House Speaker Paul Ryan is out with a new television ad that tries to convince Wisconsin voters that Ryan has taken action to keep Islamic terrorists from entering the United States.
In recent months, Paul Ryan, who leads the pro-Islamic migration wing of the Republican Party, has come under fire for his longstanding support for open borders. Ryan is now facing significant opposition in his August 9th primary election from Wisconsin businessman, Paul Nehlen, who is running on a pro-America platform and argues that the needs of American citizens should be a Congressman’s first priority.
The new 30-second television ad — Ryan’s first television ad of the election cycle — focuses on immigration and keeping Islamic terrorists from entering the U.S.
Ryan’s campaign provided reporters with a copy of the ad’s transcript. In the ad titled, “Do More,” Ryan tells Wisconsin voters:
After the terrorist attacks in Orlando and San Bernadino [sic], Americans are right to be worried about ISIS plotting more attacks. As your Congressman, I have passed legislation to stop radical Islamic terrorists from entering the U.S. and I’m working with national security experts to change practices so we can prevent future attacks. Just talking about national security is not enough. We need new laws and action by the Administration to protect Americans.
It’s perhaps interesting that Ryan felt the issue of immigration security was important enough to his constituents to make it his first television ad of the election cycle. Pew polling data shows that Ryan’s position on immigration is opposed by 92 percent of the GOP electorate, and 83 percent of the American electorate overall.
Earlier this week, Ryan’s campaign sent out mailers attempting to assure Wisconsin voters of his desire to secure the border — despite the fact that he has spent two decades pushing for policies that would effectively open America’s borders. Reports show that Ryan has roughly $10 million cash on hand to spend during this election to convince Wisconsin voters that he is a border security hawk.
However, contrary to what Ryan suggested in his new television ad, after the terrorist attack in Orlando and San Bernardino, Ryan failed to advance a strategy that would keep radical Islamic migrants from entering the United States.
In fact, far from it — after the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Speaker Ryan sent President Obama a blank check to fund visa issuances to nearly 300,000 (temporary and permanent) Muslim migrants in the next 12 months alone.
Given Ryan’s long history of pushing open borders immigration policies, it is perhaps not surprising that Ryan’s response following the terror attacks was to expand Islamic migration. As one Congressional aide said at the time, “Having [Paul] Ryan in charge of refugee strategy is like putting the world’s fattest man in charge of your diet plan.”
Indeed, Ryan went to great lengths to ensure America that, as long as he was in charge, no proposals to restrict mass Muslim migration would be tolerated.
One of Ryan’s first major acts as Speaker of the House was to have his leadership team block a proposal offered by Congressman Brian Babin that would have paused the nation’s refugee program.
In a nationally televised interview with Sean Hannity, Ryan ruled out the possibility of curbing Muslim migration, proclaiming: “that’s not who we are.”
In early December, Ryan held a press conference publicly condemning Donald Trump’s proposal to temporarily pause Muslim migration. Ryan declared that Trump’s plan “is not conservatism” — even though seven out of ten Wisconsin GOP voters agree with Trump and want to see Muslim migration paused.
Although Ryan supports an immigration policy that is overwhelmingly opposed by his constituents, Ryan has previously explained that he believes his job as a U.S. lawmaker is to put himself in the shoes of foreign citizens and craft legislation that serves the best interests of those foreign citizens.
Ryan has even echoed Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric in condemning conservative proposals to pause Muslim migration — declaring that such proposals are “not reflective of our principles.”
Ryan has yet to explain how importing hundreds of thousands of migrants from nations that may hold sentiments that are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-religious tolerance, and anti-America benefits the United States or helps to protect or advance Western principles.
Rather than considering curbing Muslim migration, after the Paris terror attack, Ryan put forth a bill that was widely panned by conservatives as a “show vote” because, even if the President had signed Ryan’s bill, it would still allow Obama to bring in an unlimited number of refugees from an unlimited number of countries.
Congressman Walter Jones’s office said that Ryan’s bill would “do nothing to cut off the funding for President Barack Obama’s plan to import tens of thousands of Middle Eastern refugees into the U.S.” Mark Levin slammed Ryan’s entire proposal as a fraud. “You’re not securing the homeland, you’re pretending to secure the homeland,” Levin said. Hot Air’s AllahPundit even observed that Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill was “more substantive” than Paul Ryan’s
Jeff Sessions said that the Ryan-backed proposal would “allo[w] the President to continue to bring in as many refugees as he wants from anywhere in the world.”
Even National Review’s Rich Lowry pointed out that the Ryan-championed proposal, “when you get down to it, it doesn’t do anything,” Lowry wrote in a piece titled, “Uh, the House Bill to Pause the Syrian Refugee Program Doesn’t Really Pause the Syrian Refugee Program.”
In recent weeks, Ryan’s challenger, Paul Nehlen, has attacked Ryan for his support for expanding Islamic migration into the United States. In his most recent billboard ad, Nehlen slammed Ryan for protecting himself and his family with armed security while continuing to push an immigration policy that puts the American people at risk.