Somali men arrested in Seattle for “pimping” white girl

Debbie Schlussel has the story here today.  (Hat tip: Whuptdue and others!)   She begins: 

We will have more and more of this because we refuse to limit Islamic immigration into America.

Two Seattle Somalian Muslim men kidnapped and forced a 14-year-old girl into prostitution, threatening to kill her and her family if she refused. And, of course, because they’re being prosecuted, we are “racist”–they are Black, and the girl is White. So say the two defendants’ fellow Somalian Muslim buds and relatives livin’ in the ‘hood.

Read her whole post.

This is probably a good time to tell new readers about a couple of other facts about Somali refugees in the US.

* First, we wrote about Somali gang violence in Seattle back in September.  A Somali “community organizer” tells a horrible tale of a Somali young man being murdered by other Somalis because he “betrayed his people” by bringing a black American teen to a Somali wedding.

*We have admitted over 80,000 Somali refugees to the US in the last 25 years, the largest majority arrived since 9/11.

*The State Department has suspended family reunification worldwide because DNA testing revealed widespread fraud largely by Somalis entering the US.

*Somalis threatened  to sue the mayor of Grand Island, NE because she told the NY Times they reminded her of 9/11.

*Young Somali men (former refugees) are missing from several US cities and are believed to be in terrorist training camps in Africa at the moment.

*And finally, Citizen Warrior has a petition urging the US to halt all Muslim immigration.

Malta: Somali demonstration unleashes Maltese anger

Here it is, a tiny little video clip of Somali illegal aliens detained in Malta protesting yesterday.  And this is the entire news story accompanying the video:

Somali illegal immigrants at Safi Barracks this afternoon protested at being held in detention.

A number of sections from the police force including the Special Assignment Group and the Mounted Police, as well as the C Company of the Armed Forces of Malta. Police Commissioner John Rizzo and assistant commissioners were also on site.

A ministry spokesman said that there were 400 to 500 immigrants at Safi but the protest was only held by the Somalis.

Now go check out the pages of comments; the native Maltese people are a little angry (you think!).    We have written about Malta since we began RRW in July 2007—a tiny island nation struggling to cope with boatloads of Africans trying to break into Europe and landing on Malta first.  Much to my utter shock the US State Department is bringing some of Malta’s  illegal Somalis to the US as refugees (see Tea Party Send-off here).

One commenter, I’m guessing he is African from Sweden named Moses Mula, has really stirred the pot criticizing the Maltese people.  You gotta laugh though at one point he says he is in Sweden because his daughter is autistic and in Sweden he can get the medical help she needs, not so in Malta!    He also had the nerve to tell the Maltese that there are no immigrant riots in Sweden, but of course, thanks to the internet, commenters have responded with the truth—Sweden was in flames with immigrant riots even before the recent Gaza protests.

Here is just one comment from a Maltese citizen, Ivan Attard,  to Moses Mula:

Have you ever realised that your pontificating on our ‘christian obligations’ and other charitable hogwash from your safe distance in Sweden is very painful and distressing to us who have chosen to hold our ground and decided to embrace our beloved rock till death?

What matters to us dear Moses is our wellbeing and the future of our children. Yes, we want our small (very small) space on earth to be safeguarded against being overrun with foreign and alien culture and flushed down the drain called ‘multiculturalisms’. We realize we are too small to afford to let this happen and are naturally reacting as any sane and self-respecting people (even much, much larger countries) would do in the circumstances.

The African Continent’s problem is not ours. We can help a handful but definitely have to say NO to more. Is Italy less ‘christian’ than us now that they have announced the repatriation of ALL new arrivals?

That, Moses, is the gist of all the comments and the preoccupations here and please refrain from quoting your bibles and judging the moral and ‘christian’ integrity of your compatriots.

There is more where that came from.

Why so many refugees? International elites, the UN and NGOs are to blame.

The number of refugees always seems to be increasing. Why? A friend sent me an article that goes a long way toward explaining why. It’s by Edward Luttwak, a military strategist and historian. It was written back in 1999 but its thesis is just as relevant today.  The title: Give War a Chance.  It especially applies to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Here’s the beginning:

An unpleasant truth often overlooked is that although war is a great evil,
it does have a great virtue: it can resolve political conflicts and lead
to peace. This can happen when all belligerents become exhausted or when
one wins decisively. Either way the key is that the fighting must continue
until a resolution is reached.

If fighting is halted before one side achieves victory, there is no motivation for anyone to give up. The only reason anyone surrenders in a war is that there is no hope for military success. But —

Since the establishment of the United Nations . . . wars among lesser powers have rarely been allowed to run their natural course. Instead, they have typically been interrupted early on, before they could burn themselves out and establish the preconditions for a lasting settlement. Cease-fires and armistices have been imposed under the aegis of the Security Council in order to halt fighting.

Such cease-fires give the combatants time to recover their energy and re-arm.

It intensifies and prolongs the struggle
once the cease-fire ends-and it does usually end. This was true of the
Arab-Israeli war of 1948-49, which might have come to closure in a matter
of weeks if two cease-fires ordained by the Security Council had not let
the combatants recuperate.

