Who Should Pay For The Syrian Refugees?

Last week, Congress dealt a blow to President Obama’s plan to resettle 10,000 Syrians fleeing their war-torn homeland. On a vote of 289-137, including 47 Democrats, the House voted to require the FBI to closely vet any applicant from Syria and to guarantee that none of them pose a threat to the US. Effectively, this will shut down the program.

The House legislation was brought to the Floor after last week’s attacks in Paris that left more than 120 people dead, and for which ISIS claimed responsibility. With the year-long U.S. bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, there is a good deal of concern that among those 10,000 to be settled here, there might be some who wish to do us harm. Even though it looks as though the Paris attackers were all EU citizens, polling in the U.S. shows record opposition to allowing Syrian refugees entry.

I agree that we must be very careful about who is permitted to enter the United States, but I object to the president’s plan for a very different reason. I think it is a sign of Washington’s moral and intellectual bankruptcy that U.S. citizens are being forced to pay for those fleeing Washington’s foreign policy.

For the past ten years, the U.S. government has been planning and executing a regime change operation against the Syrian government. It is this policy that has produced the chaos in Syria, including the rise of ISIS and al-Qaeda in the country. After a decade of U.S. destabilization efforts, we are now told that Syria is totally destabilized, and we therefore must take in thousands of Syrians fleeing the destabilization that Washington caused.

Has there ever been a more foolish and wrong-headed foreign policy than this?

The American people have been forced to pay untold millions for a ten-year CIA and Pentagon program to undermine and overthrow the Syrian government, and now we are supposed to pay millions more to provide welfare for the refugees Obama created.

Who should pay for the millions fleeing the chaos that Washington helped create? How about the military-industrial complex, which makes a killing promoting killing? How about the Beltway neocon think-tanks that continue to churn out pro-war propaganda while receiving huge grants from defense contractors? How about President Obama’s national security advisors, who push him into one regime change disaster after another? How about Hillary Clinton, who came up with the bright idea that “Assad must go”? How about President Obama himself, a president elected to end wars, but who has ended up starting more wars than his predecessor?

It’s time those who start the wars start paying for the disasters they create. Then perhaps we might have some relief from an interventionist foreign policy that is destroying our financial and national security.

If Obama wants to take in refugees from the chaos in Syria, there are probably plenty of vacant rooms in the White House.

© Copyright 2015 Ron Paul

Look How Trey Gowdy Just Fired Back After Getting Hit By Major Legal Action

Congressman Trey Gowdy’s office slammed a lawsuit filed by a fired staffer alleging that the congressman violated the law with his Benghazi committee ,calling it “meritless” and “improper” on Monday.

The November 23 lawsuit filed by a former staffer named Bradley Podliska, an Air Force reserve major who Gowdy, R -S.C., fired in June for mishandling classified information, alleges a long list of violations supposedly perpetrated against him, including that he was improperly fired. But Podliska’s most explosive claim is that the House Select Committee on Benghazi is a “witch hunt” launched to “get” Hillary Clinton for her response to the attack on a U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

Gowdy’s office calls the whole thing nothing short of an attack against the Committee’s legitimate functions.

“The committee understands that a lawsuit has been filed by Bradley Podliska asserting claims pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act, among others,” Gowdy spokesman Jamal Ware said in a statement according to The Blaze. “We disagree strongly with those claims, which are meritless and which improperly strike at the heart of the committee’s legislative functions.”

As to the former staffer’s claims about Clinton, Ware insists that Podliska himself asked committee interns to take up partisan projects, even though he was warned against doing so.

Along with a raft of allegations, the suit claims that Gowdy made statements that damaged Podliska’s reputation.

“Chairman Gowdy, personally and through his agents, tied these defamatory statements to Podliska’s firing to damage Podliska’s reputation and his ability to seek or secure employment in his chosen field, depriving Podliska of his rights under the Constitution,” the suit reads.

Podliska also claims he was the only one punished for improperly handling evidence, and that his firing was improper. “Ultimately, Plaintiff was the only one of the four accused of the trumped-up security violation to be reprimanded by the Majority Staff or subjected to any adverse employment action,” the suit says.

Podliska further alleges that he was fired for taking time off to fulfill his military duties, a claim that Gowdy’s office strongly disputes.

“The committee did not and does not discriminate or retaliate based on military service, military status or any other unlawful factor,” Ware added.

The congressman’s spokesman also pointed out that the committee employs several active members of the military, and that none of them have ever been penalized for fulfilling their duties to the service.

Gowdy’s office assured the American people that all of the claims in Podliska’s suit are false, and that Gowdy’s office will be “fully exonerated.”

Podliska’s lawsuit demands his reinstatement as a committee investigator, recovery of lost wages and other damages. He also seeks “a permanent injunction barring Chairman Gowdy from repeating false, defamatory and injurious statements” that have been made about him.

Gowdy Just Got Hit With A Lawsuit Over A ‘Serious Crime’- You Be The Judge Of How Serious It Is…

Bradley Podliska, a former staffer for the House Benghazi Select Committee headed by Trey Gowdy, accused Republicans on the committee in October of inappropriately targeting Hillary Clinton.

