When President Obama and John Kerry suggest taking 10,000 Syrian refugees in 2016, 90 percent of them Muslim and many of them jihadist sympathizers– really, it’s not that hard. Not today. Not ever. Just say no. In fact, say HELL NO!
Why is there even a debate on the matter?
Yes, the flood of refugees fleeing Syria is a humanitarian tragedy of historic proportions. However, these are not refugees from a terrible hurricane, a volcano eruption, or a tsunami tidal wave. These 4,000,000 are refugees from a civil war made intractable and horrific by an Islamist insurrection called the Islamic State, or ISIS. The refugees are a product of the same war that victimized 3,000 Americans on that beautiful September morning in 2001.
Unlike the Vietnam boat people or Cuban refugees after Castro came to power, the U.S. has no moral responsibility for the chaos in Syria. In fact, just the opposite is the case.
Is it really such a novel idea that refugees from a Middle East civil war should be resettled in the Middle East, not Europe and America?
And there is another fundamental question our politicians are not asking. Let’s ask if it meets a test never applied by President Obama but occasionally enters the conversation among patriots and some Republicans: Is it in America’s best interests — from both the economic and national security standpoint? ...