The Rapture Verdict Seed Vault Get Prepared Now Preppers Blueprint Life strawBeginning Of The End
Gold Buying Guide: Golden Eagle Coins

Recent Posts


Food for liberty
Michael and Meranda The Watch

Michael’s Latest Video

Legacy Water

Obama: The number of refugees from Syria and elsewhere will be increased ‘to 100,000 per year’

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

Obama - Public DomainThe number “10,000 Syrian refugees” is being thrown around a lot by the mainstream media, but did you know that Barack Obama has actually publicly declared that the U.S. is going to take in 100,000 refugees from Syria and elsewhere for each of the next two years?  That is an absolutely massive number, and it is inevitable that some jihadists will slip through the vetting process.  As Syrian refugees enter the United States, they are being dispersed all around the country.  In my article yesterday, I explained that the State Department has established refugee processing centers in 48 U.S. states.  But instead of the “trickle” of refugees the mainstream media is talking about, the truth is that it is going to be more like a flood.  The following is a message that was tweeted by Barack Obama’s official Twitter account on September 28th…

100,000 Refugees

This number also came up in a New York Times article that was published back in September…

The Obama administration will increase the number of worldwide refugees the United States accepts each year to 100,000 by 2017, a significant increase over the current annual cap of 70,000, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday.

“This step that I am announcing today, I believe, is in keeping with the best tradition of America as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope,” Mr. Kerry said, adding that it “will be accompanied by additional financial contributions” for the relief effort.

So there you have it.

And in particular, the Obama administration has been looking for ways to “accelerate” the number of refugees coming in from Syria.  The following comes from the CBC

The Obama administration is moving to increase and accelerate the number of Syrian refugees who might be admitted into the United States by opening new screening outposts in Iraq and Lebanon, administration officials told Reuters on Friday.

That same article quoted an Obama administration official as saying that they wanted to “push out really ambitious goals” for the number of Syrian refugees being brought in…

“We want to be in a place where we can push out really ambitious goals,” said one of the officials, who spoke to Reuters on the condition of anonymity.

The State Department runs nine screening centres worldwide that serve as meeting points for refugees and U.S. Department of Homeland Security employees who have to decide who is suitable for resettlement in the United States.

You would think that what just happened in France would cause Obama and his minions to reassess this strategy.

But instead, they appear to be doubling down.  In fact, at the G20 summit Obama lectured his fellow world leaders on the need to take in more Syrian refugees.

Obama would have us believe that all of the refugees are highly “vetted” and that there is little danger of any terrorists being imported into this country as refugees.

But how exactly does that work?

Does he have the refugees fill out application forms?

Does he check their references?

Does he ask them if they ever worked for ISIS?

If terrorists want to come over here under the refugee program, of course they are going to lie.

In the end, it is up to whoever is doing the vetting to make a gut call.  And considering how politically correct many of them probably are, that probably is not going to work out too well.

Needless to say, Obama’s approach has drawn a tremendous backlash from some Republican leaders

Some GOP leaders, including presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Sen. Ted Cruz, have said that only Christian refugees should receive any U.S. assistance. And Donald Trump told CNBC on Monday that letting them in “would be one of the great Trojan horses.”

At the G-20 meeting in Turkey, Obama said: “When I hear folks say that we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders suggesting there will be a religious test for which a person fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted … that’s shameful. That’s not American.”

And as I write this article, 13 Republican governors have announced that they will not accept any more refugees from Syria in their states.  The following comes from USA Today

At least 13 governors say they will not accept Syrian refugees in their states in response to Friday’s attacks in Paris.

The Republican governors — in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin — are concerned that resettlement could open the doors to terrorists.

Without a doubt, this is a difficult issue.  There are thousands upon thousands of Syrians that are legitimately fleeing the horrible civil war in their nation, and those people do legitimately need help.

But how do we balance that with the safety of our own people?  It has been reported that at least two of the attackers in Paris came into Europe as “refugees”, and ISIS has just released a new video pledging to attack Washington D.C. as well…

The message to countries involved in what it called the “crusader campaign” was delivered by a man dressed in fatigues and a turban, and identified in subtitles as Al Ghareeb the Algerian.

