Category: blogging

The speech Geert Wilders would have given

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

This is not directly about refugees, but I thought it was important enough to post anyway. Free speech is an issue all over the world, and those of us who have blogs or who write or speak for public consumption in other ways have an intense interest in keeping our speech free here in the United States. Britain no longer has free speech, and the banning of Dutch member of Parliament Geert Wilders is one result. Wilders was thought to be too inflammatory for tender British ears in that he criticizes Islam. For the last four years he has been under 24-hour-a-day guard in the Netherlands as the result of death threats.

Thanks to Diana West for posting Wilders’s speech on her blog. It is very moving, and it is a shameful thing that Wilders was prevented from entering Britain to give it. Here’s a short excerpt:

In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.

What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.

Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands you respect, but has no respect for you.

Read more about the current Wilders incident at FrontPage Magazine, here. And see our previous posts mentioning Wilders here.

Comments worth noting: tired old arguments about immigrants

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Last night after I wrote this post where I was so angry at Time magazine and the refugee-pushing lobbyists, I knew I needed to further remind readers of the primary reason we are here—why we write this blog.   And, gosh, I get up and here is a comment (from someone called CRD) worth noting to help me explain why we do what we do.

Dear Ann,

Your ancestors were once oppressed and discriminated against, so they got on a boat and came to a new county, the US, and gave it a try. I imagine when they landed they were helped by some nice people who maybe showed them how they could find work, where a good place to live was, where to shop. I imagine they also faced some discrimination. They were probably poor at first and spoke with accent, and didn’t know all street names by heart. Some people laughed at them I’m sure. Told them to go back to their country of origin. Told them they’d never fit in. Some people probably even formed groups and told them to get out of their neighborhood.

Which type of person are you? Would you have helped your great grandparents when they arrived in American or would you have discriminated against them?

Dear CRD,   You are right to some extent, my parents were treated well and helped by nice people.  But here are the differences worth noting, my parents were eager to be Americans.  They shed their foreign language as fast as they could (they were literate in their own original languages).   They received no welfare and they worked their butts off all their lives to send us kids to college.  They had no taxpayer funded federal government contractor finding jobs and apartments for them.  My father fought for the US in World War II.  Although proud of their heritage, they never looked back.  And, they accepted America, they didn’t seek to change our form of government, they were not Muslims.

Before I go on to what I really wanted to say, just a historical reminder the immigrant lobbyists like CRD often forget—-by the late 1920’s we were overloaded with immigrants.   America took a breather and the numbers were cut dramatically until the 1960’s which gave those earlier great waves a chance to assimilate.   Maybe if the economic panic continues, its time for another breather.

Now, more about why we write RRW.

The recent Time magazine article (not the one from 2002) on the Rohingya is an example.   But, we first saw the phenomenon in our own county, and that is, the utter shameless skewing of the news in favor of refugees and immigrants.  Most every story on refugees is a damn puff-piece.  I call them the ‘refugees see first snow stories.’   No one (hardly anyone) in the mainstream media dares tell the public the whole truth, so the public needs us!   That is why we are here—-to balance the biased mainstream media.

Why don’t they tell the whole story, the good and the bad,  about refugee resettlement or immigration in general?  Why, because they, in the media, are scared to death of people like CRD here.  Ideologues like CRD want to guilt-trip everyone into  shutting up and accepting their point of view and most people can’t take that sort of abuse, most people want to be considered good people, so they back down.  We don’t.

The American public has a right to know all the facts about immigration and especially in our case, the refugee program, because only when all the facts are presented to the people can public policy be fairly debated and decisions fairly made—-for the general public and for the refugees.   People like CRD want to WIN by guilt-tripping people and hiding some facts to lead people to their point of view.   It is wrong.  It is immoral. It is elitist.  And, it stinks!

Another slam at Newsweek’s article on Lewiston

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Our friend Mars sent us a blog post from a Maine writer named Jim who is ticked off at the author of the Newsweek article Ann has been commenting on (here and here). He knows the local area inside-out, and much of the article is too locally-oriented to be of great interest to those who don’t live there. But his criticisms are important, and they apply to many journalists who write about refugee matters.  Actually, they apply across the board to journalism today.

Jim titles his post “Another journalistic hatchet job on Lewiston, Maine.” He delves into the history of economic growth in Lewiston, which began quite a while back and had nothing to do with refugees. Here are the paragraphs that interest me:

If you read Ms. Ellison’s article, however, you would know none of that. [Comment: The author is Jesse Ellison. Usually Jesse is a male name; the female version is Jessie.] The arrival of Somalis in Lewiston began before the 2001 date the writer arbitrarily assigned. The influx of refugees into the community began several years before that, and it was more than one family that started the migration. Per capita income has gone up, but to use the term “soared” reveals her ignorance about the state’s ongoing economic struggles. While a few in Maine have soaring incomes, most of us struggle to stay afloat in the middle class.

