Hillsdale Imprimis: National Security and Intelligence Agencies Facts

Hillsdale Imprimis: 

National Security and Intelligence Agencies Facts

How Intelligence Works (When it Does)

Herbert E. Meyer
Founder and President, Storm King Press

Herbert E. Meyer, founder and president of Storm King Press, served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council. A recipient of the U.S. National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, his articles and essays on intelligence have been published in several major newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal. He is the author of several books, including Real-World Intelligence and Hard Thinking; two eBooks, How to Analyze Information and The Cure for Poverty; and a recent booklet, Why is the World So Dangerous.

Why Today’s Agencies are Not Trusted

So why has our intelligence service suffered so many failures during the last decade or so, losing the trust of so many? Because it’s been run by career bureaucrats and administrators who rose to the top by managing intelligence rather than actually doing it. That’s like putting an airline executive with an MBA and a law degree into the cockpit of a jumbo jet.

And like bureaucrats and administrators everywhere, our recent intelligence chiefs focused on structure rather than on people. Of course all organizations, including intelligence services, need the proper structure. But especially in an intelligence service, good structure is worthless without the right people—in this case world-class analysts who are deeply knowledgeable about the Mideast, China, Russia, terrorism, and all the rest.

Make a list of our country’s leading experts on these subjects. How many of them have held top-level jobs in our intelligence service during the last dozen or so years? How often have the leaders of our intelligence service reached out to these people to seek their advice? The correct answers are: none and rarely.

Coats, Pompeo Careers Built on Substance

We are still in the early days of the Trump administration, but to borrow an overused Washington cliché, we should be cautiously optimistic about the future of our intelligence service. Neither Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats nor Director of Central Intelligence Mike Pompeo are professional bureaucrats. They’ve built their careers on substance rather than on management. Each of them has proven he can talk about the key issues that confront us with an impressive level of personal knowledge and insight. Each is capable of actually doing intelligence rather than merely overseeing it.

Intelligence Collectors Need Guidance on What to Look For

This will require restoring the correct balance between collection and analysis. Obviously, collecting information is crucially important work. Collecting information through technology—satellites, intercepts, and so forth—is intense to the point of exhaustion. Collecting information through espionage is dangerous and sometimes fatal. All of us owe these collectors a huge debt of gratitude. What they need now is guidance from the top—a clear sense of what to look for, rather than just being told to sweep in whatever information they can in hopes it will prove useful.

Turning this raw material into first-rate intelligence will require the active participation of our country’s best geo-strategic experts in think tanks, universities, corporations, and increasingly the blogosphere. Directors Coats and Pompeo should recruit the ones they can, and be in close touch with the others. This doesn’t mean agreeing with everything these experts say and write. It means listening to them and blending their information and insights with what’s been gathered covertly, in order to reach the clearest, most accurate conclusions about what’s happening now and what’s likely to happen in the future.

Think

Finally, Coats and Pompeo will need to do the one thing their recent predecessors didn’t do, either because they didn’t recognize the need to do it or didn’t have the ability. They will need to set aside time—quite a bit of time—to sit quietly in their offices and think. Their objective must be to paint an accurate picture of what’s going on in the world and of what’s likely to happen in the future. If they can do this, President Trump and his national security team will have what they need to see America safely through today’s global turbulence: radar.

Reagan’s Intelligence Analysts

This is how it was during the Reagan administration, because ev­eryone from the President on down knew perfectly well that the intelligence official who not only had read the final version of an Estimate and signed off on it—but also played a major role in writing it—was the CIA director himself. Like every other member of the cabinet, Bill Casey was a busy man. But to Casey, being in charge of our intelligence service meant more than merely being its top administrator and dealing with budgets and bureaucracies. It meant that he himself was our country’s top intelligence analyst. When the final draft of an Estimate landed on his desk—more precisely, when I walked into his office and handed it to him—Casey would take that draft, pick up a pen and a yellow legal pad, and go through it word by word.