“We say to the states that take part in the crusader campaign that, by God, you will have a day, God willing, like France’s and by God, as we struck France in the center of its abode in Paris, then we swear that we will strike America at its center in Washington,” the man said.

The success of the attacks in Paris is only going to embolden groups like ISIS to conduct even more attacks.  Radical Islamic terrorists want to create fear and they want to get attention, and what just happened in France definitely succeeded on both counts.  I believe that we are entering a time when terror attacks are going to become much more frequent and much more deadly, and as a result all of our lives are going to dramatically change.

In the future, we are all going to think twice before attending large public gatherings.  Once we witness a few more attacks like we just saw in France, people are going to become much more hesitant to go to places that they perceive could be targeted.

So is there a solution?  Please feel free to share what you think should be done by posting a comment below…


  • K

    Nothing will stop Obama the puppet. Let us just say only 1% are terrorists. At the end ot 2 years, that is 2 thousand. It only took 8 to cause the destruction in Paris. And by the way, how do you vet anyone from an enemy Country? You think Syria is going to turn, such peoples records over to you? Perhaps Obama has people with crystal balls checking them all out. It would be, just as accurate.

    • Kim

      So true, K. The real terrorists are our own leaders.

  • John Doe

    After the US is flooded with jehadists they will implement their “gun buy back” i.e. Confiscation. What could possibly go wrong?

  • John Doe

    If you like your head you can keep your head.

    • iris


    • Kim

      Which is why I never leave my house without protection.

  • iris

    Of course non Christians should be allowed into the U.S., but only if they are thoroughly vetted and agree to abide by our laws and respect our citizens. And that will indeed be difficult to ascertain. Don’t know why my last 3 comments have not been accepted, as no rude language or threats were made. It started when I tried to reply to Pascal. Maybe this one will go through?

    • SRVES339

      Could be the anti xenophobia policy…

      And after years of supplying weapons to terrorists, then thousands of bombing raids that created the mess, you don’t get to parse the acceptance criteria for the hundreds of thousands of lives ‘you’ ruined.

      • Jodie Lynn Gaeta

        Why not?

      • Kim

        Bullsh** if you don’t.

  • jaxon64

    Federal Data: U.S. Annually Admits Quarter Of A Million Muslim Migrants
    by Julia Hahn14 Sep 2015Washington D.C.

    • jaxon64

      You see–the trick is in the wording. Currently, the Obama administration is importing 250,000 “immigrants”…in ADDITION to this we will now be letting in another 100,000 “refugees”…this makes 350,000 muslims per year…..look it up, its a fact.

  • James

    The success of the attacks in Paris is only going to embolden groups like ISIS to conduct even more attacks. Radical Islamic terrorists want to create fear and they want to get attention, and what just happened in France definitely succeeded on both counts. I believe that we are entering a time when terror attacks are going to become much more frequent and much more deadly, and as a result all of our lives are going to dramatically change.

    Yes because terrorists are going to care to fill out paperwork and get the citizenship business done before they start bombing (sarc)

    Most terrorism is completed by left/right, separatist, and xenophobic groups and not by muslims per FBI Data

  • Gay Veteran

    “…There are thousands upon thousands of Syrians that are legitimately fleeing the horrible civil war in their nation, and those people do legitimately need help….”

    The U.S. and countries like France are destabilizating Syria. The only help the refugees need is for U.S. to STOP arming the terrorists in Syria!

    • John Doe

      The Middle East has been “destableized” for 2000 years. The U.S. military industrial complex needs to swat the hornets nest to make payroll.

      • Gay Veteran

        no war profits without war,
        and no money for the surveillance state without “terrorism”

        • Kim

          Exactly. It’s all about the money.

      • Gay Veteran

        “War is the Health of the State” by Randolph Bourne (1918).

    • Chris Gerber

      I am all for helping refugees who actually do need the help. Not a problem. However, imbedded terrorists is a BIG problem.

      • Gay Veteran

        I am all for NOT creating refugees in the first place.
        1. bring the troops home
        2. seal the borders
        3. rebuild America
        NO foreign entanglements

        • Paul Patriot

          Best thing you have written since I have been viewing your posts.