Some Democrats pounced on the accusation to argue that the Benghazi committee needs to be shut down. Representative Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the committee, stated at the time: “It’s been clear that Secretary Clinton has been the true target of this investigation, and the Republican whistleblower who has come forward only provides further evidence of what has long been evident. It’s time to shut down the Benghazi select committee.”

Now, Podliska is back again, suing the panel and Chairman Trey Gowdy for responding to Podliska’s accusations in a way which he alleges defamed his character.

According to MSNBC, Podliska claimed that such a “serious crime” has “ended the careers of many professionals in national security-related industries.”

Committee Republicans had earlier stated that Podliska was fired after extended efforts to create a “hit piece” on Clinton “that bore no relationship whatsoever to the committee’s current investigative tone, focus, or investigative plan.”

Podliska is an Air Force Reserve major and is using a channel which allows military members an avenue to protect themselves against employer discrimination.

He is not seeking money as a part of the suit, but rather is hoping that the ruling will find that Gowdy’s narrative is false and bar Gowdy from repeating it in the future.

Podliska announced his claims that the committee was inappropriately targeting Clinton prior to her appearance before the committee in October.

What do you think of Podliska’s accusation that Gowdy and the Republicans on the committee have committed a “serious crime”?

BREAKING: House Just Stuck It To Obama With Hugely Defiant Vote – 47 Dems Joined In

The House of Representatives Thursday defied President Obama’s threat of a veto and voted, 289-137, to impose new screening requirements on Syrian and Iraqi refugees trying to enter the United States.

The bill was supported by 47 Democrats. Only two Republicans opposed it. The House plan would bar any refugees from Syria or Iraq from entering the United States until the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence certify that each one is not dangerous.

“If our law enforcement and our intelligence community cannot verify that each and every person is not a security threat, then they shouldn’t be allowed in,” said Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

“The status quo is not acceptable,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas. “The American people want us to act in light of what’s happened.”

Other lawmakers agreed.

“I cannot sit back and ignore the concerns of my constituents and the American public,” said Rep. Brad Ashford, D-Neb.

“It is against the values of our nation and the values of a free society to give terrorists the opening they are looking for,” said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

The bill comes after Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 129 people. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks. At least one attacker posed as a Syrian refugee, officials have disclosed. These events created new opposition to Obama’s plan to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States.

Despite its passage, the bill on Thursday lacked enough votes to override a presidential veto. Republican aides said that absences could change that picture if an override vote becomes necessary.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid doesn’t plan to let that happen.

“The problem is not with refugees,” Reid said. “I don’t think we’ll be dealing with it over here.”

When asked about a presidential veto and a potential override, Reid said, “don’t worry, it won’t get passed. Next question?”

If the bill is blocked in the Senate, House Republicans may force the issue through an omnibus government spending bill, which has to be passed by Dec. 11 to keep the government operating.

Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., said he would vote against a spending bill that doesn’t contain provisions halting the refugee program.

“I think that we have to exert maximum leverage,” Salmon said.

h/t: The Hill

BREAKING: Paul Ryan Calls For HUGE Move Regarding Syrian Refugee Program

After ISIS terrorists launched a massive attack in Paris, a list of up to 27 U.S. governors now say that they oppose President Obama’s plan to continue importing Syrian refugees into the U.S. Responding to the trend, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan added his voice to the call to “pause” Obama’s importation of possible terrorists.

On Tuesday, November 17, the Wisconsin Republican called for a pause in Obama’s intentions of greatly expanding the importation of Syrian refugees so that the House can take up the issue and vote on new legislation.

“This is a moment where it is better to be safe than to be sorry, so we think the prudent, the responsible thing is to take a pause in this particular aspect of this refugee program in order to verify that terrorists are not trying to infiltrate the refugee population,” Ryan said in a press conference Tuesday.

As CNN reports, the newly ensconced Speaker of the House announced that he is creating a task force made up of the Republican chairmen from the Homeland Security, Armed Services, Intelligence, Appropriations, Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees to craft legislation concerning the refugee issue, and to look at security measures.

Ryan said he did not want to put the matter off until the vote on a spending bill next month.

“This is not about politics. This is about national security,” he said.

The speaker had no details on what goals this task force might have set for itself, but insisted that there has to be a better plan to address national security issues.

Several members of Congress have been raising the alarm about Obama’s refugee program, saying that it endangers the country.

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions warned about this at a hearing on Oct. 2.

“Refugee resettlement also comes with security risks, as we have witnessed with the surge of ISIS recruitment among Somali-refugee communities in Minnesota,” Sessions said. “Anyone claiming to have a serious and honest discussion of refugee resettlement must ask the difficult questions about integration, assimilation and community safety.”

“We have little or no information about who these people are … no ability to determine whether they are radicalized,” the senator added.

Republican House Intelligence Committee member Peter King also noted that there really isn’t any vetting of these refugees, saying, “as a practical matter, there is no vetting.”

Meanwhile, the governors of 27 states have announced that they will oppose the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states, though there are conflicting opinions on whether state governments have the power to prevent such a thing.