Blazing Cat Furhas a post yesterday entitled: ‘Al Jazeera ‘Voice of Qatar’ nags Europe and Canada about taking Syrian refugees’, with this commentary:
Qatar has been blamed for financing the Islamic fanatics that are making a solution impossible. They have also not taken in any refugees themselves.
Looks like a plan to Islamize the West.
It is true, that like Saudi Arabia, Qatar takes no refugees. Read it all.
By the way, in 2013, Daniel Pipes penned a logical piece suggesting that Muslim refugees go to appropriate cultural zones and mentioned wealthy Qatar as one of the most desirable resettlement countries:
To place Syrians in “countries better able to afford to host them,” as Guterres delicately puts it, one need simply divert attention from the Christian-majority West toward the vast, empty expanses of the fabulously wealthy Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as the smaller but in some cases even richer states of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. For starters, these countries (which I will collectively call Arabia) are much more convenient to repatriate to Syria from than, say, New Zealand. Living there also means not enduring frozen climes (as in Sweden) or learning difficult languages spoken by few, such as Danish.
Why don’t they take in their fellow Muslims? Because this is not about humanitarian brownie points! The migration of Muslims is about the Hijra—the responsibility of all Muslims to migrate and to colonize the West—to create the Islamic State worldwide. They know it, why don’t we?
Stop Qatar Now! http://www.stopqatarnow.com/
Yesterday a reader directed me to this important website about the role Qatar is playing in funding the advance of the Islamic State throughout the Western world. I have to admit, I hadn’t been focusing on Qatar, but I will now! So should you!
Cologne Cathedral will turn out its lights this evening in protest against the anti-Islamisation marches gaining momentum across Germany.
The marches led by the group Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (Pegida) have grown from a few hundred people gathering in Dresden in October, to 17,000 people at a rally in the eastern city just before Christmas.
The growth of the movement, prompted by the rise in immigration to Germany, has brought widespread condemnation. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in her New Year address: “I say to all those who go to such demonstrations: do not follow those who have called the rallies because all too often they have prejudice, coldness, even hatred in their hearts.”
Counter-protests have also emerged, which many Christians have joined, conveying German support for asylum seekers. The landmark Roman Catholic cathedral in Cologne is responding to fears that the movement will gain traction in other cities around Germany.
“PEGIDA is made up of an astonishingly broad mix of people, ranging from those in the middle of society to racists and the extreme right-wing,” cathedral dean Norbert Feldhoff told Reuters.
“By switching off the floodlighting we want to make those on the march stop and think. It is a challenge: consider who you are marching alongside.”
[….]
According to Reuters, an opinion poll last week found that one in eight Germans would join a Pegida march if the group organised one in their town.
Germany’s immigration figures are now second only to the United States, and around 200,000 people tried to seek asylum in the country last year, partly due to the influx from Syria. Dresden, however, has one of the lowest immigrant populations in the country.
Silence the critics of mass immigration of Muslims to Germany and one day the Cathedral in Cologne will be a mosque.
The parasitic bird out-competes the host bird’s young. http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8645000/8645158.stm
Do you know about “brood parasites” in nature—you know, like the clever Cuckoo bird that lays its eggs in another bird’s nest, so that the unsuspecting host bird feeds and cares for the Cuckoo’s young often resulting in death to the host’s own offspring! That is what I think of every time I hear one more story about the “unaccompanied children” flocking to the US, or in this case to Sweden.
Aren’t we just like the animals after all? (I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth among my Leftwing critics!)
I know we have posted a lot on Sweden in recent weeks and days (click here for our complete archive), but it’s important because we can use Sweden as our ‘canary in a coal mine’ (oh geez, an ornithological analogy again!). The country is small and the huge number of migrants they are permitting to live there will bring them to the brink sooner than larger western countries, so we can all watch and learn from what happens to Sweden.
It is not just the US that has ‘unaccompanied minors’ (the “children”) arriving en masse. Here is a report about one unhappy community—Östra Göinge—in southern Sweden.
We reported on this Swedish policy here in 2013, when one of the “kids” murdered another of the “children” at a residential facility, not in Östra Göinge, but in another town.
Around 7,000 unaccompanied refugee children arrived in Sweden in 2014, twice as many as the year before. And some parts of the country aren’t coping, according to reports.
A total of 81,300 people found refuge in Sweden in 2014, a jump of almost 50 percent from the 54,300 in 2013.
Among the refugees, 7,000 were children arriving without their families – almost double the figure from the previous year.
A law change that came into effect last January means that the unaccompanied minors can be sent to any municipality in the country, regardless of whether the municipalities want them or not.
Some consider the influx to be problematic, including Patric Åberg of the city council in southern Sweden’s Östra Göinge.
“We have taken in unaccompanied minors since 2011, but the problem is that the municipalities taking in many of them have to take in even more – and we think it’s devastating,” he told the TT news agency.
He says that his municipality simply doesn’t have the room to house so many children, and that other parts of Sweden should step up and take their share.
The municipality has requested an official court inquest into the matter.
“We think there is a gap here and that we can get around it. We want the system to be changed at a fundamental level,” he added.
There is a bit more about “flocking” at The Local.
See our complete archive on ‘unaccompanied minors’ here(mostly about the “children” arriving in the US, but they are seeing it in Italy too!).
Reporter Julie Zauzmer does the stereotypical report on a Syrian family in fear of Assad who have just managed to be in the first batch of Syrians “welcomed” to America.
You can read the lengthy early paragraphs about the family’s long ordeal until they were rescued by America (through the UN), by the US State Department and by the State Department’s resettlement contractor Catholic Charities all geared to get your mind right before we get to the all important question—how are these people going to make it in America without enormous taxpayer support? He was a journalist who can’t speak English, she a hairdresser who can’t speak English.
