SEIU VP: Immigrants will create a governing coalition for the long term

In my previous post I told you about Progressive Eric Schwartz who heads up the US State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration.  I said that grateful* immigrants could be counted on as Democratic voters and that was one of the primary objectives driving the open borders movement (that and creating a borderless world).   Only moments later I saw that Trevor Loudon writing at his New Zeal blog said the same thing and backs it up with words right out of the mouth of an SEIU (Service Employee International Union) VP.

This is what Loudon said and he has a film and research to back it up! [Emphasis mine]:

Why, in a time of high U.S. unemployment, is the Obama Administration seriously considering Rep. Luis Gutierrez’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity” bill which would grant citizenship to up to 12 million illegal immigrants.

The answer has little to do with humanity, national security or prosperity.

It is all about power- raw socialist power. It is all about 8,000,000 more Democratic Party votes and the creation of a “governing coalition for the long term”.

At the “progressive” America’s Future Now! conference in Washington, DC on June 2, 2009, SEIU International Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina addressed attendees on the issue immigration reform.

Speaking of Latino voters, Medina said “when they voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up.”

So I think there’s two things that matter for the progressive community.
When you are in the middle of a fight for your life you will remember who was there with you. And immigrants count on progressives to be able to do that.

Number one, if we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants, that we’ll expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future…”

Number two.

We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three?

If we have eight million new voters who care about …… and will be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”

There you have the strategy. Fight for the illegal immigrants, grant them citizenship, then exploit their gratitude in the form of votes to create a “governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle..”

Read the rest of Mr. Loudon’s research on the issue.

I have joked on several previous occasions that if a majority of immigrants came to the US and voted Republican this open borders push from Progressive Democrats would end in a heartbeat.

* Regarding gratefulness, I don’t know if you’ve been noticing the increasing outspokenness of black Conservatives.  Many are beginning to realize that a considerable number of their problems have been created by leftwing policies primarily relating to welfare dependence.  Along those lines, I’ve been wondering lately, as we read one story after another of unhappy refugees feeling let down by their resettlement agencies, whether the Left would suffer a setback if refugees continue to feel pretty angry at their condition, afterall it is primarily Progressives who made unrealistic promises and brought them here.

Endnote:  Of course the flaw in my theory is exemplified by the case of Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, and some other inside-the-beltway Republicans who also are pushing for open borders.   Either they are Republican Progressives (Glenn Beck maintains that politicians like John McCain are also Progressives) who think they can bring immigrant voters to their side, or they are just flat out looking for cheap labor for businesses.   Or it could be something far more sinister, but we won’t go there.

Eric P. Schwartz and the One World Government gang (Part I)

We know that Mr. Schwartz is the Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration.  We most recently heard from him here the other day when he announced a doubling of the funds that will flow to refugee resettlement contractors.  But, what is his background?  After doing a little google search I realize I am going to have to tell you what I’ve learned in pieces because it’s way too much material for one post.

Regular readers know that my theory is that the refugee program and open borders immigration in general are about creating first a permanent leftwing voting base comprised of grateful immigrants, and then ultimately a one world government controlled by the United Nations—a goal of Progressives from their earliest days.   You can laugh, hoot and holler all you want, even call me tinfoil-hat as one commenter did,  but that is the only thing that makes any sense.  Otherwise why would sensible rational people be importing poverty and opening our borders to the third world?  Simple kindness?  Not a chance!

It isn’t kind or humane to bring in competition for poor Americans in the workplace.  It isn’t kind to disrupt longstanding American communities with insistence on that silly notion that  diversity is strength.  It isn’t humane to import thousands of refugees who will live in dangerous slums in US cities far from the culture they love and are comfortable with.  It isn’t kindness to encourage educated Iraqis to come here and scrub floors at night. It isn’t kindness to bring superior-acting Muslim Africans and drop them in poor black neighborhoods.  It isn’t kind to have special government loans for immigrants that are not available to low income Americans.  And, it isn’t right to take hard-earned money from taxpayers and give it to quasi-government groups to advance their political agendas.

This is political progressivism, plain and simple.  The Progressives hide behind a presumption of good intentions all the while creating crisis (Saul Alinsky) and bringing down our form of government (Cloward-Piven) to replace it with another one— a socialist global government.

So, here is one of the first pieces of evidence about Mr. Schwartz’s membership in the one-world government gang.  But, first you might want to review his profile on Who Runs Government, here.