Sometimes he made a change that clarified a sentence. Other times he asked a question that forced us to go back and re-think what we’d written. When that happened, we either changed the draft or asked to meet with Casey to try and persuade him that the original version was better. He would listen and then make his decision. All of us who worked closely with Bill Casey—he insisted that everyone, including the CIA’s most junior analysts, call him Bill—were astounded by the amount of time he devoted to getting the final draft of an Estimate, or the final version of the President’s Daily Brief, just right. He did this by sitting quietly in his office, reading, writing, and—something that so few officials in Washington, D.C. set aside the time to do—thinking.

 

Read Full Article Here

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/how-intelligence-works-when-it-does/

Moral Support: Religious Freedom supported, Defund Planned Parenthood, Trump Immigration Policy, Economic policy vindicated

Moral Support:

Religious Freedom supported, Defund Planned Parenthood, Trump Immigration Policy, Economic policy vindicated

Dogs bark, but the wagons roll on. ~Louis L’Amour

 

Religious Freedom and Traditional Family; Defund Planned Parenthood

VP Pence Breaks Senate Tie over Planned Parenthood State Funding Mandate

by Dr. Susan Berry

Justice Dept. Drops Pro-Transgender Lawsuit

by Neil Munro

Good Friday: Trump Appoints Religious Liberty Defender to Head HHS Office for Civil Rights

by Dr. Susan Berry

Feds Promise to Protect Half a Million American Girls from Genital Mutilation

The Department of Justice is committed to stopping female genital mutilation in this country, and will use the full power of the law to ensure that no girls suffer such physical and emotional abuse,” the acting Assistant Attorney General of the justice department’s criminal division, Kenneth Blanco, said April 13.

POTUS Signs Repeal of Obama Planned Parenthood State Funding Mandate

Ancestry.com helps family of dead boy find man posing as him

 

Trump Immigration Policy Vindicated

Lansing, Michigan, Will No Longer Declare Itself a ‘Sanctuary City’

by Katherine Rodriguez

Most Americans, especially minorities, say no to sanctuary cities

Poll: Only 1 in 3 wants own community to protect illegals

http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/most-americans-especially-minorities-say-no-to-sanctuary-cities/

Ann Corcoran: Trump Effect: More Central American migrants want asylum in Mexico, not moving on to US

And, that is how asylum is supposed to work.

Anyone who meets the legal definition of a refugee*** is supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach—

National Security

 

Donald Trump and Israel PM Netanyahu

Bibi Welcomes New U.S. Amb. — ‘to Jerusalem’

 

Foreign Policy: Trump Has a Strategy for Destroying Islamic State – and It’s Working

 

Trump Economic Policy, Drain the Swamp

Trump Admin Releases ‘Drain the Swamp’ Guidance

Ben Garrison

Trump Halts U.S. Funding of UN Population Fund

Trade Deficit Falls by 10% as U.S. Factories Benefit from Economic Stability

Shock Berkeley Poll: California Voters Want DemS to Work with Trump

EPA Chief Pruitt Calls for ‘Exit’ from Paris Climate Agreement

 

Heritage Foundation Report: President Trump and Syria Attack

Heritage Foundation Report:

President Trump and Syria Attack

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for another great cartoon

 

Trump’s powerful message to the world.

The focused and punitive strike in Syria last week sent a powerful message to the world that Bashar Assad’s behavior was unacceptable. It’s clear there is now a decisive leader in the White House. But this message alone is not a solution to the Syrian civil war. Russia and Iran must stop enabling Assad’s brutality. The main focus of U.S. operations must remain the defeat of ISIS and helping Iraq stabilize and secure its borders.

James Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at Heritage, says the Trump administration “should remain focused on the key problem at hand—Assad’s chemical weapons threat—and not seek to expand the military mission to include regime change. That kind of mission creep would bog down U.S. military forces in Syria for years, fighting not only the Assad regime, but Hezbollah, Iran, and possibly Russia. Regime change is a bridge too far.” Read more from Phillips on the recent strike and his report on how to improve U.S.-Syria policy.