Remember, this was written ten years ago. This directly applies to the Gaza war today:

Today cease fires and armistices are imposed on lesser powers by multilateral
agreement … for essentially disinterested and indeed frivolous
motives, such as television audiences’ revulsion at harrowing scenes
of war. But this, perversely, can systematically prevent
the transformation of war into peace.

The self-styled international community does tremendous harm to the prospect of peace.

A variety of multilateral organizations now make it their business to intervene
in other peoples’ wars. The defining characteristic of these entities is
that they insert themselves in war situations while refusing to engage
in combat. In the long run this only adds to the damage.

UN forces’ first priority is to protect themselves. Likewise UN peacekeepers. And they make things worse, because local populations think they are protected and do not realistically assess the dangers. This is what happened in Rwanda.

But the most destructive of all are humanitarian relief effort, Luttwak says. His example is UNRWA and the Palestinians, so listen up. He compares UNRWA to UNRRA, United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Agency, which ran the displaced persons camps in Europe right after World War II.

The UNRRA camps were bare-bones operations that kept displaced persons alive, but provided no luxury. Thus there was great incentive to resettle everybody, and indeed everybody was resettled.

But UNRWA camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank, and the
Gaza Strip provided on the whole a higher standard of living than most
Arab villagers had previously enjoyed, with a more varied diet, organized
schooling, superior medical care, and no backbreaking labor in stony fields.
They had, therefore, the opposite effect, becoming desirable homes rather
than eagerly abandoned transit camps. With the encouragement of several
Arab countries, the UNRWA turned escaping civilians into lifelong refugees
who gave birth to refugee children, who have in turn had refugee children
of their own.

And this makes the point even more keenly: 

If each European war had been attended by its own postwar UNRWA, today’s
Europe would be filled with giant camps for millions of descendants of
uprooted Gallo-Romans, abandoned Vandals, defeated Burgundians, and misplaced
Visigoths-not to speak of more recent refugee nations such as post-ig45
Sudeten Germans (three million of whom were expelled from Czechoslovakia
in 1945). Such a Europe would have remained a mosaic of warring tribes,
undigested and unreconciled in their separate feeding camps. It might have
assuaged consciences to help each one at each remove, but it would have
led to permanent instability and violence.

Luttwak touches on a point that Ann has made many times about NGOs, or volags:

…the proliferating, feverishly competitive nongovernmental
organizations (NGOS) that now aid war refugees. Like any other institution,
these NGOs are interested in perpetuating themselves, which means that
their first priority is to attract charitable contributions by being seen
to be active in high-visibility situations. Only the most dramatic natural
disasters attract any significant mass-media attention, and then only briefly;
soon after an earthquake or flood, the cameras depart. War refugees, by
contrast, can win sustained press coverage if kept concentrated in reasonably
accessible camps. Regular warfare among well-developed countries is rare
and offers few opportunities for such NGOS, so they focus their efforts
on aiding refugees in the poorest parts of the world. This ensures that
the food, shelter, and health care offered-although abysmal by Western
standards-exceeds what is locally available to non-refugees. The consequences
are entirely predictable. Among many examples, the huge refugee camps along
the Democratic Republic of Congo’s border with Rwanda stand out. They sustain
a Hutu nation that would otherwise have been dispersed, making the consolidation
of Rwanda impossible and providing a base for radicals to launch more Tutsi-killing
raids across the border. Humanitarian intervention has worsened the chances
of a stable, long-term resolution of the tensions in Rwanda. 

Nothing has changed, has it? And here’s something that again can be applied directly to the Gaza situation:

To keep refugee nations intact and preserve their resentments forever is
bad enough, but inserting material aid into ongoing conflicts is even worse.
Many NGOS that operate in an odor of sanctity routinely supply active combatants.
Defenseless, they cannot exclude armed warriors from their feeding stations,
clinics, and shelters. Since refugees are presumptively on the losing side,
the warriors among them are usually in retreat. By intervening to help,
NGOS systematically impede the progress of their enemies toward a decisive
victory that could end the war. Sometimes NGOS, impartial to a fault, even
help both sides, thus preventing mutual exhaustion and a resulting settlement.
And in some extreme cases, such as Somalia, NGOs even pay protection money
to local war bands, which use those funds to buy arms. Those NGos are therefore
helping prolong the warfare whose consequences they ostensibly seek to

And here is his conclusion, with which I heartily agree:

Policy elites should actively resist the emotional
impulse to intervene in other peoples’ wars-not because they are indifferent
to human suffering but precisely because they care about it and want to
facilitate the advent of peace. The United States should dissuade multilateral
interventions instead of leading them. New rules should be established
for U.N. refugee relief activities to ensure that immediate succor is swiftly
followed by repatriation, local absorption, or emigration, ruling out the
establishment of permanent refugee camps. And although it may not be possible
to constrain interventionist NGOS, they should at least be neither officially
encouraged nor funded.

