USA Today wrote on Sunday that "President Obama is taking a dramatic step to show he opposes Republican efforts to slow or halt the admission of refugees over terrorist concerns: He has invited a Syrian refugee to attend his State of the Union Address." Is the refugee going to be seated next to the empty "Gun Violence" chair?

Anyway – it's hardly a dramatic step. As I reminded people on Monday, Obama had an illegal immigrant child sitting with Michelle during last year's dog and pony show. So this is just the guilt-trip du jour.

And this invited refugee is hardly emblematic or remotely representative of the others he wants to bring here. The invitee is a 55-year-old scientist from Syria who's been living in Detroit for the past month. He claims "his family home was destroyed by a bomb, killing his wife, daughter and five other relatives." Was it one he made? Sorry – I couldn't resist.

I guess he is now all alone.

So I found it odd when the refugee scientist Refaai Hamo said, "I was thrilled when I heard that President Barack Obama is welcoming us into the United States." Us? Who's us? I thought his family was killed? The report neglected to explain this apparent disparity. They also neglect to reveal what kind of scientist he is.

But no matter. This guy was handpicked to be the face of the non-threatening Muslim refugee. And because he is non-threatening – I guess we are to believe they will all be equally non-threatening.

We are to believe this, despite reports that already terrorists have made it to America. Congressional sources report that, "Following the discovery of a terrorist cell in Texas allegedly operated by an Iraqi who entered the United States as a refugee [emphasis added], the Washington Free Beacon has learned of an additional 41 individuals who have been implicated in terrorist plots in the United States since 2014, bringing the total number of terrorists discovered since that time to 113." How's that vetting process looking now?

And, to make matters worse, the White House is not cooperating with Congress in "obtaining more detailed immigration histories of these individuals."

This is no different than at least two of the perpetrators of the Paris terror attacks who entered France as "refugees." Yet, in November, CNN insisted that "Entering the U.S. as refugees would be the hardest way for would-be terrorists." This is the same CNN who insisted immediately after the Paris attack that none of the terrorists were refugees, or German officials insisting, until recently, that the marauding gangs of rapists are also not refugees.

No politician ever wants to admit to a policy failure. It is the same reason the White House is stonewalling Congress's attempts to discover how these terrorists got here. Obama can't allow for a chance that even one of the 131 terrorists rounded up thus far entered as an innocent refugee. That would complicate things greatly. Actually, it would just make Obama look bad, and that's more important than our security.

So if these refugees Obama wants to let in are so vigorously vetted, why doesn't he have authorities just scoop up some no-name Muslim refugee from the thousands waiting for Obama's green light and plop him down in the seat next to Michelle? Surely there is no way the guest could be an ISIS terrorist. After all, our government officials assure us that the vetting process is so thorough that the president or the First Lady shouldn't have a care in world.

Refugees, they claim, go through 18 to 24 months of interviews and background checks before they're granted refugee status in the U.S.

Believe that? Me either. More likely they go through a 5 minute interview and no background check, as most of these refugees have little to no documented background, and then they wait around for 18 months, giving them plenty of time for weapons training and bomb making classes. 

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.