Teach your family the Key to Survival in a Difficult World

Critical Thinking: Defining Church and State

Critical Thinking:

Defining Church and State

C.A. Davidson

    TODAY IN OUR SOCIETY, WE HAVE PEOPLE LITERALLY GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION, because many of us do not understand the line of demarcation between church and state.

Let’s take a closer look at our topic in the First Amendment of the Constitution:

church-state3-first-amendmtCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …

I hope by the time we conclude here that you will understand more precisely what “establishment of religion” means. In 1963, the Supreme Court established the religion of atheism by banning the Bible. Congress didn’t even make that law—the Supreme Court did. How unconstitutional is that?

Today, Congress has not made laws establishing a religion, in this case Islam. Political Correctness, with the help of Barack Obama, has done that. How unconstitutional is that?

Only Congress can make laws. Congressman Trey Gowdy explains:

We make law and while you are free to stand and clap when any president comes into this hallowed chamber and promises to do it with or without you. I will never stand and clap when ANY president no matter whether it’s your president or mine, promises to make us a constitutional anomaly and an afterthought. WE MAKE LAW. 

Church Laws

Most Christian church laws deal with the moral standing of an individual. They can exile or excommunicate a member of their faith for moral transgression, which is violation of a moral law.

U.S. Laws

church-state2-madison-quote          U.S . laws are based on the biblical Ten Commandments. The Constitution guarantees protection of innocent life and property. Therefore, if a member of any religion in the United States steals or commits murder, that member must be tried and punishable by a civil court, because the person has infringed upon another’s liberties and is a threat to society. Most holy writ condemns murder. The religious books of some countries justify murder in the name of their religion. Murder is still against the law in the United States, and is not justified or protected by freedom of religion.

Jefferson and Madison were anxious that the individual states provide for equality among all religions, in order to encourage a moral fiber in society.

Before the Civil War, some states were persecuting certain religions and favoring others, even though the First Amendment of the Constitution spells out the right to freedom for all religions. After the Civil War, amendments were established so that the states could not overrule the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Now, First Amendment rights are guaranteed on a national level to all American citizens, no matter what state they reside in.

Dallin H. Oaks, legal scholar and Christian leader, clarifies:

Jefferson’s “wall” was obviously intended only for the federal government, and the Supreme Court application of the metaphor to the states has come under severe criticism. (Dallin Oaks, 1963: The Wall Between Church and State, pp.2-3)

church-state1-reagan-quote          Under the United States Constitution,  we have freedom of religion, and anyone can worship whom, where, or what they choose, or not worship anything, if they so choose—as long as their religious opinions don’t cause them to infringe upon the liberties of others. The Constitution is the charter for a civil government, not a religious government, but it requires that the government protect our God-given rights of life, liberty, and property.

Sharia Law, on the other hand, is administered by the Islamic State, in which religion and state are inseparable. Sharia Law is diametrically opposed to the Constitutional rights of life, liberty, and property, and denies First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, and press as well. Sharia Law allows killing, stealing, and enslavement in the name of their man-made religion.

Should Church Doctrine determine National Policy?

Christians believe in being kind to the wayfaring stranger. The motives are pure, Christ-like love. Does this mean that governments should apply this doctrine on a national scale, and dispense with the vetting process for immigrants?

ImmigrationInvasionOfAmericaThe motives of Islamists, on the other hand, are to use immigration as an invasion tactic, to conquer the target nation, with no intention of assimilating into our Judeo-Christian culture and respecting our values. Obviously, for national security reasons, America can’t assume that the motives of all immigrants are pure, especially when those immigrants hold to religious doctrines that are inimical to the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which our nation is founded.

(See Constitution OK with Immigration Tests on Religion

Ed Vitagliano, of the American Family Association, provides some important insights into this issue:

welfare-government-charity-madisonHere is the principle: Biblically speaking, the government is not the same as the individual Christian, and it is not the same as the church. Therefore, believers must be careful not to apply to government Scriptures intended for the church.