Soros Flunky Runs Obama’s Pro-U.N. Policy, by Cliff Kincaid.

Mr. Kincaid heads the Washington, DC media watchdog group, Accuracy in Media.  Judy and I attended a conference they held in Washington, DC last fall.   We especially wanted to hear world famous blogger Trevor Loudon (New Zeal) that October day among other great speakers.

Kincaid on Schwartz from last January during the Obama transition:

In violation of Barack Obama’s promise to run an open and transparent transition to the next administration, an associate of convicted document thief Sandy Berger has been secretly meeting with far-left groups under the auspices of the Obama-Biden Transition Project to develop a range of pro-U.N. policies. These include placing “more [U.N.] blue helmets on U.S. troops” and forcing the U.S. to join the U.N.’s International Criminal Court (ICC).

The ICC is an international entity that could prosecute American citizens and soldiers for “war crimes” and other offenses, in violation of U.S. Constitutional protections.

The ICC treaty was signed by President Clinton, who expressed concern about some of its provisions, but under President Bush it was “unsigned” by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton in what he called his “happiest moment” at the State Department.

In response to the possibility of the ICC prosecuting American soldiers, the Congress in 2002 passed the American Service members Protection Act, in order to protect U.S. soldiers from the jurisdiction of the court.

While Obama comes across in the media as a “moderate” or “centrist” in foreign policy, his Transition Project is developing an extreme pro-U.N. policy that is supposed to be implemented by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice.

The Berger associate, Eric. P. Schwartz, is the executive director of the U.S. Connect Fund and represents several liberal and leftist foundations, including and most notably the Open Society Institute of financial hedge-fund operator George Soros. Soros is considered by some the virtual owner of the Democratic Party, having contributed lavishly to the party, its causes and candidates, including Obama. He personally contributed $50,000, the maximum allowed, to the Obama inauguration.

While Obama did not publicly endorse the International Criminal Court during the campaign, because “many questions remain unanswered about the ultimate scope of its activities,” Schwartz and his associates are clearly laying the groundwork for the Obama Administration’s acceptance of and membership in the ICC. Schwartz is perfectly suited for the task, having “initiated and managed the White House review that resulted in U.S. signature of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court” under Clinton, according to his own bio.

Other members of the secretive Obama group include Samantha Power, the Harvard academic and one of Obama’s closest foreign policy advisers who left the Obama presidential campaign temporarily after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.” A self-described “humanitarian hawk,” Power believes in using the United Nations to confront “genocide” in the world, despite the corruption scandals involving U.N. peacekeepers in human rights violations and sexual child abuse.

Soros, who backed Obama during the presidential campaign, is a well-known advocate of a “New World Order” in which the U.S. refuses to act unilaterally in its own interests but works through international organizations such as the U.N. on foreign policy matters. Critics note that such an approach gives the U.N. and other nations a veto over what the U.S. can do militarily.

A convicted inside trader whose currency manipulations have been known to threaten national governments and currencies, he testified on November 13, 2008, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about the risks posed by the hedge funds that he and other billionaires operate. In addition to the Democratic Party, his financial fingerprints are all over leftist, “progressive” and news media organizations.

The Connect U.S. Fund is funded by Soros’s Open Society Institute and other liberal foundations and provides grants to pro-U.N. groups around the country. These groups, which provide the appearance of public support for more U.S. involvement in the U.N., were involved in a January 10 national conference call to promote a “Responsible U. S. Global Engagement” agenda for the Obama Administration. They are releasing a letter to Obama this week urging close cooperation with the U.N. on such issues as human rights, climate change, arms control and foreign aid.

This is bound to find a favorable response, since the co-chair of the Obama-Biden Transition Project, John Podesta, a former Clinton chief of staff, comes from another Soros-funded group, the Center for American Progress. [Remember I told readers about CAP here and especially its proposal to airlift 100,000 Iraqis to the US ASAP.]

There is much more, read the whole article.

Come back tomorrow for Schwartz and the Tides Foundation.

Part II is here.

Two resettlement agencies in Iowa to close doors

One of the two is the only State run resettlement agency*—Iowa Bureau of Refugee Services—the other is a Lutheran agency.  They are closing because they no longer have sufficient funding although just a couple of days ago the State Department said more federal taxpayer funds are on the way.  Too late for these two I guess.

