Month: January 2010

St. Cloud, MN Somalis turn up the stealth jihad heat, demand “human rights”

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Update January 28th:  Diana West has an update, CAIR is now involved here.

Update January 24th:  Man who posted cartoons cited for violating city ordinance, here.

Here is a story yesterday from the St. Cloud Times about Somali students demonstrating this past Wednesday at St. Cloud State University to protest cartoons of Mohammad that appeared around campus.

The recent posting of offensive anti-Islamic cartoons in St. Cloud was part of a pattern of hatred toward people of color in this area, some said Wednesday at a rally at St. Cloud State University.

The university’s Somali Student Association sponsored the rally, which drew comment from city and university leaders, students and one gubernatorial candidate.

The session was a response to last month’s cartoon incident, in which sexually explicit drawings of the Prophet Muhammad and a swastika were posted around St. Cloud, including near a mosque and a Somali-owned store.

St. Cloud State President Earl H. Potter III professed empathy for those hurt by the cartoons, while two professors took aim at what they called systemic racism in the St. Cloud area.

A professor throws in a gratuitous attack at Rep. Michele Bachmann (St. Cloud is the heart of her district), the conservative firebrand and outspoken critic of the Obama Administration, with a veiled suggestion that somehow she is the ringleader of the “racists.”  These leftists’ reliance on the race card is getting old and most of us see through that despicable strategy.

Luke Tripp, a professor of community studies, said the same “conservative white” mind-set led to the election of U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater.

Tripp cited a history of racially motivated high school fights as evidence of the animosity that Somalis encounter here.

There has been a series of hateful attacks against the growing Somali community since they began arriving here,” Tripp said.

I don’t know if St. Cloud has an American black population, but I assure you that American blacks and African blacks, especially Somalis, as we have reported repeatedly (here in Rochester, MN) on these pages are in conflict across the country (not just in Michele Bachmann’s district!).  It has little to do with skin color and more to do with a culture clash in places where thousands and thousands of Somalis have been settled by the US State Department and its supposedly non-profit government contractors into American cities with the naive expectation that the American melting pot will work its magic.

Let’s just look at the numbers for Minnesota!   Go here and follow the links back to the databases at the Office of Refugee Resettlement (US Health and Human Services).  From 1983 to 2005 Minnesota received 10,695 Somalis out of a total refugee load ot 59,878.  In several years since 2005, Minnesota received thousands more Somalis.  If you add up all the numbers you will find that Minnesota got the largest number of Somalis of any state in the US.  Don’t ask me how that happened, but family reunification is a likely reason.

Once an original refugee population is established each of those families can apply for extended family members to come from, in this case, Africa.  That was until 2008 when the US State Department did some random testing and learned that upwards of 80% of those applications from mostly Somalis for family reunification were fraudulent.  See our most recent coverage of that scandal, here.

The St.Cloud meatpacker connection.  I have been contending all along that the US State Department and the resettlement contractors have been working hand-in-glove with the large US meatpackers to supply cheap refugee labor.  Does Gold’n Plump Poultry ring a bell?

This is from a history of that meatpacking plant in St. Cloud:

In 1996 a raid by the Immigration and Naturalization Service took place at the Cold Spring facility. Workers with forged papers were arrested and deported. Gold’n Plump established new hiring procedures in the wake of the event. The labor market was tight for processors in the industry and many new immigrants comprised much of the company’s labor force. In 1983 a survey showed that 18 percent of the Cold Spring workers were of Asian descent. Throughout the 1990s the ethnic makeup of company workers was mostly Hispanic. The late 1990s and into 2000 saw an influx of Somali refugees in Minnesota, and their numbers were increasing at the plant.

This is a similar story to ones in other cities with meatpacking plants.   Perhaps the clearest example of this strategy was the Clinton Administration’s opening the door to Bosnians to work in Iowa meatpacking plants after his Bosnian war.  Plants (like Gold n’ Plump) had been using illegal aliens then they realized with Clinton’s help that legal refugee labor was just the ticket, here. 

