a triumphal religion, hypocrisy is not a concern.

Mr. Obama’s statements in Turkey display profound ignorance mixed with contemptible hubris. Neither the Chaldeans nor the Yazidis present a security threat. In fact, the local Chaldean community in Southern California is more than willing to sponsor their brethren and affirm that they are not a security threat. Their pleas have fallen on the administration’s deaf ears.

The Muslims, in contrast, present a proven security threat. While not all Muslims are terrorists, it is true that Muslims are responsible for most of the terror and war in the world. The Islamic State has openly boasted that it has thousands of fighters among the refugees, and at least one of the terrorists responsible for the recent carnage in Paris was a refugee who entered Europe through Greece on a false Syrian passport. To date, the Islamic State has not made idle threats.

The fatuous retort from progressives is that terrorists are more likely to come from Muslim communities already here than from refugees. As if that were truly comforting.

To this is added the typical liberal attempt to blame the victim. It is our marginalization of Muslims, we are told, that causes them to run to Syria and become terrorists. One wonders if the liberal explanation for rape is that by rejecting men, women marginalize them and damage their self-esteem, causing them to rape, just as Muslims are similarly pushed to become fighters for the Islamic State.

The former example is just as nonsensical as the latter. But in the liberal mind, it is the victims who are responsible for what befalls them when the perpetrators are members of protected classes.

The best way to understand the potential consequences of bringing tens of thousands of Muslim refugees into America is to look at the consequences of Muslim immigration in other societies. In Europe, Muslims have created parallel societies. The European dream of a pluralistic, integrative, multicultural society has become a nightmare. Multiculturalism is a failure, and some European politicians have directly said so.

Sweden has become the rape capital of Europe, and the government has pressured the Swedish media to hide the ethnicity of the Muslim rapists, a policy that exacerbates the situation. Reality is always assumed to be worse when it is hidden. A similar Muslim-based rape culture, some of it directed at infidels, took root in England, and authorities disgracefully covered it up for years for fear of being labeled Islamophobes.

Despite denials by politicians, both London and Paris have no-go and Shariah-compliant areas enforced by Muslim thugs who have decided that their beliefs supersede the law.

While not all Muslims support these affronts to humanity, community policies are set not by the majority but by organized and militant minorities. And in Muslim communities, while ordinary people are trying to rear families and survive economically, the active minorities are busy forcing their fundamentalist view on society.

The greatest threat to America will not be some terrorist event with mass casualties. It will come from what happens next. That will be a call for a state of siege and a security protocol that will fundamentally tilt the society’s perpetual balance between freedom and order toward order. 

Ironically, liberals who want both the resettlement of refugees, whom the FBI tells us cannot be vetted, and a more open society will find that the two aspirations are contradictory. Every democratic society that finds itself in a state of siege eventually tilts the balance of freedom and order toward order, and those changes, once made, are difficult to undo.

If terrorists and fundamentalist Muslims comprise, let us say, 5 percent of all Muslim refugees, does not our sense of compassion impel us to take that risk? Every person will answer that question in terms of his own value system, but I wonder what ordinary Parisians, especially those who lost loved ones, would say about that risk.

If Americans want to show compassion and concern for refugees who are truly being brutalized, whose religions are being extinguished, and are not designated as refugees,they might begin by expending energy to convince this administration to accept the Chaldean Christians and Yazidis. We can guarantee that they present not even a remote risk to the security of the nation.

• Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati and a senior fellow with the Salomon Center for American Jewish Thought.

Exposed: Obama’s Love for Jihadis and Hate for Christians

By Raymond Ibrahim

Obama recently lashed out against the idea of giving preference to Christian refugees, describing it as “shameful”: “That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion,” loftily added the American president.

Accordingly, the administration is still determined to accept 10,000 more Syrian refugees, almost all of whom will be Muslim, despite the fact that some are ISIS operatives, while many share the ISIS worldview (as explained below).

Yet right as Obama was grandstanding about “who we are,” statistics were released indicating that “the current [refugee] system overwhelmingly favors Muslim refugees. Of the 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States so far, only 53 are Christians while 2,098 are Muslim.”

Aside from the obvious—or to use Obama’s own word, “shameful”—pro-Muslim, anti-Christian bias evident in these statistics, there are a number of other troubling factors as well.

For starters, the overwhelming majority of “refugees” being brought into the United States are not just Muslim, but Sunnis—the one Muslim sect that the Islamic State is notpersecuting and displacing.  After all, ISIS—and most Islamic terrorist groups (Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Hamas, et al)—are all Sunnis.   Even Obama was arguably raised a Sunni.

