Henshaw awoke that morning with a splitting head. He knew this was the day that he would be questioned by Senator Sessions, and would have to acknowledge that the U.S. under Barack Obama’s rule was admitting innumerable people who do not share American values and have no intention of obeying American laws. His head throbbed so badly, he wasn’t even able to comb his hair properly before testifying. But he comforted himself with the fact that the mainstream media would, as always, run interference for the administration and even its lowliest minions.
“No Screening for Radical Views in U.S. Refugee Vetting,” by Brendan Kirby, LifeZette, September 29, 2016 (thanks to Creeping Sharia):
The United States runs the names of potential refugees through terrorism and law enforcement databases and conducts health screenings — but makes no effort to learn whether they harbor extremist views, an administration official acknowledged Wednesday.
Simon Henshaw, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, made the admission during testimony at a Senate hearing on President Obama’s Syrian refugee program.
Republicans on the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and The National Interest have expressed concerns that Obama’s decision to admit more than 10,000 Syrian refugees over the past 12 months and his plan to increase that number in the coming 12 months is reckless in light of the threat posed by Islamic extremism.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who chairs the subcommittee, grilled Henshaw about the procedures for screening refugee applicants. “Do you make any inquiry about practices that we reject in the United States, like female genital mutilation?” he asked. “Do you say, ‘Do you believe in that and when you come to the United States will you comply with the laws of the United States on that kind of question?’”
Henshaw said U.S. officials explain American law and customs but do not inquire about refugees’ political beliefs.
“On all questions, we make it clear to refugees that we’re a nation of laws and that they need to comply with our laws,” he said.
Sessions pointed to a Justice Department report indicating that the United States last year experienced 27 “honor killings,” a practice that wins widespread approval in some Muslim-dominated countries that practice Sharia law.
Henshaw drew a distinction between Muslim refugees and other Muslim immigrants.
“I’m not sure those honor killings took place among the resettled refugee community in the United States,” he said.
Henshaw said the government operates a cultural orientation program and insisted that refugees make a smooth transition to Americanism.
“Senator, I see no evidence to show that refugee communities are bringing these values into the United States,” he said. “I see that they’re becoming good American citizens, members of the military, members of our police … people that have U.S.-American values.”
Sessions noted that the perpetrators of Muslim honor killings come from the same cultural backgrounds as refugees. He also noted that 40 refugees have been charged with terrorism-related crimes in the United States.
“So you’re not perfect in your admission, I have to admit,” Sessions said.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has proposed adding an ideological component to America’s screening procedures to try to weed out people who would be hostile to American values. It is an idea first floated by Trump adviser and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in July.
There is strong evidence that many Muslims hold views that clash with Western norms. In the U.K., police recorded more than 11,000 “honor” crimes between 2010 and 2014. A British think tank counted 18 honor killings in that country from 2010 to 2014.
A 2013 survey sponsored by Pew Research Center fond that 99 percent of Muslims in Afghanistan and 91 percent of Iraqi Muslims favored making Sharia law the official law of their countries. A 2011 Pew survey found that 40 percent of Pakistanis believed it is often or sometimes justified to kill a woman engaged in premarital sex or adultery in order to protect the family’s honor….
Don McKellar says
“Henshaw said U.S. officials explain American law and customs but do not inquire about refugees’ political beliefs.
Banks are offering insane credit card deals if you have great credit. Take advantage of double cash back, a $625 intro bonus, 0% interest until 2018.”
How did this get into the story, Robert?
In any case, what a horrifying story this is. But that’s what happens when you follow the Obama way: any moslem is as good as gold.
Don McKellar says
Ah, I realize you must have cut and paste and it was an ad inserted in there.
Jaladhi says
The whole Islam is radical, so how much screening you are going to do. Based on this all Muslims should be barred from entering the country!
Janeatte says
Do you think they will tell the truth yes I believe in honor killings,this congressman is naive
PRCS says
While I understand your sentiment, Islam is NOT “radical”. It is simply a different belief system–albeit one which is antithetical to the very idea of democracy and is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and the laws which flow from it.
The American public needs to understand—unequivocally–that Islam is not “radical” to its adherents, does not come in “moderate” and “radical” versions, and that compliance with its texts does not constitute “radicalism” or “extremism” and is certainly not a “perversion of the faith”–despite what Muslims and their useful idiots want us to believe.
Here are several questions to ask Muslim “refugees” that should–hopefully–satisfy some of Senator Sessions’ concerns:
Do you believe Qur’an must be complied with if it conflicts with U.S. law?
Qur’an states that Muslims are the best of people and that unbelievers are the vilest of created beings. As a Muslim, do you believe that?
Qur’an commands the amputation of a human being’s hand as punishment for theft.
Where on the planet is that punishment morally acceptable to you?
I’m sure a great many similar questions can be created, with the goal of forcing Muslim refugees into the untenable position of having to publicly blaspheme themselves at the interview.
Yes, I know they would lie–if the questions do not effectively prevent that.