Why large numbers of “Bhutanese” are coming to the US

We have written 31 posts in which we have mentioned “Bhutanese” refugees who are coming to the US in large numbers now (we have agreed to resettle 60,000 over the next few years), and it wasn’t until this week that the whole issue became clearer to me.

Who are the “Bhutanese” refugees?   How did they become refugees?  Why are we and other western countries resettling so many?  and Why is there agitation in the camps (to the point of violence) by some to halt the resettlement? 

From World Politics Review, I am beginning to see the light!   The Bhutanese are really ethnic Nepalis who had been entering Bhutan since the 1800’s and a rise in ethnic nationalism caused them to be expelled.

By the 1980s, when the ethnic Nepalese bloc mushroomed to represent one third of the kingdom’s population, Bhutan responded with a “one nation, one people” policy that at once bolstered the majority Drukpa culture by mandating its traditional dress and language for all, and restricted the rights of the ethnic Nepalese population. After a series of civil rights protests by the ethnic Nepalese, many of whom were Bhutanese citizens, the state clamped down — hard.

“We left because we were scared that they would imprison us, that they would beat us, that I would be raped,” Matimya told World Politics Review. In the weeks leading up to her family’s departure from Bhutan in 1991, she says, the army had begun to take women away from their houses.

This was just one tactic in what human rights groups say was a widespread campaign of ethnic cleansing of a minority population that claims to have arrived in Bhutan as early as the mid-1800s. Other tactics, say the refugees, included torture, beatings and the destruction of property.

That is one side of the story.  The new Bhutanese democracy government has another side.  They say the Nepalis had been illegal aliens in Bhutan, and had come to Bhutan because Nepal was a mess.  Although they don’t say it here, it appears that the rise in population of the ethnic Nepalis could ultimately swamp the democracy.   This made me think about illegal Mexicans in the US.

But in today’s Bhutan, which in March made the transition from a century of absolute monarchy to become the world’s newest democracy, another narrative prevails.

“Deep inside, they know they never belonged to this country,” says Bhutanese Prime Minister Dorjee Y Thinley in his office in Bhutan’s capital Thimphu. What is labeled elsewhere as an ethnic cleansing of Bhutanese citizens is seen in Bhutan as the “regularization” of an illegal immigration problem that had been left unbridled for decades. “They are refugees not of Bhutan, but of the ecological degradation, political upheavals, economic deprivation and insecurity in Nepal,” Thinley says, referring to Nepal’s 10-year civil war that ended in 2006.

But, Nepal doesn’t want them back either which is why they have lived in camps for going on 20 years.

From a publication at Arizona State University:

Joanne Morales, director of refugee programs for Catholic Charities Community Services, said the Nepali government established new eligibility requirements for Bhutanese citizenship in the 1980s that disenfranchised many ethnic Nepalis, stripping them of their civil rights. Since then, all ethnic Nepalis from southern Bhutan have been living in seven different camps in eastern Nepal since they were expelled from their homes more than 16 years ago. Of the more than 100,000 refugees in Nepali camps, the United States will consider resettlement for at least 60,000 of them.

“These refugees have literally been physically forced out of Bhutan and have nowhere to go,” says Morales…

So, they should be referred to as Nepalis.   But, the plot thickens.   The reason that there is violence and agitation in the camps is that Maoists (Communist ‘community organizers(!)) among these refugees want the Bhutanese /Nepalis to be able to return to Bhutan and I would guess ultimately overthrow the democratic government there.   I wrote about that earlier here.

And so, like it or not, we are scooping up tens of thousands and resettling them in a town near you.

Alinskyism (Day 16)

I was going to write about communication today, the greatest asset required to be a successful community organizer, however, just making my rounds of blogs this morning I thought Saul Alinsky’s further admonition about destabilizing communities was more appropriate.   The militant Muslims we see protesting around the country have most definitely been trained by leftist community organizers to make the most “almighty stink” they can.

For new readers I have been studying Saul Alinsky to better understand how and why we elected Barack Obama, and of course, to find a way to halt his obvious goal of moving America farther left and toward more socialism.    I hadn’t seen this, Obama’s Alinsky Jujitusu in American Thinker a year ago, until just now so check it out, then come back.

From “Rules for Radicals:’

….if your function is to attack apathy and get people to participate it is necessary to attack the prevailing patterns of organized living in the community. The first step in community [or a country’s] organization is community disorganization.  The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization.  Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displaced by new patterns that provide the opportunities and means for citizen participation.  All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new.

This is why the organizer is immediately confronted with conflict.  The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latest hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression.  He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.

From the American Thinker article linked above:

One of Obama’s early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who had this to say to Ryan Lizza of The New Republic, about Obama:

“He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.”

The agitator’s job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the “realization” that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent “self-interest” in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease.

If you are now wondering how this could be, Obama doesn’t strike you as the classic “agitator,” that is because he is a master of Alinsky’s communication model.    I’ll tell you more about that the next time.    The skilled community organizer is not the one out in front whipping up the crowds, he is behind the scenes pulling all the strings.

The question for conservatives is, are we willing to make the most “almighty stink” we can?

My Alinsky calendar can be found in our “community destabilization” category here.