They are changing America by changing the people
That is the title of a piece in Hiiraan Online a publication about Somalia. Here is one paragraph to entice you to read the whole article.
“Good! Good!” he replies. “You know these Somali people. They are no good. They just get you in trouble or they want something from you. It is better to stay away. I tell my children when you see Somalis don’t talk to them…they are just trouble!”
Who is saying that (some bigot?), and with whom is he speaking? See for yourself, here.
Newsweek reported on March 11 an “exclusive” headlined Senators Accuse Homeland Security Spies of Cribbing From ‘Questionable’ Right-Wing Sources.
Actually, it’s just one source: Discover the Networks, David Horowitz’s excellent database of information about leftist and jihadist individuals, organizations, and funding sources. We’ve used Discover the Networks many times. Here is our page of search results for it. So have Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, and many other talk-show hosts and journalists interested in learning about leftist individuals and groups and their funding. Here’s how Newsweek’s piece opens:
Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein and other prominent Senate Democrats have accused spies at the Homeland Security Department of basing official intelligence reports on dubious open-source material. Inquiries by Declassified indicate that at least some of the data that Feinstein and her colleagues deemed “questionable” came from a website set up by outspoken conservative activist David Horowitz to catalogue negative information about the political left.
It’s wrong to try to find out information about the political left, you see. It goes on:
In an official report accompanying an intelligence authorization bill last year, Feinstein’s committee alleged that Homeland’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis had been issuing papers that “inappropriately analyze the legitimate activities of U.S. persons” – papers that “often used certain questionable open source information as a basis of their conclusions.”
…She went on to allege that on a number of occasions, Homeland’s spies had “produced and disseminated finished intelligence that has been based on non-credible, open source materials or focused intelligence resources on the first amendment-protected activities of American citizens.”
Let’s see. It’s okay for Homeland Security to produce a report on the right-wing threat, titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” which lists no specific threats. I don’t remember Dianne Feinstein getting upset about that. The first finding of the report is summarized thusly:
The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
In other words, DHS put their resources into preparing a report on something they imagined might happen, and apparently on their own initiative, not in response to a request. And that was fine with liberal members of Congress. Now, here’s how the report the senators object to came about:
Congressional officials say the Homeland intelligence report that particularly angered Feinstein and other committee members is still classified. Nevertheless, three current and former intelligence officials, requesting anonymity when discussing sensitive information, say the report in question is a profile of an unnamed but prominent American Islamic leader and was produced by Homeland Security’s intelligence office during the latter years of the Bush administration. The report was requested by the Department’s civil rights office, whose officials were preparing to meet with the Islamic leader. But instead of sending the civil rights office a quick bio of the individual in question, Homeland’s intelligence office issued a “finished” intel report that was circulated to other intelligence agencies and, eventually, to Congressional oversight committees.
DHS concluded that he was not a threat.
According to the letter, the Homeland report specifically went on to conclude that the Islamic leader in question was a “mainstream voice” and that information on him “points to politically controversial statements but not to extremism” — conclusions that Rockefeller and Feingold declared to be “political assessments that are outside of the bounds of the authorities granted U.S. law enforcement and intelligence entities.”
So it’s okay to assess anti-illegal immigration groups who produce academic studies, but not Muslim leaders who possess many of the same characteristics as other Muslim leaders who turned out to be funneling money to Hamas, and other jihadist activities.
Feinstein and her colleagues are deeply confused. She objects to papers that “inappropriately analyze the legitimate activities of U.S. persons.” First of all, what is a “U.S. person”? A citizen? An illegal immigrant? Second, if someone is acting suspiciously, how do we know his activities are legitimate unless they are investigated? It makes the point clearer to use an analogy from ordinary crime. Suppose a policeman sees someone breaking into a house and goes to investigate. The person turns out to be the owner who forgot his key. Was the policeman’s action wrong?
Many Muslim leaders have turned out to have connections to terrorist groups abroad, or to have made statements inciting followers to violence. Not all leaders, but enough so that we need to consider it legitimate to investigate them. Particularly under the circumstances here. This was a leader meeting with an agency of the federal government; we don’t know why. There have been a number of cases in which Muslims became connected to the federal government in one way or another and turned out to be jihadists. Translators, for example, or liaisons to the “Muslim community.” President Bush entertained several at the White House. It is the most natural thing in the world for a government official to know about any Muslim leader he is going to have any contact with. In case Dianne Feinstein has forgotten, we are at war with Islamic extremists, and these enemies do not proclaim their identification as such on their foreheads.
