Pittsburgh: Just who exactly is exploiting the refugees?

Let’s see, is it an ‘evil’ Catholic Charities, an ‘evil’ business, or the ‘evil’ labor unions?   Or, maybe all three?   I believe that for the first time, I am seeing evidence of a thesis I have been promoting on these pages for a long time.  My theory is that refugees and other immigrants are being used as political pawns by the Far Left to bring about crisis using Alinsky’s (Rules for Radicals) methods with the ultimate goal of changing our form of government (see posts in our Community Destabilization category).

This is the story today in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that prompted me to look a little further.  We have already discussed some of this controversy in a previous post, here.

Catholic Charities

A group of Burmese refugees protested their treatment by Catholic Charities at the opening of an immigrant center yesterday.  Gosh, don’t you wonder who taught them to protest in this manner and present their demands—the union community organizers of course.

Refugees from Myanmar picketed the opening of a new welcome center for clients of Catholic Charities at its Downtown office yesterday.

Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh, who dedicated the Susan Zubik Welcome Center in honor of his late mother, went out to meet the protesters, who spoke little or no English. Counting children, they included more than 30 ethnic Karens, who carried handwritten signs such as, “We demand a professional translator who speaks our language.”

The protest was organized by Three Rivers Coalition for Justice, a group with ties to organized labor that helps workers with problems such as evictions. It printed a leaflet claiming that Catholic Charities had assigned the Karens a Burmese translator who did not speak the Karen dialect and who treated them with contempt.

It claimed that a Karen refugee facing eviction had given $500 to a Catholic Charities caseworker to pay his rent, but eviction notices kept coming. It also said that refugees are placed in low-paying, dangerous jobs.

Bishop Zubik said he tried to invite the protesters in for food. “But they didn’t speak English.”

The core of the problem stems from the allegedly unhappy refugees working at W & K Steel nearby.

Ms. Rauscher said that there are only 20 Karen translators nationwide, and that Catholic Charities investigated reports that their translator was prejudiced against Karens. Those who worked closely with her saw no sign of it, she said. [Ms. Rauscher, there are several Karen  Burmese in Bowling Green, KY who speak English well enough to translate, maybe you could get one of those and free him or her from the misery of chicken plant work.]

But the core of the dispute involves 14 Burmese workers at W&K Steel in Rankin. The Three Rivers Coalition for Justice says they are paid less than other workers, and that they all work in dangerous conditions.

Two W&K employees, one of them Burmese, went on strike in September, and Ironworkers Local 3 is supporting their action. According to the Coalition for Justice, there are 35 employees total. Ed Wilhelm, owner of W&K, did not return phone calls.

Ms. Rauscher said Catholic Charities didn’t place any clients there, but that two got jobs on their own initiative. After the labor complaints, a social worker asked them if their workplace was safe and if they wanted to find new jobs.

“They said they liked their jobs and wanted to stay,” she said.

[.....]

“I’m not sure what’s going on with W&K Steel and the Ironworkers. … But from our perspective, we didn’t see that this employer was exploiting the refugee workers,” she said.

Mr. Rink (Chad Rink, an Ironworkers organizer with Three Rivers Coalition for Justice) said he believes the workers lied to Catholic Charities about work conditions.

“They are afraid for their jobs,” he said.

Then we have the usual old saw that refugees only get $425 when they come to the US.

Ms. Rausher said all refugees struggle to make ends meet, especially when they arrive without western job skills. The government provides a one-time grant of $425 to set them up in an apartment. Most of the money Catholic Charities spends on refugees is from donors, she said.

Well, that’s not exactly accurate Ms. Rausher, most of your funding comes from the taxpayers of the United States.  See Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s most recent Form 990 here and note that in a total income of $9,583,772, $5,322,899 is from government grants and $1,138,826 is indirect public support (this is a category I have come to realize is also money from the government somehow, contracts maybe).  So they are mostly government funded and that government funding probably allowed them to open this “welcome” center where the demonstration took place.

We have previously reported that Catholic Charities placed refugees in a Pittsburgh area slum building for the past decade here, so we know there is some veracity to the charges that refugees have been neglected.  In addition to this story, there are reports in the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette that Somali Bantu resettled in the area in 2005 had similar problems.

Big business

I have no clue who is telling the truth about the working conditions at W & K Steel. Readers will need to read all the links I’m providing and try to sort that out.  Frankly, I wondered why a business in this day and age would be so stupid as to pay a legal immigrant worker less than other comparable workers at the plant (as alleged in this story) thus opening themselves up for discrimination charges.  

There has always been a rumor that somehow the “employment service” whoever that was in this case, Catholic Charities or the Jewish agency mentioned, gets a piece from the refugee workers salary, but I can’t believe any of them would be so foolish to set up such an arrangement.

Labor Unions

Sorry, Three Rivers Coalition for Justice, I don’t believe you either.  I think you are ticked off at Catholic Charities over the health care debate and that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is standing firm on abortion (the only thing they are standing firm on) so you are setting up the Burmese to go after CC as well (although I might agree they need to be gone after)!  Three Rivers is teaching Catholic Charities a lesson, and CC since you have gone to bed with the Far Left I have no sympathy for you.

