Is America being invaded?
Let’s put aside the question of whether illegal immigration across our Mexican border constitutes an invasion, and the issue of Mexican cartels conquering and enforcing certain domains in Texas and Arizona along their narcotic trafficking routes.
Let’s ask whether the current flood of Middle Eastern refugees either is an invasion, or contains an invasion. Time will tell, of course, whether these people are predominantly refugees or invaders. But we already know that our own government is not to be trusted separating “huddled masses yearning to breath free” from fake refugees.
For example, the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston Marathon bombers) were admitted to the U.S. as refugees. The justification of privileged and expedited immigration for refugees is supposedly that their homeland is so dangerous that life there is intolerable. Yet the Tsarnaev brothers frequently traveled to their native land after our government granted them refuge status in America.
Neither has your government been able (or perhaps it was simply uncommitted) to separate the wheat from the chaff in Somalia. If you were expecting grateful assimilation from the Somali refugees in the Minneapolis area, you are still waiting. They are an angry, insular and hyper-entitled enclave that has become a fertile source of naturalized and U.S.-born jihadis. Some do their fighting overseas, some return to the U.S. with ambitions to execute their infidel neighbors.
Although the President claims Kenya as his ancestral homeland, Barack Obama Sr. was an ethnic Somali. His first language was Somali, and his people are an ethnic minority (about 6%) within Kenya. When the Barack Jr. promised in The Audacity of Hope to “stand with [Muslim immigrants] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction,” Minnesota’s Somalis could and apparently did take that as a blank check.
If there is an invasion, its field general is Barack Obama. Last year another 1,100 Somali refugees arrived in Minnesota. Our president vows to import about 60 times that many “Syrian refugees” to American communities. The quotation marks indicate my skepticism that the migrants are dependably Syrian or refugees.
A high percentage of the so-called “refugees” in the holding areas are single males between 18 and 25. Europeans report a high percentage of fraudulent passports, and ISIS has bragged of using the mass migration as a means of getting jihadis into Europe.
Do we think that we’re going to get a higher caliber of refugee than the Europeans? They all come from the same refugee camps. Do you think the Europeans are going to let us cherry-pick all the poets and cardiologists and leave them with the dangerous, volatile, testosterone-flushed young males? We’re going to get at least our share of scum, I assure you.
If we were to go it alone, there is no administrative infrastructure in the Syrian hellhole to assist us in vetting the applicants. There is simply no reliable way to check out the applicants’ stories. Once the president gets them onto American soil, they’re entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the NSA is prohibited to monitor their conversations. We’re flying blind at precisely the moment when we have authority to take effective action. That does not appear to trouble this president.
The most conclusive evidence that a single male refugee is not a jihadi is the criterion that outrages our current president – a Christian is certainly not a jihadist.Even if by some miracle of administration we are able to exclude fake refugees and fake Syrians (jihadis) from the mass migration to America, our immigration system’s family unification policy means those young single males will eventually be entitled to send for their families. So the size of the Syrian enclaves will be much larger than the president has yet admitted.
Even if the foreign-born parent is not jihadi, the child raised, socialized and indoctrinated in an alienated Muslim enclave is unlikely to assimilate with fellow Americans whom he views as infidels. Is it any less an invasion when the shootings or beheadings are administered by jihadis with U.S. passports and a Public Defender on speed dial?
I would say this invasion is worse than a mere military assault. If they wear uniforms and fire artillery at us, we can meet them at the beach or the strawberry patch, fight it out, and eventually send them home dead or alive.
But when we grant them U.S. passports and make unreciprocated commitments to them and their progeny, when we guarantee their legal rights, including a presumption of innocence, the right to privacy within our communities, etc., we make ourselves utterly and permanently vulnerable to them. We won’t even be ourselves anymore. This will be the enduring legacy of the Obama presidency.
If this goes as badly as I predict, the Second Amendment will be more important than ever. If we disarm ourselves and rely on the government to do the right thing, our loved ones and neighbors will most defiantly pay the price for our self-delusion. It is up to every American to arm themselves with weapons and training to be able to defend their families and neighbors. The decision to make that life style change will be made, like it or not.
See more of Carlos’ content here:
Red Legion Tactical