We were just discussing Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, here, yesterday.  (I’m assuming it is the parent organization to the one in Iowa.)

The story is below (Hat tip: Ellen).   They discuss how nice Iowa is/was to bring refugees but it is never mentioned that the Clinton Administration sent Iowa the Bosnians for the big meatpackers after they got caught hiring cheap illegal alien labor.  Clinton supplied his friends with cheap refugee labor instead!  Political junkies might remember Hillary’s Tysons Meat connections as well.

Two agencies that bring the bulk of international refugees to Iowa will cease resettling refugees this year, putting the brakes on a groundswell of Iowa humanitarianism that began when former Gov. Robert D. Ray first opened the state’s doors to a group of 600 Southeast Asian refugees in 1975.

More limited finances are forcing the Iowa Bureau of Refugee Services and the nonprofit Lutheran Services in Iowa to stop resettling people who flee from war-torn countries, natural disasters, political oppression or religious persecution.

Catholic Charities – the only other agency that resettles refugees in Iowa – is also having financial difficulties.

The Bureau of Refugee Services is the only federally funded, state-run refugee resettlement program in the country. It has an annual budget of about $2 million but lost some key federal funds this year that kept refugee resettlement operations afloat. The bureau plans to stop taking new refugees June 30.

Lutheran Services in Iowa plans to stop taking new refugees this month. Agency officials say it now costs more than they can afford – an estimated $3,000 or more – to resettle just one refugee and move that person toward self-sufficiency. Until this month, the federal refugee resettlement program funded less than $1,000 per refugee.

Last week, the State Department raised the federal stipend to $1,800 per refugee. Even so, Lutheran Services officials estimated that the agency would have a funding gap of $300,000 or more if it continued to resettle several hundred refugees annually.

Catholic Charities, part of the Diocese of Des Moines, will continue to resettle refugees, although that agency, too, is worried about finances. It has resettled 129 refugees in the past month.

*This Iowa state agency was one of the Top Ten Volag federal contractors, so I guess only nine will now split the federal funding pie.

Haitian refugee news roundup

I am deluged with news about Haitian refugees, so the best I can do today is list a bunch of stories that you should see.  These have been piling up in my in-box, thanks to readers for sending them.

Haitians begin arriving in Tampa:

A planeload of Haitians has just landed at Tampa International Airport.

The C-130 military aircraft landed about 9:15 p.m. It is carrying 34 people, half of them injured and needing medical attention.

Fifteen of the injured are Haitians; two are members of the U.S. military. Most of the remaining passengers are family members.

Airport, medical and relief agency officials have been on alert for days for the possibility Hatians needing help would begin arriving in the Bay area. Most of the injured have gone to South Florida, but those medical facilities are beginning to reach capacity.

I guess the big question the folks in Tampa are asking is, will they go back to Haiti after their medical treatment.

A couple of readers sent me this Washington Post story about how Haitian refugees will be coming to the US at some point.  I don’t know what it says because the darned article has frozen my computer 3 times when I tried to read it!  I think its their pop-up ad.  Maybe you will have better luck.  I’ve been given these few lines from the story:

Among Haitians and their U.S. relatives, Limon [that would be Lavinia, whoop de do, Limon of the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants] predicted, pressure on U.S. immigration policy will escalate in the coming weeks and months. “You need a boat, a captain, money. Nobody has that,” she said. “But in two weeks, four weeks, six weeks, they will.”

A Pennsylvania town offers an empty school to house refugees from Haiti thinking it will bring an economic boom to their county. Good luck with that idea.

Aid agencies blasted.  This is a story that was all over the place a few days ago.  The link I’ve given you is just one of many on the topic.

A leading British medical journal [Lancet] says many international aid groups in Haiti are more concerned with self-promotion than helping earthquake survivors.

Here is a blog post from before the earthquake that says aid workers sexually abuse Haitians.

Gallup reports results similar to Rasmussen. Most Americans don’t want more Haitian refugees.

PRINCETON, N.J., Jan. 26 (UPI) — Most Americans oppose allowing more Haitian refugees into the United States in the wake of the devastating Jan. 12 earthquake, a Gallup poll indicates.

In a survey released Tuesday, Gallup said the immigration issue produces a sharp political divide, with 57 percent of Democrats in favor of allowing more immigrants, while 57 percent of independents and 67 percent of Republicans are opposed.

More later.