Monday, November 16, 2015

Paris Terrorists Came As "Refugees"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Personal documents found on two of the terrorists show they came as Syrian "refugees"---one only 30 days ago.

The Director of the FBI has said they cannot properly vet the refugees---The United Nations will be making the decision which refugees will be placed in America, not our own government. This will result in mostly Muslim, not Christian refugees.

There are 190 US cities that are slated to receive Syrian refugees at this time.

Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-NC), also a GOP presidential candidate, have introduced legislation to bring in "more" not fewer refugees.

The president of the European Commission says there is no need to review the refugee policy even in light of the Paris attacks. It's adequate.

What about state's rights if states should change their mind and decide to not receive refugees?

Is opening the borders to a massive influx of unknown, un-vetted Muslim refugees the biblical thing to do?


The New York Times reports that 3 brothers who generally organized the terrorist attacks on Paris lived in Belgium; one of them is dead, one in custody and they are looking for the third brother.

However, documents found on 2 of 10 terrorists working with the brothers who helped carried out the terrorist attacks show they came to France as Syrian "refugees"--recently.

Greek police have confirmed that at least 2, perhaps more, came through Greece as refugees.

The Greek Prime Minister said last night, "It is our duty to dismantle and directly isolate the terrorists."

However, he reflected that we also must find a solution for the people fleeing their homes and terrorism.

Many share his concerns---and his uncertainty.

Presidential candidates Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz have been strongly advocating that America not bring in masses of un-vetted refugees, suggesting a "safe zone" closer to their ancestral homes would serve them and the US in a more effective way.

Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Lindsay Graham have advocated that we have a moral obligation to bring them into the US, even though we don't actually know who they are.

Sens Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) have introduced legislation that would cause the US to bring in more, not fewer refugees.

While President Obama strongly condemns the terrorism in Paris, he remains resolute in bringing up to 100,000 un-vetted refugees into the United States over the next few months.

This is a list of the 190 cities that are scheduled to receive Syrian refugees.

Several agencies in several Washington state towns and cities will be receiving refugees. Same in Oregon, Idaho and other states across the country.

Two very important issues are emerging from this resettlement program.

Is it, as presently scheduled, biblical as the religious left insist?

Is this what Jesus spoke of in the gospels?

And it also raises a state's rights issue. Some states that had initially agreed to receive refugees, have now, in light of the Paris massacre, decided to not proceed as planned. Can the government force them to do it anyway?

States Rights.

In the aftermath of the massacre in Paris, some Governors are taking a second, and closer look at the ramifications of the refugee program.

Michigan's Republican Governor Rick Snyder is an example. Last night he announced he is "halting efforts to accept refugees until federal officials fully review security clearances and procedures."

Snyder has said his decision to receive refugees was motivated by "both a sense of moral obligation and a sense that the refugees could help in the state's job and population loss." In fact he had been in discussion as to how the state could receive more, not less, than originally agreed to.

The issue is already being raised in relation to Michigan and elsewhere: Does the government now have the right to impose the refugees into the state regardless of what state leadership wants? Even if they change their mind?

Given the potential peril of the issue, should citizens in the states have a right to vote on whether they will or will not receive refugees?

These are questions being asked.

In Twin Falls, Idaho hundreds of Syrian refugees are scheduled to arrive over the next few months.

Many residents now have growing concern, particularly in light of this weekend's massacre in Paris.

In addition to the fear factor, some in Idaho Falls are concerned as to how this will negatively affect the public schools, as the refugee children are integrated immediately.

The religious left is demanding we essentially open our borders, much like Chancellor Merkel did in Germany.

In Michigan, Michael Mitchell, a vice president of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, says, "The government has a 13 step process to ensure security before they are admitted."

However, the Director of the FBI has said in the past few days there are "gaps" in the agency's ability to vet refugees---he told a Congressional hearing we do not know who all will be coming into our country.

And is this refugee program based on biblical teaching?

Mitchell says cutting admissions "is only feeding into what the attackers want."

Many evangelical leaders, however, are concerned that biblical principles concerning statehood, national sovereignty and borders are central to biblical teaching and must be observed.

This refugee program, while appearing compassionate and even biblical, is not biblical.

Whether Christians should show compassion and help those in need is not the heart of this dilemma. There is no question Christians should always help the poor, the downtrodden and the needy. Jesus Himself taught that. We must obey that teaching.

The question, in this case, is how should that compassion be administered? Not whether it should be administered.

The Bible is clear, very clear that borders are part of God's plan for civilizations. What risks God's plan for national sovereignty, cannot be God's way of addressing this issue.

God, in His Word, places a high priority on wisdom. In fact Scripture instructs us to seek it.

Earlier this year Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee wrote President Obama warning that the Syrian refugee program could be a 'back door' for jihadists to enter the US.

In the letter he told the President:

“Terrorists have made known their plans to attempt to exploit refugee programs to sneak terrorists into the West and the U.S. homeland,” read a statement released by McCaul’s committee Monday. “Chairman McCaul’s letter points out the potential national security threat this poses to the United States.” "In fact," he wrote "it is already happening."

Prophetic.

President Obama doubled down.

His latest letter to Obama states:

In his letter, written months ago, he urges the president to reconsider due to the cost---more than $1 billion initially, the vulnerability of terror attacks perpetrated by some of the un-vetted refugees, and finally on moral terms, stating that the Bible does not call us to ignorance, but to wisdom in fulfilling our mission to help those in need.

Agreed.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful.

4 comments:

  1. So I guess diversity doesn't always make us stronger does it? Apparently not, then.
    It isn't diversity that makes a nation strong. It's the Bible believed and acted on by it's people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I hope all these lives lost count for something. Let's get real about border security, and return to some common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As Dr. Michael Brown said today on his Line Of Fire radio broadcast, "It's true that most Muslims are not terrorists. It's also true that most terrorists are Muslims."

    ReplyDelete
  4. In case any of us are wondering.....No these are not good guys fighting the war against breast cancer.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.