In this context, how are Sunnis “refugees”?  Who are they fleeing?  Considering that the Obama administration defines refugees as people “persecuted by their government,”most of those coming into the U.S. either aided or at least sympathized with the jihad against Assad (even if they only revealed their true colors when the time was right).

Simply put, some 98% of all refugees belong to the same Islamic sect that ISIS does.  And many of them, unsurprisingly, share the same vision—such as the “refugees” who recently murdered some 120 people in France, or the “refugees” who persecute Christian minorities in European camps and settlements.  (None of this should be surprising considering that Al Azhar—the Sunni world’s most prestigious university of Islamic law, which co-hosted Obama’s 2009 “A New Beginning” speech—was recentlyexposed as teaching and legitimizing all the atrocities that ISIS commits.)

As for those who are being raped, slaughtered, and enslaved based on their non-Sunni religious identity—not by Assad, but by so-called “rebel” forces (AKA jihadis)—many of them are being denied refuge in America.

Thus, although Christians were approximately 10 percent of Syria’s population in 2011, only one percent has been granted refuge in America. This despite the fact that, from a strictly humanitarian point of view—and humanitarianism is the chief reason being cited in accepting refugees, Obama’s “compassion”—Christians should receive priority simply because they are the most persecuted group in the Middle East.

At the hands of the Islamic State, which supposedly precipitated the migrant crisis, Christians have been repeatedly forced to renounce Christ or die; they have been enslaved and raped; and they have had more than 400 of their churches desecrated and destroyed.[i]

ISIS has committed no such atrocities against fellow Sunnis, they who are being accepted into the U.S. in droves.  Nor does Assad enslave, behead, or crucify people based on their religious identity (despite Jeb Bush’s recent, and absurd, assertions).

Obama should further prioritize Christian refugees simply because his own policies in the Middle East have directly exacerbated their plight.  Christians and other religions minorities did not flee from Bashar Assad’s Syria, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, or Muamar Gaddafi’s Libya.  Their systematic persecution began only after the U.S. interfered in those nations in the name of “democracy” but succeeding in only uncorking the jihadi terrorists that the dictators had long kept suppressed.

Incidentally, prioritizing Christian refugees would not merely be an altruistic gesture or the U.S. government’s way of righting its wrongs: rather it brings many benefits to America’s security. (Unlike Muslims or even Yazidis, Christians are easily assimilated into Western nations due to the shared Christian heritage, and they bring trustworthylanguage and cultural skills that are beneficial to the “war on terror.”)

Finally, no one should be shocked by these recent revelations of the Obama administration’s pro-Muslim and anti-Christian policies.   They fit a clear and established pattern of religious bias within his administration.  For example:

• When inviting scores of Muslim representatives, the State Department is in the habit of denying visas to solitary Christian representatives.
• When a few persecuted Iraqi Christians crossed the border into the U.S., they were thrown in prison for several months and then sent back to the lion’s den to be enslaved, raped, or murdered.
• When the Nigerian government waged a strong offensive against Boko Haram, killing some of its terrorists, Secretary of State John Kerry fumed and called for the “human rights” of the jihadis (who regularly slaughter and rape Christians and burn their churches).  More recently, Kerry “urged Tajikistan not to go overboard in its crackdown on Islam.”
• When persecuted Coptic Christians planned on joining Egypt’s anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution of 2013,the U.S. said no.
• When persecuted Iraqi and Syrian Christians asked for arms to join the opposition fighting ISIS, D.C. refused.
• When the UN Security Council held a meeting to discuss the genocide against Christians and other minorities, although “many high level delegations from UN member states addressed the Security Council meeting, some at the Foreign Minister level, the United States failed to send … a high ranking member of the State Department.”

Most recently, as the White House works on releasing a statement accusing ISIS of committing genocide against  religious minorities such as Yazidis — who are named and recognized in the statement — Obama officials are arguing that Christians “do not appear to meet the high bar set out in the genocide treaty” and thus likely not be mentioned.

In short, and to use the president’s own words, it is the Obama administration’s own foreign and domestic policies that are “shameful,” that are “not American,” and that do not represent “who we are.”

Yet the question remains: Will Americans take notice and do anything about their leader’s policies—which welcome Islamic jihadis while ignoring their victims—or will their indifference continue until they too become victims of the jihad, in a repeat of Paris or worse?

[i] Even before the new “caliphate” was established, Christians were and continue to be targeted by Muslims—Muslim mobs, Muslim individuals, Muslim regimes, and Muslim terrorists, from Muslim countries of all races (Arab, African, Asian, etc.)—and for the same reason: Christians are infidel number one.  See Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians for hundreds of anecdotes before the rise of ISIS as well as the Muslim doctrines that create such hate and contempt for Christians who are especially deserving of refugee status.