Share This Article with a Friend!


Paul Ryan’s Hijra

Hijra, or jihad by emigration, is a fundamental tenet of Islam hearkening back to the earliest days of Mohammed’s war to establish hegemony over the cities of southwest Arabia. The most notable Hijra was the flight of Mohammed from Mecca to the largely Jewish city of Yathrib, now the completely Muslim city of Medina. 

While the story of how Yathrib came to be Medina is too long to recount here, suffice it to say that by fleeing the city of Mecca, where they appeared to be in danger of being eliminated, and appearing at Yathrib as refugees, Mohammed and his small band of adherents were able to reform the Arab Muslim clans, gain new Muslim terrorismadherents and replace the population and leadership of Yathrib with the Muslims who became the army necessary to reclaim Mecca and eventually spread Islam throughout the world. 

Sound familiar? 

It should, because on Monday the State Department admitted 225 Syrian Muslim “refugees”, setting a single-day record, and on Tuesday a further 80 were admitted. 

As our friend Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times put it, "the spike is stunning, with more people accepted Monday alone than in the entire months of January or February.” 

As Dinen noted, Obama has promised to accept 10,000 refugees from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. As of Tuesday evening, the administration had approved 2,540 — an average of about 10 applications a day. 

Less than 1 percent of these “refugees” are Christians, whose oppression is well documented, according to Dinen 97 percent are Sunni Muslims, the same Sunni Muslim who form the Taliban, al Qaeda and the Islamic State. 

Obama claims that these “refugees” can be properly investigated and those with terrorist or radical associations can be screened out, but this has proven to be at best wishful thinking and at worst an outright lie of the same sort that Obama and his appointees have been caught in time and time again. 

More to the point, Senators Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions last year identified over 70 immigrants from Muslim majority countries that had been arrested for terrorism-related offenses.  

And in January, Iraqi-born Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, who was living in Syria when he was admitted as a refugee in 2012 was arrested on terrorism charges – and he’s not among the 75 identified by Cruz and Sessions, having been arrested after they issued their report.  

But in a bit of hairsplitting that only a “it depends on the meaning is” Democrat could do, the State Department counts Younis Al-Jayab as part of its Iraqi refugee program, not the Syrian refugee program. 

In a rational world this dangerous piece of Obama’s plan to fundamentally transform America by importing jihad into our country would be stopped cold by a Republican majority in Congress. 

But this is not a rational world, this is a world run by the personal whim of arrogant Washington insiders, chief among them being Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. 

Ryan has made increasing Muslim immigration to America his special project and has steadfastly fought any attempts by conservatives to slow or stop what a large majority of American believe is an existential threat to constitutional liberty. 

Ryan, as many conservatives demanded, could have included a defund in the must-pass Omnibus that would have effectively ended or temporarily halted the program. 

Instead, Ryan wrongly claimed that restricting Muslim immigration to America was “unconstitutional” and offered up a show vote on a standalone bill to address conservative concerns. 

Ryan’s cynical ploy to keep funds flowing to the Syrian refugee threat was reminiscent of the ploy used by his mentor, former Speaker John Boehner, to keep the funds flowing to Obama’s “executive amnesty” for illegal aliens program.   

In each case a standalone bill that would fix the problem was promised to divert conservatives from trying to force Republican leaders to include a defund provision in the must-pass year-end Omnibus.  

And in each case the legislation duly passed the House only to predictably fall apart in the Senate when Democrats united to defend Obama’s dangerous immigration policies. 

Vetting Syrian immigrants is even tougher than vetting Iraqis, security experts told Dinan, because at least in Iraq, the U.S. has a partnership with the government, has personnel on the ground and access to databases to review backgrounds.   

In Syria, as last year’s defund debate made clear, the U.S. lacks all of those tools, meaning it may have to make judgments based on partial information, phony information or no information at all.  