Bob says
And a very good idea, too, Jihadi!
jihad3tracker says
Robert could earn a few extra bucks by reviving the old “hard boiled detective” genre, with a series of novellas. His intro to this no-screening item would make a perfect start for chapter 1.
Custos Custodum says
Agree 100%. Would love to see this become an occasional feature.
Of course, one doesn’t always have a hard-boiled detective name like “Henshaw” to work with, nor his unkempt appearance in the Senate.
kessler says
What a shame. Jeff Sessions can hardly string together a coherent sentence. Imagine the grilling Henshaw would have been subjected to by someone as knowledgable and intelligent as Robert Spencer. Granted, Robert is a rarity, but surely they could have picked someone with more vocabulary confidence and knowledge on the subject. That is was Jeff asking the questions is a missed opportunity in my opinion.
That he picks honor killings and FGM proves that he doesn’t get the bigger picture. What is going to affect more people is the admission of those muslims who will actively work against free speech and equality. Muslims who support Sharia law. So, what should have been asked:
“Were there any checks on whether the immigrants support Sharia law”
And under the arch of Sharia law:
“Were there any checks on whether the immigrants think criticism of their prophet should be criminalised?”
“Were there any checks on whether the immigrants support the criminalisation of homosexuality”
AvantiBev says
Kessler, I think that dead and mutilated women ARE indeed a part of the “bigger picture”.
gravenimage says
Agreed, AvantiBev.
Ciudadano says
I think it was prudent to question about honor killings and FGM because if they don’t question about those commonly accepted wrong practices it is unlikely they are questioning about other religious o political believes.
PRCS says
Senator Sessions knew enough to get his point across (if they can’t read/write in English or their own language they won’t be police officers here next week), but that “certain group” he mentioned has a specific name: Muslims–which he carefully avoided saying; as too many politicians are guilty of doing.
Westman says
Even “normal” Muslim views cause problems. I had a recent conversation with a man who is retired and living in an upscale gated community that has some common facilities. He told me that several Muslim families moved in and demanded exclusive pool time for the Muslimas that was, of course, at a time convenient for them.
I have never understood the Islamic demanding attitude that reminds one of carnival bumper cars. The same person would kiss the ring of potenate and whip a servant in the same hour.
Ciudadano says
I had the same experience in a Hotel. I was with my wife, sister and daughter in the pool when a group of four Muslims, 2 men and 2 women, show up. The women were wearing burkinis or something like that. The two guys got in the pool but the women didn’t want to get in the pool. The Muslimas looked upset. It was an uncomfortable situation but I didn’t understand was going on.
Keys says
Maybe the men insisted they wear the burkinis and the muslimas did not want to.
Ciudadano says
I don’t think so because the Muslim women were directing stern looks at us. They didn’t say hi or smile, as most people who share a facility would do. That was the uncomfortable part. I think they were upset because the Muslim men did get in the pool.
gravenimage says
Westman wrote:
I have never understood the Islamic demanding attitude that reminds one of carnival bumper cars. The same person would kiss the ring of potenate and whip a servant in the same hour.
………………………
This should not surprise, Westman. Most Westerners regard others, generally speaking, as their equals–not so Muslims.
If they are not oppressing others, then they are grovelling at their feet. *Ugh*.
Rob says
Did the ‘gated community’ acquiesce to the request?
If it did it has participated in the slow cultural suicide of the West.
RCCA says
Obama likes to do a lot of things in secret. He probably has a secret deal with Saudi Arabia and the UAE and gets a big fat fee for every Muslim he imports to the US. He might even have a similar secret deal with Iran, and be using an Iranian bank. I know this all sounds farfetched, but is it really that implausible?
Keys says
No, direct deposit in to a Swiss bank account.
Custos Custodum says
Hillary apparently bagged some $2,000 million for the “Clinton Foundation” which is at least publicly known by name.
As president, Barry has much greater scope for bagging bribes. Michelle certainly does not seem like the reticent type where riches are concerned. Where does Barry stash his lucre?
gravenimage says
I doubt Obama would need to paid to further the Muslim agenda–it is one he shares himself.
Custos Custodum says
Agree – Obama does not need any incentive to further the Muslim agenda. However, Obama has been fundraising relentlessly even during his SECOND term because he needs money to secure even more power, particularly after the end of his official term.
Barry will leverage the money in coordination with Soros and others – to pay for more Islam and more totalitarian subversion of Western freedom in the U.S., Canada and Western Europe. (Likely also in South America and even East Asia.)
Actually, even Hillary’s famous and unbounded greed seems primarily aimed at buying more power rather than creature comforts, although, of course, money and power the two have always been closely intertwined.
Scott Rose says
If the United States set about rescuing non-Muslims who are being persecuted in Muslim majority countries, we wouldn’t have enough time and resources to rescue them all, but all of those we did rescue would be thankful to us and would never plan and/or carry out terror attacks against us.
gravenimage says
Yes–this is what we should be doing, instead of importing Mohammedans.