Anne Richard Asst. Secretary of State (left) and Antonio Guterres (UNHCR): We take those that the UN sends us and run this whole program on a shoestring (over $1 billion a year) budget!
The State Department has promised that the United States will take in 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next two years. [Seems to me she said 10,000 annually here—so what is the truth?—ed]
[….]
The United States takes in a set number of refugees — 70,000 a year — no matter what troubled part of the world they come from.
The UN picks our refugees!
Candidates for resettlement are nominated by the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, then interviewed by State Department officials.The rigorous process involves a background check, review of any documents the refugees can provide to prove their lives are at risk and numerous interviews to make sure the refugees’ accounts of their hardships remain consistent.
“Their stories have to hold water. They can’t be dishonest or criminals or would-be terrorists,” said Anne Richard, the assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration. [She assumes they never lie, but she knows better. We have admitted terrorists through the refugee program.—ed]
One reason they got in, the teenage daughters were candidates for sexual assault (in a Muslim country, but they never say that).
US State Department Daniel Langenkamp: The vulnerable teenaged girls in the family helped move them up the list. Photo: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/daniel-langenkamp/1a/197/563
In the Smaisems’ case, State Department spokesman Daniel Langenkamp said that the specific threat against Khaled, as well as the fact that the family had two teenage daughters in an environment known for its sexual-assault hazard, may have contributed to moving them up the list.
Richard said that 105 Syrians were resettled in the United States in fiscal 2014. In fiscal 2015, which began on Oct. 1, 112 have arrived.
As of mid-December, 9,972 Syrians had been nominated by the U.N. office and begun the process of applying for U.S. resettlement, Richard said. She said nearly all likely will be accepted within the next two years.
Once refugees arrive, they are assigned to a private organization that partners with the State Department to get the families settled. In the case of the Smaisems, it was Catholic Charities, the largest such group. [Partners! They are contractors and why can’t these reporters for the mainstream media ever say that! Or, don’t they even know!—ed]
Refugees receive U.S. government stipends for up to three months, and federal grant programs help states support them for longer. But the money quickly tapers off. [Federal grant money goes to the contractors who then launder it through their offices.—ed]
“This is not a luxurious program. This is very challenging,” Richard said. “It’s kind of run on a shoestring budget.”
Shoestring budget! It is over $1 billion just to get 70,000 in the door! That does not include most of the social services they will live on for years and years!
Khaled is keenly aware of that. His family’s initial cash aid has ended. According to Derek Maxfield, the associate director of Catholic Charities of D.C., the family is receiving food stamps, which will end after they have been in the country for eight months; local government cash assistance that amounts to $200 to $300 per month; and $1,000 monthly per family member through a Catholic Charities program. [There is no reason the food stamps will end! And, haven’t we been told many times that refugee resettlement doesn’t cost local taxpayer dollars?—ed]
The large Catholic Charities stipend is not charitable Catholic money—it is federal taxpayer money! Come on reporters, stop being lazy, or is this to mislead?
That large Catholic Charities stipend, which will end after about four months, is predicated on the family’s efforts to become self-sufficient. Smaisem has been looking for work, though he says that his lack of English hampers him.
After you’ve read the long mushy (superficial) story, tell me—any chance this family is going to be “self-sufficient” any time soon?
Isn’t it about time that publications like the Washington Postand the New York Times begin to do some serious and careful reporting? I know, I know, stop laughing!
More refugee-related problems coming to light in Maine (see yesterday Lewiston Somali arsonist). If the facts are true, it sure looks like an open and shut case of discrimination.
Somali cab drivers protesting in Portland in 2011. New city rule said they must apply in person for licenses (not with power-of-attorney while in Somalia!). There is clearly a heck of a lot going on with this licensing program and don’t you wonder why Somalis are so organized at airports around the country? http://bangordailynews.com/2011/12/05/news/portland/somali-taxi-drivers-say-new-portland-policy-aims-to-shut-them-down/
A white taxicab driver has filed a lawsuit accusing the city of Portland of racial discrimination for denying him one of 45 permits to work as part of the Portland International Jetport’s taxi pool.
The driver, Paul McDonough of South Portland, said in the lawsuit filed Tuesday in Cumberland County Superior Court in Portland that the city’s current jetport taxicab permit system is “blatantly discriminatory” because it has issued permits only to people of Somali or Iranian descent or nationality.
“How does it happen that 45 licenses all go to one racial group who just arrived in this country?”McDonough’s attorney, David Turesky, said in an interview after filing the lawsuit.
Turesky said that in 2008, the city granted all of its then 50 jetport licenses to Somali or Iranian immigrants without opening bidding to the general public.The city reduced the number of available jetport licenses in July 2013 to 45, “grandfathering” in those license holders, again without opening the bidding process to the public.
“It was done in a way that was never publicized,” Turesky said. “Our supposition is something was done to benefit these gentlemen or this particular group. But we don’t know how. We don’t know precisely what the motive was. We don’t know who paid for the licenses.”
The city’s attorney, Corporation Counsel Danielle West-Chuhta, did not respond to a phone message seeking comment on the lawsuit.
The lawsuit originated from a complaint that McDonough and another white male taxicab driver filed in June 2013 and brought before the Maine Human Rights Commission. State investigators found that the complaint by McDonough and Raymond Chasse of Scarborough has “no reasonable grounds.” Chasse has since died.
Turesky said the Maine Human Rights Commission did not investigate the background of how the city’s permitting practices began. He expects that those details will be ordered to be disclosed through the court process.
Turesky expects that even if the court finds that the city did not intentionally commit racial discrimination, it did discriminate.
There is more, read it all. Be sure to see the comments. See Debba Curtis who says the Somalis don’t allow her seeing-eye dog in their cabs at the airport. Another discrimination case?