For example, Jesus said, “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Matthew 6:14).

So, we must conclude that individual Christians are to forgive their enemies. But must we also conclude that governments should forgive their enemies? Must we demand that criminals convicted of crimes be released and not sent to prison?

The application of this principle is that individual Christians should help refugees who are in our nation. But the issue of who we allow in – and how many – is not a biblical matter. It is a political matter. (Please see this related post for additional important information:

Culture Wars: Church and State Issues and Illegal Immigration

 

            You decide: The line of demarcation between Church and State     

Here are some other examples. Use critical thinking to determine whether these cases deserve the protection  of freedom of religion, or whether they violate unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property,  threatening public safety, thereby being subject to prosecution and punishment by civil law.

Child Sacrifice

moloch_the_god1) In ancient times, some people worshipped a god named Moloch. These worshippers practiced human sacrifice, throwing their babies into a fiery furnace in the belly of the statue of  Moloch.

  • Should those worshipers have been granted license to destroy innocent life because it was a religious ritual for them?

Slavery and Slave Trade

2) In a bizarre digression from their latest anti-Christian tirade, the Islamic State addressed the question of black slavery, claiming that if Muslims had been in charge of Western states, the slave trade would have continued.

If Muslims rather than Christians had been running things in countries like the U.S., the Islamic State argues in the most recent issue of its propaganda magazine Dabiq, “the lucrative African slave trade would have continued, supporting a strong economy.”

As usual, the Islamic State supports its position with theological arguments, suggesting that Allah is pleased with slavery, as long as the slaves are infidels.

slave-trade-ISIS“Trading in black African slaves, the [Islamic] magazine notes, would not be done for racial reasons but religious ones.

(Thomas D. Williams, PhD. ‘Lucrative African Slave Trade Would Have Continued’ Breitbart.com)

  • Should Islamists be allowed to traffic in slavery and protected by freedom of religion because they do it for “religious reasons?”

Murder

3) Jihad is not a product of extremist fringes; it is a core religious doctrine of Islam today found in their Koran. Jihad requires that Islamists kill or enslave innocent people—anyone who does not convert to their religion.

MuslimWarriorTrading in black African slaves, the magazine [Dabiq] notes, would not be done for racial reasons but religious ones.

“All of this would be done, not for racism, nationalism, or political lies, but to make the word of Allah supreme. Jihad is the ultimate show of one’s love for his Creator, facing the clashing of swords and buzzing of bullets on the battlefield, seeking to slaughter his enemies – whom he hates for Allah’s hatred of them.”[1]

  • Should Islamists be protected by freedom of religion so they can “slaughter [his] enemies”, or anyone who doesn’t agree with Islam?

Critical Thinking  

  • When is freedom of religion limited?
  • What actions, even if done in the name of religion, require the perpetrator to be subject to civil law?

Related Post:

 Islamic State approves Slave Trade

 

[1]  Thomas D. Williams, PhD. ‘Lucrative African Slave Trade Would Have Continued’ (Breitbart.com)

 

National Security: Christianity, Church and State Issues

National Security:

Christianity, Church and State Issues

Does Christian compassion conflict with national security?

Remember, the role of the state is to protect the citizens from terrorism by enforcing the law, so that the citizens, including Christians, can have freedom of religion to “welcome the strangerwho has been vetted and is truly in need. First Amendment rights apply to citizens only. Acts of murder, theft, and fraud are not protected by freedom of religion, but are subject to civil law. ~C.D.

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. ~Doctrine and Covenants 58:21

‘Welcoming the stranger’ in an age of civilizational jihad and terror

Art Moore

Does the biblical mandate to “welcome the stranger” mean that faithful Christians must support immigration policies that arguably could not only harm citizens, but also threaten the nation’s very existence?

When more than half of U.S. governors announced they wouldn’t take in any more Syrian migrants until their security concerns were addressed, President Obama responded with a moral rebuke, declaring, “Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values,” and is “not who we are” as Americans. (Obama’s values are not American values. ~C.D.)

