Staff Reports
In a recent episode of “Face the Nation,” Vice President JD Vance found himself in a battle of wits with CBS anchor Margaret Brennan, who seemed to think that the American public should welcome every vetted immigrant with open arms. The reporter, with an air of bewilderment, peppered Vance with questions about why he opposed allowing Afghan refugees to stay in America. However, Vance’s response was as straightforward as a no-frills cheeseburger at a backyard BBQ: he just doesn’t trust the vetting process. Who can blame him?
Vance’s response was not just a blanket rejection of unvetted immigrants; it was a clarion call for caution that resonated deeply with many Americans. He argued that not all refugees undergoing these supposedly “thorough” background checks were as squeaky clean as the media would like us to believe. If it were so easy to determine who could be trusted and who couldn’t, we wouldn’t be seeing cases of those who supposedly “passed” vetting attempting to plot domestic terrorism, would we? Yet, in our modern media circus, that type of logic often seems to get thrown out the window in the name of political correctness.
JD Vance didn’t mince words when he shared his main concern: it’s about protecting the American people. Shocking, right? The very notion that an elected official would prioritize the safety of their constituents seems to rattle those who want to paint him as the villain for standing firm on such values. He clearly stated that allowing thousands of unvetted individuals into the country is a recipe for disaster. Not only that, but he dared to suggest that he wouldn’t want his kids living next door to people who might not have been thoroughly checked out. Imagine that! Wanting a safe neighborhood for your children—how outrageous!
In the bizarre world of progressive logic, Vance’s concern is often dismissed as xenophobia or outright discrimination. However, common sense dictates that if the vetting process is flawed—like a poorly designed IKEA furniture manual—it’s best to be cautious rather than assemble a potential disaster in our communities. After all, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch—and in this case, that apple could be a person who slips through the cracks while being “properly vetted.”
As the conservative response team continues to build a case against rampant immigration, Vance’s approach highlights a significant divide between ordinary Americans and the so-called elite classes that seem to think importing large numbers of people without proper checks is just fine. The takeaway? Vance’s assertive response wasn’t just a defense of his position but a rallying cry for those who believe that protecting American citizens should always come first. And for a nation that prides itself on safety, unity, and common sense, who could argue with that?
