How will we vet the more than ten thousand additional Syrian refugees that Barack Obama has decreed that we take in? Simple - we won't. Hell, when have we ever under this White House? And Homeland Security Commissar Jeh Johnson isn't bothering to conceal it:
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is developing a plan right now for taking in at least ten thousand Syrian refugees over the next year, within existing budget constraints, Secretary Jeh Johnson told Reuters on Tuesday.
While some lawmakers have expressed concern about opening a pipeline into the United States for terrorists, the White House last week made the first specific U.S. commitment to increase acceptance of refugees from the war-torn country.
Johnson said on Tuesday that the security review and background checks for refugees would mainly fall to Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) within his agency. That unit’s budget is mostly derived from fees it collects, said Johnson, who spoke to Reuters after a swearing-in ceremony for new citizens in San Francisco.
“CIS does not depend upon, and cannot expect, appropriations from Congress,” Johnson said. “The organization has to pay for itself.”
My memory may not be eidetic, but I'm pretty sure that refugees don't have the wherewithall to pay such fees. Which means there's no way to pay for the vetting of what may well be an entire Islamic State division not having to storm our shores, but simply walk right in on the proverbial red carpet. But don't worry, Commissar Johnson already planted the seed for blaming the GOP when the imported jihadists are wreaking havoc from sea to bloody sea.
The White House itself is just as nonchalantly devil-may-care:
White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday that the administration for the moment does not see the need to seek additional funding to process refugees.
“There certainly is the potential for that in the future, but as of right now, that’s not necessary,” Earnest said.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. Trust us, the same people who thought a single speech in Cairo six years ago would "fix" the Middle East and make the Islamic world fall in love with us, who thought that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and the entire region would solve all the "problems" O's predecessor had "created" with his "cowboy warmongering," etc., and who drew "red lines" in Syria that he never had any intention of enforcing, leading to a huge, credibility-destroying national embarrassment two years ago. One that opened the door for Vladimir Putin to establish a formal military beachhead in the Middle East.
A week and a half ago, the Obama Regime was pretending to issue "warnings" to the Russians about this provocation. Now the official party line is that Czar Vlad's Syrian incursion is his Waterloo or something because, as John Kerry has droned on before in the context of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, "this isn't the eighteenth century::
Russia's military deployment in Syria to back Bashar al-Assad "is not a winning strategy," America's ambassador to the United Nations said Monday.
How so, Sam? Is your panzy-ass boss going to make sure it's "not a winning strategy"? Because otherwise it looks like a supremely "winning strategy" to me.
Or could the ironically surnamed Ambassador "Power" be thinking and speaking in a public relations context?
"Doubling down on a regime that gases its people....
Which, in reality, ISIS did and framed Assad for it in order to dupe Obama into serving as their air force, but I digress.
....that barrel bombs its people, that tortures people who it arrests simply for protesting and for claiming their rights - that's just not going to work," Samantha Power told CNN's Christiane Amanpour.
How's it not "working" so far? Looks to me like it's working fabulously, or Assad wouldn't keeping doing it. And now he's got the Russian army present to both back him up and grind down ISIS from the west while we pretend to pinprick them from the south. I'll say it again: Given that Obama and Putin are both now allies of the Islamic Empire of Iran, and purported foes of the Islamic State, doesn't that put Russia and the U.S. on the same side in Syria? So about what is Samantha Power and the POTUS she represents fussing? Heck, I'd think they'd be overjoyed that they've got one more cannon-fodder sucker to do all their fighting for them.
Just remember, ladies and gentlemen: It's only baffling if you stubbornly insist that it's supposed to make sense. Once you free yourselves of that misapprehension, all the puzzle pieces fall into place.
Each with a large "BANG!".