House Passes Bill to Maybe Block ISIS Invasion of America

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 20, 2015


If Donald Trump was President, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.


The US House of Representatives has voted on a bill that sharply increases the security screening of Syrian and Iraqi refugees, effectively blocking President Barack Obama’s refugee settlement plan.

The final vote was 289 in favor, with 137 opposed. Some 48 Democrats, a quarter of the party’s representatives in the House, broke ranks and voted in favor of the bill. Only three Republicans were against.

Two of the terrorists involved in the November 13 Paris terror attacks got into Europe as refugees.

House Resolution 4038, the ‘American SAFE Act of 2015′, was sponsored Republican lawmakers Mike McCaul (R-Texas) and Richard Hudson (R-North Carolina). The bill requires top US security officials (FBI, Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence) to certify that every refugee admitted to the US “does not represent a security threat,” according to McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

The floor debate was divided along party lines, with Republicans arguing it was a measure to protect the US from Islamic State militants who might be infiltrating among the Syrian refugees, and Democrats blasting it as a xenophobic attack on President Obama’s refugee policy.

The bill ensured that a “benevolent safe haven in America is not used by terrorists to murder Americans,” said California Republican Dana Rohrabacher.

“ISIS cannot incapacitate US security leaders – this bill does,” by requiring the heads of US intelligence and security agencies to personally sign off on every refugee’s security evaluation, said California Democrat Brad Sherman.

Before it was passed, Obama was threatening to veto it. Seriously. To force through ISIS into America because… of our deepest values.

This “our values” stuff is getting to be too much. Someone has to either explain what it means, or people are going to have to stop saying it. It’s a bit like “vibrant diversity.” But no one says that anymore unless they’re mocking it.

“Our deepest values” will go the same way.

Paul Ryan ostensibly supported the bill, but he’s also came out and said that he doesn’t want any restrictions on Islamic immigration. Appearing on Sean Hannity, he used the Obama/Jew “values” talking point, sort of, saying “that’s not who we are.”

Hannity said:

We have resettled 1.5 million Muslim migrants in the United States. Senator Sessions had put out a piece where all these people that we took in to the country then come here and then get involved in terror activity. I put it up on my website, I urge you to take a look at it. And we take in 100,000 Muslim immigrants into the United States every year. Do we have to think about somebody who grows up under Sharia— believes that women can’t drive, can’t be seen in public without a male relative, four eyewitnesses for rape— do we have a clash of cultures we’ve got to consider? How do we know if they want to assimilate? How do we know if they want to bring terror into the United States? How will we ascertain that?

Ryan replied:

Well, first of all, I don’t think a religious test is appropriate. That’s not who we are. We believe in the first amendment of religious freedom. And I don’t think it’s the appropriate test because anybody can come under the guise of something else. It’s not hard for a person to claim that they are something that they’re not— like a Christian or something like that to get into the country. That is why we are calling for a security test. I think the test that maters is a security test because anybody can try and infiltrate this country by posing as something that they are not, so I don’t think that’s the proper test. I think a security test is the proper test.

Probably, this bill won’t block any of these people at all, but they will just pretend like that is happening as they flood us with them saying they’re the safe ones.

But come on. This is retarded. Most of the attackers were born in Europe. Meaning there are no safe ones.

How are we having this conversation?