I would be here all morning if I linked all the posts we have written on meatpackers and their use of refugee labor, suffice it to say it has brought much controversy in places like Shelbyville, TN, Greeley, CO, Ft. Morgan, CO, Emporia, KS and Grand Island, NE, just to name a few with Somali worker conflicts.

Gold n’ Plump in St. Cloud, sued by Somali Muslims and the meatpacker lost.  So you can bet that tensions are already high in St. Cloud when Somalis demanding special prayer accommodations won a lawsuit against the meatpacker.   We reported the story here and here, Jihad Watch has it here, and the EEOC official version of the judgement is here.

What about that dog story?  When I saw this St. Cloud article yesterday I wondered where besides the Gold n’ Plump settlement had I heard of St. Cloud before?  Then I remembered!  In May 2008 a handicapped student with a dog was taunted by Somali students at a technical school and he left the school fearing someone would hurt his dog.  Islamists consider dogs one of ten dirty things in the ‘religion’ right along with feces, urine and dead bodies, thus I guess they felt they could legitimately harrass a dog.   Judy concluded her post on that story with this line:

Yes, we have to respect the Somalis’ right to taunt a dog. Why don’t they just tell the Muslim students that in America we do not tolerate mistreatment of dogs or of dog owners? Oh, that wouldn’t be sensitive.

So back to the St. Cloud protests this week.  We want human rights (yes, theirs are more important than those of the service dog owner, or other workers at Gold n’ Plump) and a human rights office too (paid for by taxpayers of course).

Several speakers also criticized the lack of a fully funded city human rights office.

[…..]

Mohamed Mohamed, president of the Somali Student Association, said he’s encountered discrimination in St. Cloud. But Mohamed added that Wednesday’s rally shouldn’t be about pitting one race of people against another.

“This issue is not white and black,” Mohamed said. “It’s human rights.”

Readers, this is the stealth jihad—we change to accommodate them.  Learn more by visiting this post from 2008 where a commenter tells us how it is being accomplished first in Minnesota.

Update:  Jerry Gordon posts on our post and adds some additional information, here, at New English Review.

A tremendous victory for free speech for citizens

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t directly relate to refugees, but Ann and I have long been concerned with free speech, including threats to speech because of political correctness.  As bloggers we are always aware that there are those who would like to control the Internet in the interest of ideology.  The high court yesterday upheld, in Citizens United v. FEC, “the right to engage in free speech, particularly political speech, and the right to freely associate” by overturning major provisions of the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform law which restricted political advertising by corporations, among other things.

Almost all the commentary I’ve seen has been about how big money will now control elections — that is, corporations and the rich. Very few seem to understand the larger meaning of the decision. The suit was brought by Citizens United, not by Exxon or Wal-Mart. It was about the group’s right to show a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the campaign season. Citizens United is a corporation, as are most such organizations.

The worst thing about McCain Feingold was that it prevented ordinary people from banding together to influence elections by advertising. What could be more in line with the First Amendment than that? It is political speech, which was originally the very focus of freedom of speech as named in the Bill of Rights. Banning that kind of speech gave us the absurd situation in which nude dancing was held by the Supreme Court to be legitimate expression under the First Amendment, but pointing out a candidate’s good or bad points in an ad was not.

The only commentary I have seen so far which emphasizes this point is an excellent post by Hans von Spakovsky on the Heritage Foundation’s blog, The Foundry, from which I took the words in boldface above. Here’s a bit of it:

Almost every one of the many associations we have in this country (no matter which side of the political aisle they are on), from the NAACP to the Sierra Club to the National Rifle Association, are also corporations. Yet those corporate associations were prohibited under penalty of criminal and civil sanctions from expressing the views of their members in the political arena over which particular candidates should be elected to uphold the positions on important issues of public policy that their members believe in unless they complied with certain very restrictive, complex provisions.

For-profit corporations and labor unions were also prohibited from engaging in independent political activity even though their businesses and the jobs of their employees and members can be greatly affected, damaged, or even lost because of the actions taken by elected members of Congress. There is no rational reason why they should not be able to engage in independent political activity.

