Consider this story, gentle readers. At some time in the misty past, if any president did this, there would be serious cries of impeachment, even from his own party. In the Age of Obama, we have become so inured to outrage, calamity, lawlessness, even treason, that such things are barely noticeable. From Paul Mirengoff at Powerline:
Judicial Watch reports that the Obama administration has granted asylum or residency to 1,519 foreigners with terrorist ties. This information comes from an annual report to Congress by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
More than half of the terror supporters granted asylum or residency by Team Obama provided material support to terrorist organizations, according to the USCIS report. Other received military-type training from a terrorist organization (nine fall into this category), voluntarily provided medical care to members of a terrorist group, or solicited funds or recruited individuals for membership in a terrorist organization.
Nearly 200 of the terror supporters provided material support to ‘designated terrorist groups.’ As Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller explains, designated terrorist groups are the most dangerous. They include groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Those that have been paying attention know that Mr. Obama and his entire administration are very terrorist friendly, more than accommodating to Islamists, their goals and actions. As Palestinian terrorists have recently begun murdering Israelis, egged on by their terrorist government, Mr. Obama and his State Department mini-me functionaries are drawing moral equivalence, asking the Israelis to avoid violence. So why is our government allowing supporters of terror easy access to soft targets?
It did so because Obama’s DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, determined that the individuals in question participated in pro-terrorist activities ‘while under duress.’
But how can Johnson be sure of this? He wasn’t there, and neither was anyone from DHS. Naturally, the individuals seeking asylum and residency claim to have supported terrorism only under duress. But it’s unlikely that such claims are corroborated by trustworthy witnesses.
DHS says it compares applicants’ names and fingerprints against terrorist watch lists. But the absence of an applicant’s name from these lists doesn’t prove that his past support for terrorists was the result of duress.
Keep in mind that one of the fundamental aspects of Islam is the concept of lying to one’s enemies. Islamists consider it their holy duty, merely a useful part of Jihad. Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the person claiming duress? Shouldn’t that proof be very, very convincing? After all, if Johnson is wrong in even one case, it’s much more likely that Americans are going to die. So, was this just Johnson’s decision? Not quite:
Until last year, all of these individuals would have had their applications denied. But in early 2014, the Obama administration unilaterally decided that DHS would, using its ‘discretion,’ allow individuals who provided ‘limited material support’ to terror groups to be considered for entry to and status in the U.S.
My incredulity mirrors Mirengoff’s:
But why? Why grant asylum and residency to any ‘limited’ supporters of terrorism?
I don’t know. But the decision is consistent with Judicial Watch’s claim that the Obama administration ‘seems to have a soft spot for terrorists.
Seems? SEEMS?! How much more evidence do we need to conclude that Barack Obama and his administration, including the Department of Justice, are fully-fledged allies of terror? What more would possibly be required? How about this:
A few months after the INS change was exposed, a frustrated U.S. senator [Charles Grassley] revealed that the administration appears to have a terrorist “hands off” list that permits individuals with extremist ties to enter the country. The lawmaker obtained the information from internal DHS documents that include communication between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) asking whether to admit an individual with ties to various terrorist groups.
What’s next? Meeting armed jihadists at the border and transporting them to their targets in business jets? Complimentary champagne and ammunition? Would that surprise anyone? Would The New York Times or the Lame Stream media even bother to report it?