Finally, the Senators object to open source material. Why? The question is whether it is true or not, rather than whether it is open source. And since the government is dangerously delinquent in its investigations of possible jihadists, I am grateful that so many citizens have taken it upon themselves to find out vital information and make it available. It was a citizen “Net Posse” that followed the recently come-to-light Jihad Jane for three years, and credibly claim to have alerted the feds to her. Let’s have more open source information; maybe the government agencies charged with protecting us could read these sources more widely so they can do the jobs they are supposed to do.
Here is the post on the Newsweek article at David Horowitz’s NewsReal blog.
If you are in DC next week, you might want to stop by the National Press Club on Thursday for what should be a steamy session as the Center for Immigration Studies releases a new report on the tactics used by the Southern Poverty Law Center against anyone who disagrees with them on immigration (or anything else for that matter).
WASHINGTON (March 10, 2010) – After the collapse of the Senate amnesty bill in 2007, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) joined with the National Council of La Raza and others to launch a campaign to smear the three largest mainstream groups making a case for tighter enforcement and lower immigration. At the center of this campaign was the designation of the Federation for American Immigration Reform as a “hate group” and the spread of that taint to Numbers USA and the Center for Immigration Studies. The announced goal was to pressure journalists and policymakers not to meet or speak with these organizations. Touted as an effort to “stop the hate,” it was a thinly disguised move to stifle debate.
CIS will release a report next week examining the SPLC and its role in this campaign. “Immigration and the SPLC: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Invented a Smear, Served La Raza, Manipulated the Press, and Duped its Donors,” authored by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Jerry Kammer, will be released at a panel discussion on Thursday, March 18, at 9:30 a.m. at the Murrow Room of the National Press Club, 14th & F streets NW.
For more information, go here.
Frequent visitors to this blog may remember that the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence from Portland, ME is affiliated with the Southern Poverty Law Center and is planning to “stop any debate” and vilify the citizens in four cities sometime soon. See my report here. One of those cities is nearby Frederick, MD.
I previously wrote about the Southern Poverty Law Center, here, when I wrote about their front man, Mark Potok, in a post that although over a year old is visited daily at RRW.
The Cultural Resource Orientation Center has its stats for FY2010 updated through February 28th. We have just short of 30,000 new refugees for this fiscal year so far. The target is 80,000. Go here to see what countries they have come from.
But, of course they have no jobs and more tax dollars are needed to care for them or as Rep. Dingell (D-MI) says, a domestic refugee crisis is at hand, here.
Your tax dollars:
Remember those lobbyists at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops I just mentioned in my previous post, or in the post yesterday where Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services is looking for a new lobbyist, this is what they are doing! This is what lobbyists do, I know, I was one once. They work hand in glove with government agencies looking for more money, your money (and in this case LIRS and USCCB will get their piece of the pie). They use your money to get more of your money!
They are working with sympathetic staffers and carrying around a Dear Colleague letter from that old progressive bully John Dingell of Michigan and some other Michigan Congressmen (well, Michigan needs your tax dollars because they have a huge immigrant population dependent on welfare and the state is going down the toilet). Dingell says we must fund the refugee program with an 18% increase in order to prevent a domestic refugee crisis. Hey, John, there is one already—it’s called too many refugees and no jobs.
How about no new funding until a financial audit is done on the program and all of its contractors!
Here’s John:
We are writing to urge you to support full funding of the President’s request for the Refugee and Entrant Assistance account within the fiscal year (FY) 2011 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This account funds the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
Since 2008, more than 30,000 of the nearly 4.5 million Iraqis displaced since the Iraq war have been admitted into the United States and thousands more will be resettled in the coming years. Regrettably, funding for ORR has not kept pace with the increasing number of admitted refugees. Not only does this result in insufficient assistance to meet the short term needs of refugee families, such as groceries, rent, and employment, it also means that refugees are struggling to gain long term self sufficiency and become productive members of society.