Von Spakovsky grounds the decision in basic principles:

It is no surprise that these rights are in the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders, who had fought a long, hard war with the English crown to establish our independence, knew that the ability to associate freely (think the Sons of Liberty) and to engage in political speech without being censored by the government were fundamental rights crucial to our republic. That is why the Supreme Court’s decision throwing out a federal ban on independent political expenditures by corporations (including non-profits) is a return to, as the Court said, “ancient First Amendment principles.”

Read the whole thing; it’s short and better than any other commentary I’ve read so far.

I believe that there will be ramifications of this decision far beyond what any commentary has touched on. Not being psychic or a legal wizard I don’t know what they are, but they might include an end to the IRS persecution of churches and other nonprofits for talking about elections, perhaps an end to the ban on lobbying by certain nonprofits, and many other things, as Americans exercise their traditional practice of exploring the meaning of their rights.

Palestinian “refugees” can’t settle in Lebanon — one more example of Arab irresponsibility and bigotry

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

A blog called Elder of Ziyon reports:

The US envoy to the Middle East just doomed any remote chance there might have ever been for a peaceful two-state solution.

Palestine Press Agency quotes Mitchell as having told his Lebanese hosts that the US “does not support the resettlement of the Palestinians” in Lebanon. The US Embassy website in Lebanon said “As the Special Envoy, Mitchell confirmed to Prime Minister Hariri in their meeting last evening the U.S. will not support the forced naturalization of Palestinians in Lebanon.”

Then follows a clear summary of the Palestinian problem, with emphasis on something we haven’t talked about much. Some highlights:

. . . the definition of “Palestinian refugee” is unique among all world refugees. The UNRWA created an entirely news class of refugees where the descendants of Palestinian Arab refugees are considered refugees themselves. Using this bizarre definition, the number of Palestinian Arab “refugees” is fated to grow, forever. It is simply impossible to imagine that they will all ever “return” to “Palestine.” They are now at about 10,000,000 and counting.

As far back as the 1950s, the world realized that there was no solution for the (then) hundreds of thousands of refugees that did not include their eventual resettlement in Arab countries. Yet the Arab League, in an astonishing display of bigotry against their fellow Arabs that persists to this day, ruled that no Palestinian Arabs can become naturalized citizens of Arab countries – while all other Arabs can.

This is, in sum, the major reason why millions of Arabs are stateless today. Even if you want to blame Israel for expelling every one of the 600,000 Arabs in 1948 (which is clearly not true,) the only people responsible for their continued suffering over the past 61 years are the Arab leaders who pretend to support them while refusing to take in their “brethren” and give them full rights.

The UN’s agency, UNRWA has been complicit in this dereliction of duty by the Arab leaders, never even suggesting that the Palestinians could settle anywhere but Israel, as far as I know. The blogger goes on to point out that any time Palestinians have had the opportunity to settle in an Arab country, they have jumped at the chance.

So today we have millions of people, falsely labeled as “refugees,” who never stepped foot in British Mandate Palestine and who, if they were any other group of people, would have become citizens of the nations they were born in. The reason is purely because of Arab bigotry and intransigence.

There is no realistic solution to the “Palestinian” problem as long as this naked bigotry is allowed to continue. Millions of Palestinian Arabs are not going to stream into a nation of “Palestine.” The only solution must include treating this population exactly the same way as other refugee populations are treated.

The US should be in the forefront of insisting that the “moderate” Arab nations and allies step up and take their share of responsibility for decades of Palestinian Arab suffering.

Instead, George Mitchell (who has Lebanese ancestry) has now officially stated that the US supports this institutionalized discrimination by Arab leaders. A golden opportunity to point out embedded Arab bigotry and to publicize and shame Arabs into taking responsibility for their treatment of Palestinian Arabs is now lost.

He points out:

 The losers, as always, are the actual Arabs of Palestinian Arab ancestry who are kept in limbo by the very people who are claiming to care the most about them.

Right you are, Elder. But there are other losers. Those are the Jews, both in Israel and worldwide. Thanks to a propaganda blitz that’s gone on for decades, this pitiful state of the Palestinians is blamed on Israel in the most hateful, disgusting and dishonest way. So successful has this been that the worldwide hatred for Israel is now moving into hatred for Jews in general, and in some ostensibly civilized countries in Europe Jews are not safe.