Ciudadano says
So there is no way to tell if America is bringing in bigot Muslims who prosecute and discriminate Christians, want to kill gays, think women are possessions and in general follow Sharia law. Actually according to the news America and other western countries are bringing in that kind of Muslim.
Isn’t it ironical that liberals insist in bringing in immigrants who oppose the same values that liberals supposedly support? feminism, gender equality, religious freedom, conscience freedom, tolerance, secularism, anti sexism …
PRCS says
I’m not so sure leftists support religious freedom for non-Muslims.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Under this scathing grilling by the senator, Mr. Henshaw recalled the lament of his grandmother, the famous jazz-age vocalist:
gravenimage says
A fine singer–and one whose work would be banned if Islam ever gains ascendancy here.
gravenimage says
US does NO screening for “radical” views among refugees
………………..
This would *hardly* catch all potential Jihadists, as it does not allow for Taqiyya–but still, it should be a commonsense first step. That we are not even doing this is suicidal insanity.
Custos Custodum says
A screening program designed with the intelligence and broad knowledge of a Robert Spencer could be surprisingly effective, particularly if reinforced with smart biometrics, linguistic analysis etc. (Not going to happen, of course.)
Countries such as Russia or China routinely capture family connections through visa applications, open-source intelligence collection and other means. Such information can provide a broader picture of an individual in numerous respects including Islamic inclinations.
Damocles Junior says
Regarding screening a vetting of potential refugees to the West, I understand this is carried out by Muslim UN workers mainly in Jordan. Enough said.
somehistory says
Why is it the *refugee* *migrant* is always enlisting in the military or joining the police force? None of them are ditch diggers? None are ever garbage collector? Only those positions where weapons are carried and they are giving orders to others?
Denial, lying by omission, fabricating, making up stuff, grabbing numbers from the air…all are ways to be untruthful…to lie. So much lying for the ugly, filthy, evil beast.
Angemon says
They can’t screen what can’t be screen, can they? Especially when they refuse to acknowledge it exists in the first place.
davej says
The “radical views” we are concerned about are all inside the Koran.
Question for potential immigrant: Do you believe and honor the Koran?
Test: Burn this book in front of us. True Muslims are so superstitious they would not do it, even for deceit purposes – they might be excluded from their heavenly rewards of wine and virgins.
John says
It’s not “Muslim extremism.”
It’s not “Muslim extremists.”
It’s not “Muslim radicals.”
It’s not “radical jihadists.”
It’s not “radical Islam.”
It’s “Islam.”
Pure and simple.
Islam is the problem, and nothing more.
Read the Qur’an. It’s a hate-filled document.
A hate-filled political ideology masquerading as a religion.
davej says
Exactly.
The most dangerous ideology since the Nazis.
Will we fight or will we fold?
linnte says
I wonder if a lie detector test would distinguish taqqiya from truth if used. Are they so good at lying that it would be undetectable if asked a straight forward question? Like, do you believe in honor killings. Mostly yes or no questions. Why don’t they employ this test? I don’t get it. It’s an easy thing to do.
More Ham Ed says
Screening test: (pick one)
– eat this fresh hot ham & swiss sandwich in two minutes or less.
– hold this dog in your lap for 15 minutes.
– memorize 12 New Testament bible verses.
That would filter out 98% of the unholy ko ‘ran readers.
duh swami says
Is there any verse in Quran that you can ignore or disobey? If so, which ones are they? How do you plan to explain this to Allah when the tine comes?
mark says
Since allah admites he is satan in the quran, also that (cant remember if its quran or hadith), that satan is muslim and all the ways allah in his own quran proves he is exactly the same as satan, even to using lusts of the flesh as rewards etc. That allah in the very same quran proves he is not the creator, is very far from all knowing, has no actual mercy etc etc….who cares what satan thinks.
You need to understand that on judgement day, muslims will not be facing their false god satan, they will be facing the real God.
Lioness says
I don’t believe that “screening” will accomplish much. War is deceit, and muslims will lie through their teeth and say anything we want to hear them say to get in. Remember the 9/11 terrorists that trained at the flight school, they pretended to be “western” by drinking alcohol and mingling with infidels. Jihadis will go to great length to disguise their true feelings, they will be coached on what to say and say it well. Our foolish and gullible authorities will believe them. No! The only way to ensure that no jihadis will slip through is to not let muslims in. The true refugees are Christians, Yazidis and other persecuted minorities, and these don’t need much screening.
patriotliz says
You can take the Muslim out of the Muslim country, but you can’t take the Muslim culture out of the Muslim.
mark says
If you, like me, get tired of hearing the moderate muslim game/comments…
Point out to them that all, REPEAT ALL muslims prove they are at war with us
ALL MUSLIMS PRACTICE AL TAQIYYA, KITMAN ETC.
Ex-FSO says
henshaw is a typical state officer. One can’t work with him and not come away feeling slimed. Sadly he is typical of most of the officials at the top at State. The selection process always seeks the most degenerate of the crop at Foggy Bottom.