But Speaker Ryan knew all of that before he refused to include defunding Obama’s plan to bring jihad to America in the Omnibus. Speaker Ryan knew the Senate was never going to take up, let alone pass, the bill to force Obama to tighten security investigations of Muslim refugees, but rather than fulfill his oath to protect and defend the Constitution by defunding the program in the Omnibus he sided with Obama and gave him the money to bring 300,000 more existential threats to constitutional liberty to America.  

If you want to end Paul Ryan’s arrogant partnership with Barack Obama to bring jihad to America there’s now an alternative to Paul Ryan in Wisconsin’s First District – limited government constitutional conservative Paul Nehlen. To learn more about Paul Nehlen and his #DumpRyan campaign click this link to paulnehlen.com.

George Rasley is editor of Richard Viguerie's ConservativeHQ.com. A veteran of over 300 political campaigns, he served on the staff of Vice President Dan Quayle and as spokesman for now-Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Mac Thornberry. He has served as a staffmember or consultant to some of America’s most recognized conservative political figures. He is a member of American MENSA and studied international relations at Worcester College, Oxford. Rasley has studied Islamic culture for 40 years, lived and worked in a Muslim majority country, and traveled extensively in the Islamic world.

Share this

Speaker Ryan

Unfortunately, generally speaking, Paul Ryan is correct about the unconstitutionality of disallowing a person who is a refugee to come to the US simply on the basis of their religion.
HOWEVER, America doesn't have the education anymore to argue the case against allowing Muslims to come here where we live under (supposedly) the Constitution. Since our government controls a lot of what is indoctrinated into the kids, they only believe what they are told at school. The rest listen to the government-controlled press/media. So it is now in our free but uneducated country.
Islam itself is diametrically opposed to the very idea of freedom.
Jihad (which takes MANY forms) is REQUIRED of the Muslim.
Check out for yourself whether Islam allows its followers to believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...towards non-muslims, towards Muslim women, towards Muslims who convert to ANY other religion. Do the Muslims allow freedom of speech, or religion? In almost EVERY country with a Muslim majority/Muslim government, it is a CRIME to hold any other beliefs.
Folks, I could go on, but we have to fight this battle with truth and reason. We must help others to see Islam cannot peacefully coexist with our Constitutional Rights. Go take a free class on the Constitution . Understand it. Then begin to research Islam's basic beliefs and history. Or check out a book that can help you like The Center for Security Policy 's "Shariah: The Threat to America."
You wouldn't believe what an underground network is already here. We must educate ourselves and others. Before our Constitution becomes an irrelevant fragment of our nation's history.

Ryan is wrong!

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” This is what James Madison,the acknowledged father of our Constitution, wrote disapprovingly in 1794 of a $15,000 appropriation for French refugees. "This vision was restated even more forcefully on the floor of the House of Representatives two years later by William Giles of Virginia, who condemned a relief measure for fire victims. Giles insisted that it was neither the purpose nor the right of Congress to “attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require.” In 1854 President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill championed by the renowned nineteenth-century social reformer Dorothea Dix. In the face of scathing criticism, President Pierce said, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” To approve such spending, he added, “would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.” President Grover Cleveland was the king of the veto. He vetoed literally hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His reason, as he often said: “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” Many Americans erroneously believe that the Constitution’s “general welfare” clause serves as justification for congressional spending on anything that can muster a majority vote. That surely wasn’t the vision of the Framers. In 1798 Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” “Specifically enumerated” referred to the listing of congressional powers found in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. James Madison elaborated on this limitation in a letter to James Robertson: “[W]ith respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” It’s tempting to blame politicians for the trashing of the Constitution, but politicians don’t bear anywhere near the bulk of the blame; it’s the American people who are at fault. Politicians are elected to office on the promise that they will deliver to one group of Americans the earnings that belong to another group of Americans or that they will confer a special privilege on one group that will be denied another. A politician who disavows this practice will not be elected, or if elected he will be run out of office. The late Alabama governor George Wallace once said, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.” Both Republicans and Democrats agree on taking our money. Where they differ is what to spend it on. REFERENCE: How Did We Get Here? When Legalized Theft Becomes Routine, It Pays for Everyone to Participate July 6, 2010 Water E. Williams http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/how-did-we-get-here#ixzz2lTDabkLE We know the goal of the Democrat Party is to destroy America in every way possible however, the RINO/GOP leadership/followers of the soon to be defunct Republican Party are close behind. "In America, we have a two-party system," a Republican congressional staffer is supposed to have told a visiting group of Russian legislators some years ago. "There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party." [Frank's note: Our USELESS government (federal, state, county and local) is liken to a gigantic drug cartel and their drug of choice is our federal tax dollars being used for purposes other than the original intent of our Founding Fathers and that was limited to what was outlined in our Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-17! ]