Church and State Defined

State Responsibility: VET incoming migrants; then, Christians can welcome those who are truly fleeing oppression

But David French, an evangelical Christian known for his National Review columns and books on Islam and terrorism, argued there is “no contradiction between personally welcoming the ‘strangers’ among us while our leaders endeavor to protect us from a genocidal terrorist force that uses refugee status as a shield and disguise to perpetrate brutal attacks against innocent civilians.”

 

Abandoning Morality

Edward J. Erler, professor emeritus of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, observed a moral trend that has muddled the debate over the Syrian migrants, leading to what he believes are irrational decisions regarding national security.

 

Moral Relativism of Diversity

In a speech at Hillsdale College last fall he said Americans “have abandoned the morality engendered by what the Declaration of Independence called the ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.'”

Erler said progressivism has eroded that foundation, leading to a morality of value-free relativism that insists reason cannot prove that one value is superior to or more beneficial than another, leaving society only with “idiosyncratic preferences.”

“In this value-free universe, the only value that is ‘objectively’ of higher rank is tolerance. Equal toleration of all values—what is called today a commitment to diversity—is only ‘reasonable’ position,” he explained.

He noted that the “tolerance of those who are willing to tolerate you does not earn you much credit—it doesn’t require much of a commitment or sacrifice.”

This reality, according to Erler, helps explain why many Westerners, including religious believers, are so eager to take in the Muslim migrants while demonizing those who disagree with them.

“If, however, you are willing to tolerate those who are pledged to kill you and destroy your way of life, tolerance represents a genuine commitment,” Erler said. “Only such a deadly commitment signals a nation’s single-minded devotion to tolerance as the highest value by its willingness to sacrifice its sovereignty as proof of its commitment.”

Concluding his argument, he said the “common-sense citizen is forgiven for thinking this train of thought insane.”

“But what other explanation could there be for the insistence of so many of our political leaders on risking the nation’s security—in light of what we see in Europe, one might even say their willingness to commit national suicide—by admitting refugees without regard to their hostility to our way of life and their wish to destroy us as a nation?”

Erler noted that Western leaders have shown no such enthusiasm for rescuing Christian refugees from Middle Eastern violence.

“These refugees, of course, represent no danger to America. Only by admitting those who do represent a danger can we display to the world ‘who we are as a people,’ a people willing to sacrifice ourselves to vouchsafe our commitment to tolerance.”

Welfare Refugees

Daniel Greenfield, an Israel-born author in New York who focuses on radical Islam, argued the only authentic refugees are Christians and Yazidis who do not have a country to call their own in the region.  Sunnis Muslims can flee to Jordan or Turkey, and Shiite Muslims can take refuge in Lebanon.

“Talk of resettling them in the United States or Europe has nothing to do with ‘persecution,'” he wrote in a column for FrontPage Magazine.

“It’s economic migration. And economic migration in this case is a euphemism for welfare migration,” noting the refugees specifically seek out countries such as Germany and Sweden with generous welfare states.

Resisting Assimilation

But the national-security threat is not limited to keeping out Islamic terrorists.

Counter-terrorism expert Andrew C. McCarthy, the former U.S. attorney who prosecuted the “blind sheik” terror case, points out the threat posed by populations that develop, encourage, aid, abet and materially support terrorism.

Shariah conflicts with the Constitution

But even more significant for the long term well-being of the United States, is the civilizational threat posed by the resistance to assimilation and the promotion of a system of governance—Islamic law, or shariah—that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.

McCarthy warned in a National Review column that highly influential Islamic leaders have embarked on a conquest strategy known as “voluntary apartheid,” meaning the establishment of shariah enclaves that would eventually merge into an Islamic state that dominates Europe and the United States.

No-Go Zones

McCarthy noted France’s problem with its unassimilated Muslim community, asking, “Why should we voluntarily replicate it here?”

He quoted the highly respected political scientist Giles Kepel, who found dozens of French neighborhoods “where police and gendarmerie cannot enforce the Republican order or even enter without risking confrontation, projectiles, or even fatal shootings.”