Fortunately, the President’s budget request takes important steps to address America’s growing refugee crisis. The request funds ORR at $877,602,000, an 18.5 percent increase above the FY10 enacted level. The increase to ORR is offset by reductions within HHS, preserving the President’s commitment to freeze discretionary non-defense spending.
The United States has made a commitment to assist those who have been displaced during the Iraq War, many of whom are persecuted because of their cooperation and assistance to U.S. troops abroad. Providing a minimum level of basic assistance is necessary to keep that commitment and sends a signal of our support to those who are assisting us in the fight against our enemies abroad. A modest increase in refugee benefits included in the President’s budget will go far to help alleviate the burden on our states by helping more refugees obtain employment and self sufficiency, enabling them to thrive and contribute to the vibrancy of our communities.
Again, we hope you will join us in requesting full funding for the Refugee and Entrant Assistance account within the fiscal year (FY) 2011 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The text of the letter to the Appropriations Committee is below. To sign on, please contact Erica Fein, in Congressman Dingell’s office at 5-4071, or Carly Hepola, in Congressman Peters’ office at 5-5802.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
John D. Dingell Gary Peters
Member of Congress Member of Congress
—-
Chairman David Obey
House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Labor, HHS, Education
2358-B Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Ranking Member Todd Tiahrt
House Appropriation Subcommittee on
Labor, HHS, Education
1016 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
March xx, 2010
Dear Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Tiahart,
We are writing to urge full funding of President Obama’s budget request for the Refugee and Entrant Assistance account within the fiscal year (FY) 2011 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This account funds the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
Since 2008, more than 30,000 of the nearly 4.5 million Iraqis displaced since the Iraq war have been admitted into the United States and thousands more will be resettled in the coming years. Many of these refugees are victims of torture and persecution, or were forced to flee because of their support for American military operations. ORR’s purpose is to provide a lifeline to Iraqi refugees and Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIVs) holders, as well as other vulnerable populations such as Cuban and Haitian immigrants, trafficking victims, torture victims, and unaccompanied alien children, so that these new residents may achieve self sufficiency. ORR is charged with providing a wide range of services, including eight months cash and medical assistance, case management, job development, job placement, interim housing, English-language training, and social adjustment services and interpretation services.
However, funding for ORR has not kept pace with the increasing number of refugee admissions. The amount and duration of cash and medical assistance is widely considered inadequate to meet even basic needs such as rent or groceries for a refugee family. The total package of assistance available to refugees amounts to between just seventeen to forty percent of the federal poverty line. In some cities, average cash assistance for a family of five may be as low as $700 per month. Additionally, ORR’s funding formula relies on admissions numbers from the prior 3 years, and thus fails to capture and divert resources to areas receiving large numbers of recent Iraqi refugees. Furthermore, the economic recession, which has caused high unemployment throughout the country, has equally affected the ability of resettled refugees to gain employment. A recent report by the Georgetown Law Center found in some areas as few as 10% of refugees have obtained employment at the end of the eight month benefit period. Refugees who do not find employment are forced to rely on traditional welfare programs, straining the resources of state agencies, local non-profits, and charities who struggle to provide basic services.
The President’s budget request takes important steps needed to address America’s growing refugee crisis. The request funds ORR at $877,602,000, an 18.5 percent increase above the FY10 enacted level. The request also will also provide for a contingency fund that can target resources to areas experiencing high levels of secondary migration or refugee admissions that are not immediately accounted for under the ORR funding formula. The President’s request for an increase in the ORR budget is offset by reductions within HHS, preserving his commitment to freeze discretionary non-defense spending.
The United States has made a commitment to these refugees, many of whom are persecuted because of their cooperation and assistance to U.S. troops abroad. Providing a minimum level of basic assistance is necessary to keep that commitment and sends a signal of our support to those who are assisting us in the fight against our enemies abroad. A modest increase in refugee benefits included in the President’s budget will go far to help alleviate the burden on our states by helping more refugees to obtain employment and self sufficiency, enabling them to thrive and contribute to the vibrancy of our communities. We hope you will consider fully funding President Obama’s FY11 budget request for ORR.
Sincerely,