          • Gay Veteran

            came from Gerald Celente,
            trendsresearch dot com

            hit motto: think for yourself

          • Kim

            I like Gerald Celente.

        • Jodie Lynn Gaeta

          I’m really beginning to think you’re right. We’re not going to be an empire much longer. The writing is on the wall .We might as well face the fact that the days of American hegemony are fast coming to a close and use our resources to repair our own nation. We’ll have no other choice soon, anyway.

          • Gay Veteran

            unfortunately TPTB will fight to the last drop of OUR blood before giving up empire

      • John Doe

        We’ll send them all to your house Chris. The plack on the Statue of Liberty was not written by a U.S. Representative and was cirtainly written before the country was BROKE!

    • afchief

      Are you really this dumb? The so-called “refugees” coming out of Syria (and elsewhere) are not refugees. The demographic of refugees tilts heavily toward women, children and the elderly. Why? Because real men fight, that’s why — and when your nation is under assault if you’re a real man you fight, because that’s what a man does. Call that sexist or whatever if you wish, but it’s reality; it’s our job as men to do the dirty work when it needs to be done. This isn’t about blood lust or any such thing; it’s about how we were made and who we are as that particular half of the human species.

      So tell me, why the so-called “refugees” have an inverted demographic? Why they are majority fighting-age men? It takes only a minute of reflection to realize that they are not refugees at all; they are in fact the army going out to wage war while the women and children, along with the elderly, stay behind!

      In other words they’re doing what men do, and our stupidity in both this country and Europe have literally invited an invading army in and worse, we’ve coddled them and showered them with welfare handouts of various sorts.

      Are we all nuts?

      • Gay Veteran

        I am all for NOT creating refugees or “refugees” in the first place.
        1. bring the troops home
        2. seal the borders
        3. rebuild America
        NO foreign entanglements!

        • afchief

          I can agree with 2 and 3 but not 1. Number 1 is the reason we have ISIS. To say otherwise is a boldface lie.

          • Gay Veteran

            the reason we have ISIS is because of our wars of aggression in the Middle East and North Africa.

            what would happen in America if a foreign country bombed or invaded us? you think Americans would do nothing to that foreign country?

            payback is a bit*h

          • afchief

            ISIS formed because we had no SOFA agreement with Iraq, period. Did we leave bases in Europe after WW II or Korea after that war.

            Stupid 0lawless would not listen to his generals and pulled out like the idiot he is.

          • Gay Veteran

            Bush signed the agreement to pull out.
            and leave it to morons like you to spend $BILLIONS on yet more foreign military bases as America rots

          • afchief

            Yes, we should have taken that money away from AIDS research. Could have saved billions!!!!

          • Gay Veteran

            Yes, we should have taken that money from mental retardation research for people like you. Could have saved billions!!!!

          • afchief

            Bush NEVER signed any agreement to pull out!! Go back to fudge packing!!!!

          • Gay Veteran

            you need to quit packing fudge into your skull:

            “..When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011….”


          • afchief

            Hey Mr. Packs the fudge, Bush wanted a SOFA with an American post left in country…..Balaad AB..

            I was there!!!

          • Gay Veteran

            Hey Mr. Skull packed with fudge, since you didn’t read it the first time:

            “..When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011….”


          • afchief

            Hey, Mr Packs the Fudge!!! Obama wanted out of Iraq from the time he entered the US Senate. He authored a bill that required a US withdrawal, ran on a US withdrawal, and when McCain accused him of going wobbly on that commitment he pushed back.

            When the replacement for the Bush-negotiated SOFA took place, Obama could not decide on what level of troop presence he wanted. This placed Iraqi politicians in the position of having to sell the idea without know what they were selling.

            Obama insisted upon an parliamentary vote of immunity for US troops. This placed members of parliament in the uncomfortable position of having to support two politically charged issues: US troop presence and immunity of US troops from Iraqi courts. Maliki, in a singular act of political courage, offered immunity via executive order. This is the same arrangement US military forces in Iraq today are operating under. Obama insisted on a parliamentary vote. And, once he’d insisted on the parliamentary vote, he refused to work to get the votes needed to pass it.