These “no-go zones” include the Paris suburb of Seine-Saint-Denis, which harbored the terrorist cell that carried out the multi-pronged November 2015 attack in the French capital that killed 129 people. Of the 1.4 million who live there, 600,000 are Muslims.

Dr. Ben Carson believes creating safe zones in Syria is a better way to deal with Syrian refugees than resettling them in the United States.

Christians Ignored

While 10 percent of the Syrian population is Christian, only 56 of the 10,801 Syrians accpet to the U.S. as of last September were Christians—about one-half of 1 percent.

A Christian leader who has been kidnapped by jihadists, and who has an ISIS bounty on his head, spoke with Whistleblower about the challenge of answering the seemingly conflicting calls of welcoming the stranger and also caring for love ones and neighbors.

The England-born vicar of Baghdad, Canon Andrew White, who now is in exile from his Baghdad congregation, has been caring for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians who have fled ISIS.

More than 1,200 people who once worshipped with him have been killed in recent years, including four boys who were beheaded because they refused to convert to Islam.

“I think our first priority as Christians is to care for our family: We have to care for the Christians,” he said. “and what America is very bad at doing is understanding the needs of persecuted Christians.”

Gallery

National Security: Islamic Invasion, Immigration Vetting Process, and Immigration Facts, Part 2

This gallery contains 3 photos.

National Security: Islamic Invasion, Immigration Vetting Process, and Immigration Facts Islamic Refugees, Rigorous Vetting and the Facts: Part 2 Mark Landsbaum   Remember, the role of the state is to protect the citizens from terrorism by enforcing the law, so … Continue reading

National Security: Islamic Invasion, Immigration Vetting Process, and Immigration Facts, Part 1

National Security:

Islamic Invasion, Immigration Vetting Process, and Immigration Facts

BREAKING NEWS:

Hawaii: Muslim Brotherhood-backed imam dictating US refugee policy

 

Part 1

Mark Landsbaum

Syrian refugees entering Europe

One argument for bringing thousands of Middle East refugees to the U.S. is that these allegedly vetted immigrants are supposedly the safest kind of visitors.

Is that true?

The FBI announced this week it has 300 refugees already in the U.S. under investigation for suspected terror activities. That’s 300 refugees who we were assured were “rigorously” vetted by the United Nations and the U.S. government. Yet, it turns out they are deadly threats.

The 300 constitute 30% of the 1,000 open terror cases being investigated by the FBI. By the way, do you think the FBI has identified all the threats among the refugees? How’s that “rigorous” vetting working for you?

We’re not just talking about people who may commit robberies or muggings or rapes. But terror activities. It’s anyone’s guess how many robberies, muggings and rapes they commit.

Difference between historical refugees and Islamic Refugees since 9-11

It’s also anybody’s guess whether Islamic refugees commit more or fewer routine crimes than any other group. Academic studies usually lump together decades of refugee data, including Cubans from the 1960s, Vietnamese from the 1970s and sometimes even pre-World War II refugees fleeing Europe. How about crimes committed strictly by Islamic refugees since 9-11?

“There is no data that I know of,” Ann Corcoran told me. Ms. Cocoran operates RefugeeResettlementWatch.wordpress.com, where for eight years she has monitored refugees imported to U.S. cities.

“…[T]he authorities don’t usually tell the public through which immigration pathway an alien gets in here,” she said by email. “There are many legal programs and only in recent years does a news account call someone who commits a crime a refugee.”

The next time someone tells you that this latest surge of refugees is safe, let alone “the safest” of all immigrants, ask them how they know. Odds are, they are parroting talking points, not reciting documented facts.

Meanwhile, consider some examples of Islamic refugees caught planning or having committed acts of violence that Ms. Corcoran has documented on her website: A Somali arrested as he planned to detonate a bomb in 2010 to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon.

