On February 3, 2017, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson interviewed refugee advocate Michael Breen, who co-founded and now serves on the Board of Directors of the International Refugee Assistance Project.
No question, IRAP sounds good. According to their website, the project “organizes law students and lawyers to develop and enforce a set of legal and human rights for refugees and displaced persons” and is “nonpartisan.”
Similarly, Breen’s professional background, as a military combat veteran, would seem to establish that his comments are not those of an ivory-tower academic but rather someone with actual experience among the populations he advocates for.
The discussion between Carlson and Breen is somewhat wide-ranging and I think the latter makes some valid points about the nuances of American foreign policy. In particular he makes legitimate points about due process in particular cases, and more broadly that it is off-putting for Muslims to be told, essentially, that they’re good enough to fight for “over there,” but that we don’t trust them enough to let them into the United States..
But then Breen’s argument starts to fall apart, and in the falling apart it lays bare the essence of the problem with an “open borders” philosophy. And that is that liberals tend to confuse feelings with facts.
- They believe that we have a “moral obligation” to take in a sea of refugees — Breen’s figure was 100,000 a year, at least. But they can’t tell us how to feed, house, employ and provide healthcare for the poor people we already have. Nor can they explain what to do with the rape gangs and rioting mobs that are currently bedeviling Europe.
- Liberals tell us that refusing entry to refugees “only helps radicals to recruit.” But the reality is that people join up for a lot of other reasons, specifically the promise of sex slaves, money and glory.
- They tell themselves — from the comfort of their “safe spaces” in America’s most expensive universities — that the United States is a bad colonial power, and so our Nation is actually “a state of mind, not a state of geographical boundaries.” In other words, let everybody in — and we’ll go to their countries — and all of us will be very nice and get along.
While Breen seemed like a sympathetic, intelligent and educated character he could not answer the question that Carlson posed over and over again, which is: How is it in the U.S.’ best interest to let in a massive amount of people deemed even by the prior Administration to be a threat to the United States?
But there are other questions.
- Why has admitting refugees become a moral barometer for American values, while the value of caring for our own population goes ignored?
- Why is there such a push to admit populations prone to anti-American radicalism and the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate?
- Why is there such a push to displace people from their native areas and push them into a completely foreign culture with values very much in opposition to much of what Islam actually says?
- Why is there such scant attention to the economics of the options involved, e.g. safe housing in the Middle East versus transportation to the United States?
- Why, given that there are so many Muslim countries, is there such a pushy narrative going on about deliberately resettling refugees here?
I believe the answer to this question is that there is a deliberate agenda here. I believe that some of the world’s most wealthy and powerful people have a pre-existing desire to eliminate the existence of national borders and replace them with a borderless planet governed by the United Nations or some equivalent.
In order to achieve this “open” world, these influencers would need to convince us that preserving one’s unique identity is somehow a bad thing. Like the Borg on Star Trek, they seek to assimilate everyone into a generic hodgepodge where religion, history, culture, ethnicity, and even gender is somehow “antiquated,” therefore “fluid” and not really real.
They sell us on this idea through Hollywood, which on its personal time is well-known for defiling innocent people through the “casting couch,” through organized pedophilia, and through the selling of depraved forms of sexuality as though “there is nothing to see here, move on.” I recall a friend who lives there, and who works in the entertainment industry, telling me that “nobody will even touch a project that has anything to do with believing in religion.”
Crossing borders, crossing identities, and crossing a person’s most intimate boundaries are all inherently connected at the source. Good people are of course drawn to the seeming ideals that such enterprises offer them — a chance to help the persecuted, a chance to liberate people who are stuck in society’s conception of who they should be, and a chance at true personal freedom from the “shackles” of those who would lock them down in the prison that is morality.
This is not to say that one should take an extreme position, of course. But it is to point out the very evil hidden agenda that hides behind the seemingly liberatory phrase, “Open Borders.” What will we say when we are micro-chipped for our global slave masters, who know where each of us are, who cannot be fought because they dominate everything, and who can take everything from us at a moment’s notice?
There is something else here, and I’m going to say it although my fellow Jews will find it unpopular. The modern White Nationalist movement is not the same thing as the German Nazis of World War II. While it is true that there are anti-Semites wherever you go, and disproportionately among this population, my sense is that their core issue has nothing to do with eliminating Jews at all. Rather, they are questioning why exactly it is that every other population seems to be privileged, while the celebration of Western culture, of Whiteness itself, has become a kid of sin.
Is it a coincidence that the Obama administration for eight years fomented the rise of radical Islamic terrorism; disregarded actual radical Islamic terror attacks and refused to call them what they were; steadfastly looked the other way on illegal immigration in so many ways; yet insisted, over and over again, that “White extremists” were the problem?
When President Trump ran for office, it was the Democrats who insisted that anyone — like me, the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors — who supported Trump was a Nazi. They insisted this and even paid people to get violent at Trump rallies, as documented by Project Veritas, because the Trump movement itself didn’t provide any juice for the narrative.
Is it the “Nazis” who have been calling in threats to Jewish community centers nationwide these past few months, or is it somebody else trying to make the Jews afraid?
One has to ask these questions. At the President’s inauguration, was it the so-called “Nazis” who were smashing in windows and setting fires in the streets? Or was it the paid anarchists who want to create continuous chaos and strife, all in the name of “tolerance,” “love,” and “diversity”?
If memory serves me correctly, wasn’t it Richard Spencer, a White Nationalist walking peacefully in the street during the Inauguration, who got his face punched in by a demonstrator–not the other way around?
Has it not been the violent protesters (many paid, I think) who have called President Trump a “fascist” and in so doing have denied free speech to anyone who disagrees with their agenda?
Did Nazis ever threaten to overthrow the administration of President Obama? I don’t recall that at all. And yet Madonna, a member of the music industry elite, talks about wanting to “blow up the White House” while Sarah Silverman, also an elite member of Hollywood, talks in very similar terms.
Why are so-called feminists marching with the radical Islamist Linda Sarsour, who would have them flogged under Sharia law for not covering up as men dictate?
Here is how this looks to me: There is a very radical agenda afoot here, very well-financed and skilled with the tools of propaganda.
The people who are promoting this agenda have sold it through-and-through to a massive number of people, innocent and good Americans, who only want to pour out their goodness to others in the world less fortunate.
These good people decry any form of hatred and pride themselves on their tolerance.
What they need to see, or at least need to question, is the incongruity between the stated ideals being presented to them, and the actual facts on the ground.
Good people need to think a lot more critically about who is trying to motivate them to do which thing, and whether something more surreptitious is going on beyond the appearance of “join us and help people.”
It says in Isaiah 66 that at the end of time, all good God-fearing people will join together and serve the Lord as one. I believe we are headed very much toward that day.
What is required at this time is for good people to take their biases and blinders off. Let’s call out hatred for what it is. Let’s not allow bad people to get away with it.
But for God’s sake, let’s also stop scapegoating people who are not the real enemy, because we have been brainwashed to believe that we must never go beyond what the mainstream media narrative tells and sells us through CNN, 24/7/365.
All opinions my own.