            In short, Obama used the parliamentary vote as an escape hatch. He wanted out of Iraq and by setting a nearly impossible condition on future US military presence he made withdrawal inevitable.

          • Gay Veteran

            “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell
            Making The World A More Dangerous Place
            US foreign policy at work
            by Chris Martenson
            Friday, November 6, 2015,
            “…General Wesley Clark warned about the US’s military objectives in the Middle East back in 2007 in an interview with Democracy Now!. It’s difficult to read this transcript without concluding that the US was going to manufacture whatever justifications it needed in order to carry out a larger strategy that, inexplicably to rational observers, seemed intent on inflaming and toppling governments across the Middle East — a monstrous war crime by any historical standard:

            About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.”

            This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

            So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”….”

          • Gay Veteran

            sick, EVIL, warmongering psychopaths like YOU led us into the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history: our war of aggression against Iraq.

            And the results?

            “After 4,486 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq and 2,345 U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan, 1 million U.S. soldiers wounded in both wars, and a potential cost of up to $6 trillion”

            over a MILLION dead Iraqi civilians, millions of refugees, and god knows how many injured.

            and now Iraq is totally destabilized, along with Libya and Syria.

            as I’ve said before, payback is a bit *h. unfortunately pieces of “human” garbage like you don’t pay the price

          • afchief

            Poor Mr. Packs the Fudge, there is no truth in you!!!

            “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

            –Sandy Berger, Clinton

            National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

            “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missiIe strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by: — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

            “Saddam H u s s e i n has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

            -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

            “H u s s e i n has … chosen to spend his money on building weap0ns of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

            — Madeline Albright, Clinton

            Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

            “There is no doubt that … Saddam H u s s e i n has reinvigorated his weap0ns programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missiIe program to develop longer-range missiIes that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

            Letter to President Bush, Signed by:

            — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

            “We begin with the common belief that Saddam H u ss e i n is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. Hehas ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weap0ns of massdestruction and the means of delivering them.”

            — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

            “We know that he has stored secret supplies ofbiological and chemical weap0ns throughout his country.”

            — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

            “Iraq’ssearch for weap0ns of mass destruction hasproven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for aslong as Saddam is in power.”

            — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

            “We have known for many years that Saddam H u s se I n is seeking and developing weap0ns of mass destruction.”

            — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

            “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq inOctober of 1998. We are confident that Saddam H u s s e i n retains somestockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarkedon a crash course to buildup his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”

            — Sen. Robert K K K Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

            “I will be voting to give the President of theUnited States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hu s s e i n because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weap0ns of mass destruction in his hands is areal and grave threat to our security.”

            — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

            “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam H u ss e i n is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons ofmass destruction.”

            — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

            “He has systematically violated, over the courseof the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that hedisarm and destroy his chemical and biological weap0ns, and any nuclearcapacity. This he hasrefused to do”

            — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

            “In the four years since the inspectors left,intelligence reports show that Saddam H u s s e i n has worked to eebuild hischemical and biological weap0ns stock, his missiIe delivery capability, and hisnuclear program. He hasalso given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam H u s s e i n will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weap0ns.”

            — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

            “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam H u s s e i n has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”

            — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

            “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam H u ss e i n. He is a brutal, murd3rous dictator, leading an oppressive regime …He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weap0ns of mass destruction …So the threat of Saddam Hu s s e i n with weap0ns of mass destruction is real…”

            Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

            “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weap0ns of mass destruction and the missiIes to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

            –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

            “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

            –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

            “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weap0ns against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

            –Madeline Albright,

            Feb 18, 1998

          • Gay Veteran

            awwwwwwwwww, poor Mr. Skull full of sh it, STILL don’t understand that TPTB constantly LIE to get us into war.
            STILL don’t understand that there are no war profits without war.
            STILL don’t understand that evil psychopaths will do anything for power and money.
            but you go ahead and live in your FANTASY world where “liberals” are evil but “conservatives” are not, where democrats and republicans aren’t 2 sides of the same coin.
            must be soooooooo stress free to have the mind of a gullible child

          • afchief

            You diapers must be in a twist!