There was the Kentucky refugee terrorist now serving a life sentence after lying on U.S. immigration paperwork about his involvement in Iraqi insurgent operations against American troops; two Iraqi refugees were convicted for helping Al Qaeda in Iraq and maybe killing American servicemen there. They also lied on their refugee applications.

(Again, how’s that vetting working out?)

But those are terrorists. Aren’t regular refugees law-abiding?

To get a general idea, we might check out Europe, where there is a direct correlation between high concentrations of refugees and high crime rates. You know, robberies, muggings, rapes, etc.

Apparently unlike the U.S., some European countries specifically track refugee crimes. “Refugees committed more than 200,000 crimes [in 2015] in Germany,” reported the U.K.’s Daily Express.

Refugees in Germany committed 92,000 more offences in 2015 than in 2014, according to official figures. That’s 200,000 crimes that would not have occurred without refugees.

If we ignore all those warning signs, how about this one?

Stealth Jihad Islamic Invasion

“Just wait,” an ISIS Smuggler told BuzzFeed. “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world and we will have it soon, God willing. They are going like refugees.”

Last year, then-Sen. Jeff Sessions and Sen. Ted Cruz said the problems go beyond the refugee program, and called for closer scrutiny of the pace of immigration from Muslim countries.

“The resources spent every year investigating the countless number of immigrant terrorist suspects in the United States are astronomical,” they said. “And yet, as this costly and dangerous status quo continues, the U.S. continues to admit approximately 680,000 migrants from Muslim countries every five years.”

If the FBI has discovered 300 refugees that slipped through “rigorous” vetting, how many more will be among the next 680,000?

Many of our Christian brethren demand more Middle East refugees be brought to our country, citing as justification the Good Samaritan parable and commandments to love our neighbor and share the Gospel.

In Part 2, we examine Christians’ responsibility and look at the effects on our society and culture from importing refugees who can’t be vetted.

National Security: Border Wall works against Illegal Immigrants; Saves Money

National Security:

Border Wall works against Illegal Immigrants; Saves Money

STUDY: Trump’s Border Wall Could Save $64 Billion Over 10 Years

Bob Price

 

A new study by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reveals savings created by reducing illegal immigration through an effective border wall could save taxpayers $64 billion over the next ten years.

border-wall-immigrationEven a small reduction in the numbers of illegal border crossings could save enough money to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion cost of building the wall promised by President Donald Trump during his presidential campaign. The conclusions of the analysis by CIS’ Director of Research Dr. Steven Camarota are based on fiscal estimated developed by the Naional Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS). The NAS calculated the fiscal impact of impacts – taxes paid minus costs, Camarota wrote.

Camarota offers the following conclusions from his study:

  • There is also agreement that immigrants who come to America with modest levels of education create significantly more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
  • A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. Averaging the cost estimates from that study and combining them with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net fiscal drain of $74,722 per illegal crosser.2
  • The above figures are only for the original illegal immigrants and do not include any costs for their U.S.-born descendants. If we use the NAS projections that include the descendants, the fiscal drain for border-crossers grows to $94,391 each.
  • If a border wall prevented 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings (excluding descendants) in the next 10 years it would be enough to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion costs of the wall.
  • Newly released research by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) done for the Department of Homeland Security indicates that 170,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border successfully without going through a port of entry in 2015.3While a significant decline in crossings from a decade ago, it still means that there may be 1.7 million successful crossings in the next decade. If a wall stopped just 9 to 12 percent of these crossings it would pay for itself.
  • If a wall stopped half of those expected to successfully enter illegally without going through a port of entry at the southern border over the next 10 years, it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion — several times the wall’s cost.

The report of fiscal costs of immigrant border crossers is based on “net present value” (NPV). This process has a net effect of reducing the size of the net drain on economic resources based on their education level. “Rhe actual net lifetime fiscal cost of illegal border-crossers, given their education levels, is possibly $140,000 to $150,000 each in their lifetimes if the NPV concept is not used,” Camarota stated.

Center for Immigration Studies — Camarota Wall Costs

 

Walls Work: Illegal Migration Collapses in EU Nations with Tough Borders