The mainstream media narrative generator has already processed the savage jihad attack at Ohio State University. Had the culprit been a white male Republican, dozens of “think” pieces would already be running on how Donald Trump was somehow to blame. Had the attacker once re-Tweeted some Alt-Right meme, the best and brightest would hold Breitbart responsible — and use this as one more pretext for demanding that Trump fire his strategist Steve Bannon. Some liberals tipped their hand early on as the story emerged, dusting off their boilerplate calls for “sensible gun control.”

But because this attacker, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, was a radicalized Muslim refugee from Somalia who wielded a knife to avenge the “wrongs” which America (and other countries) supposedly commit against Muslims, the narrative has shifted — to warnings of an “anti-Muslim” backlash.

Time for the Right Kind of Backlash

It is time for a backlash, all right — but not against those peaceful Muslims who accept our system of government, despite the urgings of their Saudi-funded and Saudi-appointed imams. No, the backlash should be serious, sustained, and searching, aimed at the proper targets: The federal employees who perverted our generous system for accepting actual refugees into a permanent mass immigration-with-welfare program, and the churchmen who have hollowed out Christian charities into well-funded federal contractors that lobby in their own financial interests for more immigration, every year.

Let’s go in order. The U.S. grants refugee status, in accord with international law, to people fleeing persecution and violence in their home countries. By that same international law, those people should go to the “first safe country” where they can escape the chaos. How many Sunni Muslim “safe” countries are closer to Somalia than the United States? A short list would include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Dubai, Bahrain, Turkey, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Bosnia and Jordan. Yet these nations accept few refugees, except in Turkey’s case, which passes them on to Europe — or wields them as a weapon, threatening to dump a fresh influx of military-age male colonists on Germany and Italy, if the EU doesn’t grant Turkey’s latest demands. (These demands include freedom of travel for the whole population of Turkey throughout every nation in the EU.)

Rapidly radicalizing Turkey, or puritanical Saudi Arabia, or early ISIS-sponsor Qatar, would clearly be better homes for the likes of Artan. According to Reuters:

Investigators were looking into a message posted on Facebook by Artan with inflammatory statements about being “sick and tired” of seeing Muslims killed, a law enforcement source said.

“Stop the killing of the Muslims in Burma,” Artan said in the Facebook post.

Violence in Myanmar, which is also known as Burma, has sent Rohingya Muslims fleeing across the border to Bangladesh amid allegations of abuses by security forces.

All of Artan’s Facebook postings have been removed from the social media website.

Artan’s post did not mention Islamic State but it praised Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born radical cleric linked to al Qaeda who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in 2011.

In its claim of responsibility for Monday’s attack, the Islamic State news agency AMAQ posted a photo of Artan wearing a blue shirt and sitting with greenery in the background. It described him as a soldier of the group.

So Artan viewed himself as a soldier of Islam, entitled to avenge wrongs committed against any Muslims, anywhere, by killing the nearest non-Muslims at hand — in this case, American college students. Is this the kind of “refugee” who deserves our hospitality? Can we possibly sift out all the people like Artan who flood into our country from distant, jihad-ridden hellholes?

Why were Abdul Razak Ali Artan, his mother, and six siblings, transported at U.S. taxpayer expense all the way to Dallas, and then to Ohio? Clearly something is broken in the system — or someone in the federal government is deeply interested in forcibly “diversifying” America with thousands of politicized Muslims from terrorism-wracked countries.

Importing “Diversity” and Jihad

Why were Abdul Razak Ali Artan, his mother, and six siblings, transported at U.S. taxpayer expense all the way to Dallas, and then to Ohio? Clearly something is broken in the system — or someone in the federal government is deeply interested in forcibly “diversifying” America with thousands of politicized Muslims from terrorism-wracked countries. As Laura Ingraham points out, the number of Somali refugees admitted to America has increased 250 percent under President Obama — this despite the documented links between Somali refugees and al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group Al Shabaab, which threatened terrorist attacks on the Mall of America in 2015, in solidarity with ISIS.

Why did Catholic Charities of Dallas under then-bishop Kevin Farrell house Artan and his family? The official story is that the church is performing a Christian mission of mercy. Let’s look at that claim more closely. As the U.S. Catholic Bishops admitted in their last tax report, 97 cents of every dollar that the Church and Catholic agencies spends on resettling refugees comes from federal money. Catholic Charities of Dallas, for instance, received $4,980,358 in federal money for immigration and refugee services. It spent $3,999,734 on refugees, and the rest on things like advocacy for illegal immigrants. And salaries, of course. Dallas Catholic Charities’ gross receipts for 2015 were $15,411,063. Almost exactly half that money ($7,770,795) went to paying staff.

Christian Charity Isn’t Merely Cashing a Federal Paycheck

Now Catholic Charities isn’t doing anything illegal here; but neither is it acting as a Christian charity. It is serving as a well-paid federal contractor, albeit one that casts its clerical sponsors in a warm, fuzzy quasi-Christian light. To return the favor, U.S. bishops sidestep the Church’s real teaching on immigration — which is closer to the 2016 GOP platform than anything the bishops advocate. Instead, they moralize about the obligation for the U.S. to accept more refugees and immigrants. In the case of Latin Americans, this also helps to fill the church’s emptying pews — given the stark fact that 40 percent of U.S.-born Catholics leave the Church, never to return, according to the Pew Survey.

In 2014, Bishop Farrell was the toast of the Catholic and mainstream media for housing in a Catholic retreat center the family members contaminated by an African migrant dying of Ebola, who lied his way into the U.S. and infected staff at a Dallas hospital. The Catholic News Agency gushed that Farrell had “offered them shelter in the name of Christ.” He made his name internationally with the resonant phrase: “[W]e don’t help because someone is Catholic, we help because we are Catholic and that is what we are called to do.”

I recall reading on social media comparisons between Bishop Farrell and St. Damian of Molokai, who cared for abandoned lepers until he died of the disease himself. In fact, no nursing nuns had any contact with the contaminated people. Nor, it seems, did Bishop Farrell. No press reported who funded these patients’ care; given the fact that virtually all immigrant services provided by the Dallas Diocese rely on federal funds, it was likely a federally funded operation, connected with the Center for Disease Control.

This is not exactly Christian charity. But it’s excellent PR.