          • Gay Veteran

            what a sad person you are, a mental midget

          • Gay Veteran

            you have such brilliant ideas! let’s stay in Iraq (and Afghanistan) and continue spilling American blood and money into the sand.

            unfortunately, it won’t be YOUR blood

          • Gay Veteran

            you were there?
            no wonder we couldn’t defeat a bunch of goat herders

          • afchief

            Is it time to change your diapers????

          • Gay Veteran

            is it time to scoop the cr ap out of your skull????

          • Joan Camara

            Would help to throw some links to some websites on them, for them to see the facts for themselves, instead of YOU just saying a comment about it. Give the evidence of what you say!

          • Gay Veteran

            hey Joan, there’s this thing called Google, use it!
            and did you even notice it was from Politicifact?

      • Joan Camara

        Nope, just our “government”, and especially our constitution killing, country killing prez…obummer!

    • Kim

      Yeah but if we stop (deposing Assad) by withdrawing from Syria, the Saudis won’t get their oil pipeline and they won’t be able to fund their royal lifestyle (golden toilet seats) because they are in fact running out of money. BTW, why can’t the Saudis give refuge to their Syrian brothers?

      It seems the obvious solution: withdraw from MENA and turn the focus inward, but again, that it doesn’t fit their agenda, does it. They don’t care about the refugees or us. The Germans all but admittd that when one German statsman stated that these refugees were a remedy to a falling birthdate among German people.

      Follow the money.

      • Gay Veteran

        excellent points

  • Chris Gerber

    And if an attack happens in America that can be blamed on any one of these ‘refugees’…. What then?

  • John Doe

    Most likely by then Obama will be out of office and it will be the next presidents fault. If not, blame it on Bush.

  • The Last Conservative

    Let’s us never forget that Barry is an admitted follower of Islam. Why wouldn’t he help his jihadi brothers out?

    • Joan Camara

      Exactly, that’s why he wants his followers of the koran over HERE! He wants his buddies close.

    • Gay Veteran

      well he sure is busy killing muslims using drones

  • desert nudist

    Weekly Jihad Report Nov 07 – Nov 13
    Jihad Attacks:47
    Allah Akbars*:10
    Dead Bodies: 392
    Critically Injured: 906
    *Suicide Attacks
    Jihad Report October, 2015
    Jihad Attacks: 195
    Countries: 31
    Allah Akbars: 40
    Dead Bodies: 1564
    Critically Injured: 1730

    • Gay Veteran

      what percentage of attacks were by Sunnis? by Shiites?
      willing to bet over 90% were by Sunnis

      • Joan Camara

        They both read from the same book, the koran….they are both muslim….so both are commanded to “kill the infidel”!

        • Gay Veteran

          hey Einstein, try answering the question:

          what percentage of attacks were by Sunnis? by Shiites?

  • El Pollo de Oro

    Neocons and the bankster junta that runs The Banana Republic of America long for a major terrorist attack. That way, they will have an excuse to ramp up the police state even more and activate the FEMA death camps in the name of “national security.” The BRA economy continues to unravel, and the banksters need a police state in place to deal with the major civil unrest that will inevitably come with more bank bailouts (or bail-INs a la Cypress), a bank holiday, a currency devaluation and economic hell much worse than 2008 (or even 1929). Terrorists kill a lot of people, but despotic governments kill a lot more people. Death toll on 9/11: 3000. Death toll under Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler or Mao: millions.

    FEMA = Fascists Eagerly Murdering Americans. FEMA camps: Americans check in, but they don’t check out.

    • iris

      Sadly, I think you may very well be right.

    • guest

      If they get a major terrorist event, Barry doesn’t leave office. That’ll just be the beginning too.

      • Gay Veteran

        no, the bipartisan circus will continues.
        there greatest success was giving us the ILLUSION of choice at the ballot box

    • Gay Veteran

      death toll under Bush the Stoopid and Obama: millions

  • HawkinsUSSA

    Is there a solution? Dunno, but Then again I got better things to do –like buy more ammo

    • Kim

      Sounds like a good idea.