Respectfully, you are wrong about banning Muslim immigration

Foreigners outside the territory of the United States have no constitutional rights, especially a right to emigrate to America. Congress has exclusive and unrestrained power to set any immigration criteria it chooses under Article I of the Constitution.

Please see our article "We Can – And Should – Ban Most Muslim Immigration To America" http://www.conservativehq.com/article/21664-we-can-%E2%80%93-and-should-...

And our friend attorney Andrew J. McCarthy's more extensive legal analysis for National Review, “Refugee ‘Religious Test’ Is ‘Shameful’ and ‘Not American’ … Except that Federal Law Requires It,” http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427262/refugee-religious-test-shame...

Ryan, the leader of the house sellout

To refer to Ryan is to refer to a rat or traitor. He is running this year against a conservative and I sincerely hope the people of his state are as fed up with him as we in AZ are with McCain, our second of two resident rinos. This year McCain is going to be replaced by K Ward in AZ. When Flake runs, he too will face a conservative challenger. Go Ward and hopefully good bye Rat Ryan this year. These power controlling resident rinos need to be removed from office at every opportunity. Vote em out, turn em over.

RINO

No one will convince the real R conservative that Ryan is deserved of being in the house leadership position, his referral by Boner to gain this position is another RINO show of incompetence....If trump becomes the nominee, Ryan is a man without a job and it's clear as to why...his stumbling, bumbling thinking to stall and let B'Ob the Hoax complete more fraud and trouble is his only noticeable trait...he may go over to the DN-communist party when he steps down....

Speaker Paul Ryan

It's time for you to resign. You are definitely against fulfilling your constitutional duties which are to protect the US citizens from known menaces. It's time for you to resign as the former Speaker did for ignoring the dictates of the electorate. You will be defeated. You will leave as Boehner left...in disgrace. Cathryne Stone.

immigration

What is it with American politicians who believe it is their duty to represent the foreigner over the American citizens.
*
We hear all the time we are all immigrants that this is an immigrant nation. I for one would like to inform paul ryan and all the other one world government types that I am not an immigrant, my ancestors may have been immigrants that does not make me an immigrant. Even the original so called American Indians were immigrants traveling across the Bearing Straights that was once a land bridge but they do not believe themselves to be immigrants today, so neither do I.
*
That is as much saying that American citizens has no special meaning or gives you any more rights than any foreigner anywhere in the world who wants to come to this sovereign nation. They believe that as American citizens we have to compete with foreigners for the rights supposedly guaranteed to us and our posterity under the Constitution of the United States of America.
*
I would like paul ryan or anyone else to point to any other country in the world that is not truly an immigrant nation. From the beginning of mankind the movement of people from one location to another was how the world became populated. One group moved into an area and another group moved in and the struggle for power and land took place. During these struggles people joined together to create towns, states and then countries over the centuries.
*
If we the American citizens do not understand what these people like paul ryan, g h w bush and sons, obama, clinton's and others want and attempting to do we will lose all meaning of American citizenship and the rights that we believe is ours alone.
*
It is better to stop immigration especially this refugee program and insure that these people can stay in their own countries. Perhaps it is time to restructure the middle east from the borders created after WWI where the European nations formed countries without regard to their own religious connections. Their governing bodies are predicated on their religion so it was a bad idea to create countries where the inhabitants do not accept one another.
*
paul ryan should be forced out of the speakership position. He like boehner is not listening to the American citizens.