There are so many other things wrong with Ellison’s article that I could easily spend several thousand words countering her inadequate 903. That an editor, at a national magazine would allot the same amount space allocated to local parking issues, and city code violations, for a complex, and multi-faceted issue like immigration, given the community’s prior history, speaks volumes about the kind of “yellow” journalism that Newsweek’s now practicing.

Jim criticizes Ellison’s lack of context for quotes, and notes that he/she should have dug deeper to find out why 50 percent of the Somali population is unemployed.

With all due respect to Richard Florida and others that think all it takes to grow your economy is to import non-English speaking refugees, and presto! You’ve got a diverse economy. There’s much more to it than that.

What Ms. Ellison has accomplished, beyond showing her lack of skills in digging below the surface as a journalist, is to again kick a hornet’s nest and run, leaving those of us who are committed to the community’s future, dealing with the potential aftermath of her piece. If Ms. Ellison had done any homework, she’d know some of the history of the community, and recognize that strong feelings still run deep in this area, as evidenced by the comments in the local newspaper, and other online forums. Her article has done nothing more, in my opinion, than to fan the flames of anti-Somali, and anti-immigrant sentiment, and give certain elements in our area (and beyond) cover to run with it.

“Certain elements” means “people who think bringing a lot of Somalis to Lewiston isn’t such a hot idea.” It has a connotation of racism and xenophobia.

I think Jim’s criticism of the Newsweek editors may be more relevant than his criticism of the reporter. We’ve learned that some reporters do delve into the stories they are writing on refugees. But when they come up with information that reflects negatively on refugees, or ethnic groups, or government policies, the editors usually either cut the story down or kill it outright. They want warm-and-cuddly copy on refugees, and that’s pretty much what Ellison gave them. Or what they cut the story to reflect. It would be interesting to know what Ellison originally wrote, or wanted to write.

The way this applies to all journalism today is that many media outlets have a pre-set agenda on just about everything. Woe to the reporter who bucks the party line. I doubt that every reporter who has written adoring copy about Barack Obama really feels so worshipful. Perhaps they all hate George W. Bush, perhaps not. But those who run the media are in charge, and the reporters and other hired hands have to toe the line. That’s one reason we bring you this blog. Nobody owns us; nobody pays us; nobody tells us what to write.

Rule #5: Can Obama take ridicule? We don’t know yet

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

The other day I told you about Obama’s “community organizer” guru, Saul Alinsky and Rule #5.   In “Rules for Radicals” Alinsky says Ridicule is the most potent weapon in defeating one’s political enemies.   I questioned then whether President Obama could handle ridicule and I still think he cannot.

However, Obama supporter, comedian and blogger Andy Borowitz on his website maintains that humor is not dead (has not been killed by political correctness) and says he is confident that Obama can be ridiculed.  I doubt it.   We will see. 

Did you notice yesterday or the day before how annoyed Obama looked when VP Biden made a snide remark about Chief Justice Roberts and the error Roberts made in  administering the oath?  Well, here is Borowitz  take on that. 

Of course, the ridicule below is of Biden and not Obama.  We will see if  Borowitz ever really ridicules Obama or whether good ol’ Joe will be the butt of jokes siphoning off the ridicule quotient and leaving Obama untouched.

We’ve all been wondering what Biden’s role would be in the administration once Hillary got the big foreign policy job, holy cow, these people are smart, knowing ridicule was inevitable, we now know what his job is!

Here is Borowitz in a piece Judy just forwarded:

In the first major initiative of his presidency, President Barack Obama today dispatched Vice President Joe Biden on what he called “an important and special mission” to Antarctica.

The news of Mr. Biden’s unexpected trip appeared to take the Vice President by surprise, as he was in the middle of making a joke about Chief Justice John Roberts to members of the press corps when the President interrupted him with the news.

“Here’s how John Roberts sings the National Anthem,” Mr. Biden was saying. “’Oh see can you say…’”

Mr. Obama, yanking away Mr. Biden’s microphone, then informed him of the extraordinary journey to the South Pole he was about to undertake.

The President was vague about what the mission to Antarctica would entail, but he did indicate that it could take “up to four years.”

While some witnesses to the scene said that Mr. Biden seemed surprised by the news, his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, offered another version of events during an appearance later in the day on “Oprah.”

“Joe was given a choice of places to go and he picked Antarctica,” she said. “President Obama said he could also go to the moon or Mars.”

Dr. Biden’s remarks were cut short when President Obama appeared on the set and unplugged her microphone.

Other than the Biden news, Mr. Obama’s day went as planned, meeting with senior staff, drawing up a budget, and being sworn in as President for the third time.

I can’t do another blog, but would one of you start a blog called something like Obama Ridicule Watch—it would be so much fun!

Update Feb. 13th:   Obama throws Biden under the bus.

Comments worth having a look at!

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Last night we got a couple of comments I want to bring to your attention.   Since they were sent to this older post on why we have so many Somalis in the US, it is unlikely you would see them.   

As we have previously said, we don’t post comments with foul language but I took the liberty of editing the foul language because I wanted you to see the sort of things people who maintain that “MUSLIM IS A KIND TRUE RELIGION” say to people that disagree with them.    See comments #46 and #47.