    • Gay Veteran

      lead, silver and gold

  • 21Grams

    Barack Obama: “If the politely winds change in an ugly direction, I will stand with the Muslims”.

    ‘Nuff said.

  • afchief

    This man is evil! Pure evil!! When is Congress going to start the impeachment process??????

    • guest

      Paul Ryan will get right on it. LOL

    • Gay Veteran

      why would they? they didn’t impeach Bush and Cheney for lying us into a war of aggression in Iraq.
      PLUS democrats = republicans

      • afchief

        Are you really this stupid? Yes you are!!!

        Bush and Cheney did not break any laws.
        Go back to packing fudge. It’s what sick people do!!!

        • Gay Veteran

          You got fudge packed into your skull if you still support Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq.
          Bush and Cheney are war criminals, and so is Obama

          • afchief

            Homosexuality is a crime against humanity!!!

          • Gay Veteran

            says the ayatollah wannabe.

            go join your fellow Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia

        • Gay Veteran

          wars of aggression are war crimes, see Nuremberg trials.
          plus torture is illegal under U.S. and international law

          • afchief

            Yes, more proof that homosexuality truly is a mental disorder!!!!

          • Gay Veteran

            you’re living proof that Goering was right:

            “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
            (Herman Goering at the Nuremberg Trials)

    • Kim

      Never. They are part of it.

    • Joan Camara

      I’m pretty sure I’ve read that Congress has two muslims in it, already. We’re screwed!

  • tom

    Michael, you do a great job informing us as to what is going on! Thank you. May I suggest posting links to Congress, the president, and even state governors/legislatures. It would get people to contact their elected officials while the idea is fresh in their head. Thank you and keep up the great work

  • Alice Young

    can i suggest anyone not familiar with the term ‘hijrah’ look it up.

    • Kim

      It’s all about money. But religious emotion is a great catalyst in the fight.

  • Kim

    First thing, u have to apply the premise that Obama does not actually care about ordinary people, which include these so called refugees. So what other reason would he have for doing this? Back office deals with the Saudis. The goal has always been the same: depose Assad for any reason. There are two things they want- the oil pipeline and riparian rights and access to the Jordan river basin and tributaries Hasbani river.

    But what does this have to do with taking in refugees? Well that’s part of the deal with the Saudis. Once the oil is flowing in that pipeline US gets a good old boy discount.

    Follow the money.

    • Gay Veteran

      “…There are two things they want- the oil pipeline and riparian rights and access to the Jordan river basin and tributaries Hasbani and Dan rivers, among others that border Syria….”

      and which country would benefit from the water? Israel?

      • Kim

        I would venture to say that. But any country would benefit financially if they controlled riparian access to the Jordan basin.

  • iris

    If we hadn’t bent over backward to OPEC in the first place, to line the pockets of those invested in foreign oil and hadn’t heavily restricted our own production (we have enough for hundreds of years, but then that wouldn’t be pc enough for some, what with man made global warming and all (sarc), well, perhaps with our chem trails and other weather war/weather modifications, not so sarc), we wouldn’t have had as much incentive to become the welfare/warfare state that we are today. But the ME aspect is only part of the bigger picture. Things have been going according to plan for the elites around the world for about 100 years, it has been incremental, however, and most have not seen the bigger picture, so we shouldn’t only be pointing fingers at our own country. There is so much going on behind the scenes, and we aren’t given the most accurate news, many times. Usually, news stories get shuttled along by the major agencies, often without any solid verification of facts, just a subtle rewording is involved from agency to agency. I trust some other countries’ msm as much or more than I trust our own. Sadly, there are times on this earth when war is necessary, and there are just wars, but when countries are involved in empire building, rather than simply sustaining their own countries, we’re going to end up with what we see now. If a country is attacked, it has the right and responsibility to protect its citizens. Perhaps there have been some pure motives involved with our military interventions abroad, but as we proceed, most of them have been hypocritical in part, at the very least. Even with WW2, FDR and others were so anti Semitic, we wouldn’t have gotten involved had it not been for investors here who had a lot of money at stake in France and England. Bottom line is that individuals do have a choice, whether we think so or not. We can do the right thing with our own lives, and keep our own minds, hearts and souls, even if we lose our literal heads.

