Good day all. As you should know by know, King Putt has decreed that 10,000 Syrians will be admitted to the United States. How many of them are ISIS terrorists isn’t known.
That is the problem of course. There is no way to properly verify that these people aren’t actually ISIS terrorists sneaking into the United States. This is the reason that most of the state governors are pushing back against Obama’s plans. The governors have also contacted their representatives in the House and Senate to put a stop to Obama’s actions. They have started putting together bills to “pause” the influx of potential terrorists. Obama’s response? Typical of course. Petulance and a veto threat. Here are some of the details from Fox News:
President Obama threatened late Wednesday to veto legislation aimed at improving screening for Syrian refugees, potentially putting the White House and Congress on a collision course in a matter of days.
The veto threat came as the House was preparing the bill — which sets high hurdles for refugee admission including FBI background checks and sign-offs by top officials — for floor action as early as Thursday. In a committee meeting, Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, accused the president of confusing the public about the intentions of the legislation.
Obama lying and trying to confuse people about a bill he doesn’t like? Why does this surprise you Representative Sessions?
Moments later, the White House issued a statement defending the current screening process and claiming the changes called for under the bill would create “significant delays and obstacles” for the existing vetting program.
“Given the lives at stake and the critical importance to our partners in the Middle East and Europe of American leadership in addressing the Syrian refugee crisis … [Obama] would veto the bill,” the White House said.
Lives at stake? How about American lives you pack of treasonous scum?
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, in a statement, said that while he wants a “temporary suspension” of Syrian refugee admissions, “It is apparent that the President will ignore these concerns, making this legislation necessary to toughen security measures.”
Indeed, Obama on Wednesday continued to defend plans to bring in an additional 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year as he threatened to veto the House bill.
And this is the problem. We’re now seeing Obama, for all intents and purposes, actively aiding Muslim extremists. He backed the Muslim Brotherhood when he pushed Hosni Mubarek out. That blew up in his face when the Egyptian army stepped in and removed the Muslim Brotherhood backed president, and now has moved to crush them. Why? Because the Muslim Brotherhood is part of the ISIS/Al Qaeda groups that want to bring about a new Caliphate
His refusal to see ISIS as a threat, along with his refusal to ever refer to Islamic terrorists as Islamic terrorist is now starting to be questioned. Last night, I happened to turn on Fox’s “The Five” and saw one of the hosts, Dana Perino, remark that it seemed that Obama was actually aiding Islamic extremists. The way she said it, more in an off hand manner rather then an accusation leads me to believe it literally hit her at that moment. The words and actions of Obama do make one wonder. Not all of the Republicans are on board with this bill.
Heritage Action executive officer Michael A. Needham said in a statement that the bill, while setting up better vetting, “provides no leverage for Congress to weigh in and relies solely on President Obama’s appointees to carry out the new vetting process.”
What? Congress depending on Obama to uphold a law he doesn’t like? If he did, that would be a first. Of course, besides Der Fubar, we also have the rest of the Democrats working to get terrorists into the country.
House Democrats also voiced opposition, with one House Democratic leadership aide telling Fox News the bill would “end the refugee program altogether.” The aide said they hope to “negotiate a bipartisan bill” and are weighing introducing an “alternative bill.”
Oh that bill should be amusing. Considering how most of the PLFD’s think, (Actually, they don’t think, they just do things that make them feel good about themselves), I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the bill didn’t include things like firearms training, subsidized explosive purchasing and free healthcare.
Between the unsecured borders, Obama’s outright refusal to stop illegal aliens from crossing, and now Syrians being caught in Central America and along the Texas Border, it’s only a matter of time before we have an attack similar in style to Paris, France. Personally, when, not if that happens, I feel that Barack Hussein Obama and all those in his administration responsible for this policy, should be criminally charged with aiding and abetting terrorism, and murder.
For Obama? If we get hit because of his actions, along with his refusal to do anything to prevent it, well, this might rise to the level of Treason as defined by the Constitution. (I’ll leave that up to others to decide) For your references, here is how Treason his defined in the United States:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The United States is Unique in having the definition of treason enshrined in the Constitution. It is the only crime so listed, and is intentionally designed to be very hard to prove. However, if we are hit, and it leads back directly to the actions of Barack Obama, then those charges might actually stick.
Thatisall
~The Angry Webmaster~
[yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]