Coincidentally, just before I read Elder of Ziyon’s post a friend sent me this video from Just Journalism, a new British website devoted to fighting the new anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli press coverage that dominates the UK media and helps spread the virus in Britain.

Miami Herald: Maybe as many as 200,000 Haitians illegally in US will apply for TPS

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

We told you about the Obama Administration’s decision to grant illegal alien Haitians already in the US before the earthquake Temporary Protected Status here.

Now comes word, oops! that the number is far greater than originally thought. 

The Obama administration is preparing to handle applications from as many as 200,000 undocumented Haitian immigrants who want to live and work legally in the United States under a new immigration program unveiled last week in the aftermath of Haiti’s destructive earthquake.

The federal government will begin accepting Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applications on Thursday, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas, whose agency will process the paperwork.

Mayorkas was in Miami Wednesday to meet with local immigrant aid groups to South Florida to talk about the daunting task of handling the likely blizzard of applications from Haitians seeking the opportunity to remain in the United States.

[….]　

The TPS designation is reserved for selected undocumented migrants from countries disrupted by natural disasters, armed conflicts or other emergencies.

Those Haitians approved will be allowed to stay in the United States for 18 months and be issued work permits to find jobs.

The Liberian example*:   This 18 months business is a joke.  We granted Liberians TPS years ago and halted it in 2006.  When the deadline approached this year to deport those who had TPS status, heavy lobbying by the likes of Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island (here) and others persuaded the Obama Administration to extend their deadline to be deported, here.   What do you think the chances are that once established in jobs, buying homes and sending kids to school they will ever be returned to Liberia (or Haiti)?

What a surprise, earlier in the week immigrant advocacy groups had the number of Haitians in the US wrong.

Local immigrant advocacy groups say that between 34,000 and 68,000 potential TPS applicants may be in South Florida and almost 100,000 statewide. They had earlier pegged the number of Haitians eligible for TPS at 30,000 nationwide.

So, let’s see!  We are going to give TPS status to 200,000 Haitians so they can compete with Americans for scarce jobs then send a large portion of the money they make back to Haiti.  And, if they don’t find jobs, will they send their welfare checks back to Haiti?

By obtaining work permits with the possibility of getting a job, tens of thousands of undocumented Haitian immigrants in the United States are likely to send tens of millions of dollars to homeland relatives.

The latest estimate shows that Haitian immigrants in the United States send more than $1 billion in remittances to Haiti, according to the Inter-American Development Bank, which closely tracks remittances to the region.

The money sent from Haitians living in the United States and other foreign countries represents more than one-third of Haiti’s gross national product.

There is a fee schedule for TPS applications, but no surprise the feds are considering waiving it.

* Update:  A reader sent me this good article by Roy Beck at NumbersUSA from last March about the Obama extension of TPS for Liberians.

Geert Wilders goes on trial in the Netherlands for insulting Islam

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

The official charge is “inciting hatred and discrimination toward Islam.” Wilders, member of the Dutch legislature, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, and the most popular politician in the Netherlands, is an outspoken critic of Islam and Islamic terrorism. His short documentary film, Fitna, shows images of horrors perpetrated by Muslims, and shocked the delicate sensibilities of some of his countrymen, who prefer to ignore these things in the interest of social harmony, or their careers, or something. 

FrontPage Magazine has been covering Wilders very well for a long time. Today they print his speech to the court on the first day of his trial. (Other FrontPage links are here, though this might not be a complete list because of a very bad redesign of the website.)  We have covered Wilders here at RRW, also, and our links are here.  Here is Wilders’s inspiring speech:

Mister Speaker, judges of the court,

I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.

Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.

I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.

I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.

I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.

Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:

It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.

In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.

This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial.

I am posting this speech because the freedom to speak openly about Islam is threatened all around the world, including within our own country. Geert Wilders is standing up for all of us, and we need to be aware of his situation.  If you doubt that our freedom is at risk, read what the administration of Temple University did to try to block his speech there, and how he was treated.

His website is here; there are links to articles and other material about him and his case, and there is a link to donate. I encourage you to do so.