    • iris

      The warfare machine which started up with WW2 got the U.S. out of the Great Depression, more than any other apparent factor. Apparently, anyway. Fiat money issued by the world banks and more taxation than ever before, is also helping to keep the welfare states alive around the world.

      • iris

        I’m not saying there’s not a place for welfare, but the state of it is often a hand out instead of a hand up, which is how we’re being sold it. When 51% of those in our country are living barely above the poverty level, as quoted in one of Michael’s previous articles, something needs to change. We still have so much wealth compared to other nations, such vast water, mineral and agricultural assets, we could well take care of our own. But now, Agenda 2030 may require that we’re not allowed to oversee our own production, or usage, unless it complies with tptb.

        I look forward to Christ’s return. His governance alone will ensure safety and equity. Without His leading, humanity will never be able to fulfill the most lofty of goals, which many of us don’t even have.

        • Joan Camara

          I think there’s prophecy in this. All these muslims are spreading to every country, soon they will be taking over every government. So who do you think is going to be in charge of the beheadings for not taking the mark?

    • Kim

      I don’t think it’s true that we have 100s is years of oil in the ground. Not at a net positive cost structure anyway. If the oil costs more than it’ll sell for, or if more energy is used to extract or create he new energy, then it’s pretty much a net loss. It’s what killed the fracking industry and also killed arctic drilling and exploration. Always follow the money.

  • DJohn1

    Michael pinpointed one very big problem in recent articles.
    Unemployment numbers that are much larger than the government lets on.
    Okay, we can absorb 100,000 people into those remaining jobs and give them jobs but we stay unemployed. That is the basic message I see.
    Sc**w you I am taking care of the Muslims first. That is the message I get from Obama’s actions.
    As Mr. Trump has no problem pointing out, it could be a way to get people here sympathetic to the ISIS cause.
    By sympathetic maybe we should also say suicidal . . .
    I will say this: If just 10 Americans lose their lives because of this immigration of refugees, then we need to impeach a President.
    This is no longer about party lines. It is about the safety of every American here in the United States.
    My solution to this problem is unique. I suggest we pool resources and put them on a large island somewhere. Ship in food as needed. Make it semi-tropical so that we gain a little bit of time to provide shelter for all of them. Put a regional director in over the entire group and with army troops supervise things so it remains fair to everyone. Confiscate every gun found and put those with guns on a second island far from the first.
    That means keep the dietary restrictions that the majority of these people have against pork and other foods.
    Respect religious freedom. Meaning they choose what they do in regards to religion.
    Do not abide by any restrictions whatsoever regarding Christians.
    If someone chooses of their own free will to become a Christian there are to be no reprisals. That is what freedom means.
    It is the baggage we bring to the table with us.
    Freedom is not an issue to get violent with anyone.
    Eventually with good planning, this entire group can prosper. It can become independent of foreign control. Meantime, anyone wishing to get a passport and move here is free to do so as long as they are able to secure a job first.
    I am not a fan of college graduation. I am a fan of teaching trades that people can make a living at. Some professions require much education. Do it over the internet.
    Most trades in the past had apprenticeships. That means at the end of your time you become a journeyman of your trade. It means you can go out into the world with no huge debts to pay off.
    I suggest we look further into that right here in this country.
    We have done a terrible disservice to our own youth.
    So why do we want to import trouble?
    I think it is an insult to every citizen of this country to allow immigration while we cannot feed our own people.

  • jsmith

    What a wonderful thoughtful idea Barry! Let’s bring in thousands of Muslims to this country while we have millions of American’s unemployed and on food stamps. Do you suppose this will put a strain on a bankrupt America? Have we not learned from what’s happening in Europe as a consequence of our foreign policy, which makes things worse than they were in the Middle East?

    • Joan Camara

      Isn’t that the truth? I don’t see anyone else making that point. Where are the jobs for these Koran reading, infidel killing people…when most Americans can’t even find a job, most are on food stamps, etc etc…