Exploitation of immigrant workers is the heart and soul of the labor movement in the US!

At a website called “Talking Union” a site for the Democratic Socialists of America, an article entitled, “Indentured Workers Fight Back” confirms, at least to me, that the Burmese refugees may be being exploited by business, and not properly cared for by Catholic Charities, but pro-union socialists use them too to promote their cause— “changing” America.

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. DSA’s members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.

Here is what they are saying about the Burmese refugees in the Pittsburgh area and this controversy.  Please read this!

Right in the Pittsburgh area a new and surprising strike around related issues is being waged with support from the Ironworkers Local 3. Some 35 workers at an unorganized steel fabrication factory in Rankin, W & K Steel, went on strike against unsafe and dangerous working conditions, and to demand an end to discrimination in wages and other treatment against the 14 workers who are refugees from Burma. The refugees, who have legal status and the right to work in the USA, are placed for employment at W&K by Catholic Charities and the Jewish Family and Children’s Service of Pittsburgh, which take no responsibility for the unsafe and discriminatory conditions under which the refugees are placed. A statement from the striking American workers reads: “We feel as Americans that it is our duty to defend the defenseless and expose the wickedness of the unjust.”

More information on this strike is available from the Three Rivers Coalition for Justice, 2201 Liberty Ave, Ste 4, Pittsburgh Pa 15222, phone 412-849-1271.

 

Such moral solidarity as demonstrated here between American workers and Burmese refugees is the heart and soul of the labor movement in America. If the struggle for the rights of immigrant and indentured workers is becoming considered part of organized labor’s core agenda for workers rights, it is clearly not on the immediate or middle term agenda of the Obama administration. Painful struggles against ferocious resistance by reactionary and nativist elements must be waged. Solidarity for battles like those at Signal and W&K Steel build the heart needed to wage those battles.

In conclusion, refugees are being used all around in my opinion!  The folks at Catholic Charities (and other government contractors) get their salaries paid primarily from the US government and they get to pat themselves on the back for bringing the downtrodden to America while seemingly being cavalier about the living conditions in which they place refugees.   Businesses may take advantage of them.  And, then their supposed friends in the socialist unions like this one, use them to promote their socialist agendas.   Frankly, it stinks!

Cloward-Piven Strategy: bring down Capitalism by flooding the welfare system

More on November 23rd:   Jim Simpson, an expert on the Cloward-Piven strategy has more today at the American Thinker, here.

That is the basic goal involved in the Cloward-Piven strategy that most of us never heard of until Obama and the community organizers got to the White House.  I’ve been reading about it lately, thanks to RRW reader Paul, and it came to mind last night as I considered the fact that Somali refugees had flooded Maine primarily for the generous welfare system (more shortly).

This is just some background from David Horowitz’s Discover the Networks that I want to post so we can continue to build our ‘community destabilization’ category, and not lose the links.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

You should take some time and read Cloward and Piven’s 1966 seminal work in the Nation magazine to fully understand the concept.  They (and their comrades today) want to enroll as many people as they can on public assistance, cause a crisis by overloading local governments, bring greater federal control and ultimately collapse Capitalism as the federal government takes greater control and brings about ultimately a guaranteed wage for all— a redistribution of wealth.

This is the opening paragraph of the Nation article:

How can the poor be organized to press for relief from poverty? How can a broad-based movement be developed and the current disarray of activist forces be halted? These questions confront, and confound, activists today. It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor. If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.

My theory is that the “poor” of the 1960’s were, in subsequent decades, entering the middle class.  Thanks to Capitalism there weren’t enough of them to collapse the system and many other Americans have an  antipathy to living off the government and accepting welfare!   So community organizers need the immigrants and refugees who have become accustomed, in the case of refugees, to living off of the United Nations, to help swell the welfare rolls.  That is the only logical explanation for the Obama Administration continuing to resettle very high numbers of refugees right now (in a recession!) when there is little work for them—well that, and the desire on their part to create a magical borderless utopian world.

The Somalis who migrated to Maine are only too happy to comply, next!  Here it is.

Horowitz publishes pamphlet on rules for revolution

David Horowitz has published a pamphlet that helps to educate us about Saul Alinsky and his influence on Obama and his Administration, something we have addressed  in our “community destabilization” category which we began at this time last year.   Here is what Frontpage magazine says about Horowitz and the pamphlet:

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine,Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.”

Since taking office Barack Obama, who promised during his campaign to create a moderate, inclusive administration, has engaged in actions that have created division and fear because they are meant to radically change America, not improve on what has always worked. As a result, David Horowitz writes in Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model, “Many Americans have gone from hopefulness, through unease, to a state of alarm as the President shows a radical side only party visible during his campaign.”

Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model provides an understanding of the roots of the current administration’s effort to subject America to a wholesale transformation by looking at the work of one of the President’s heroes—radical Chicago “community organizer” Saul Alinsky.  

Read on and learn how you can get a copy.

How does this involve refugees and immigrants?  My theory is that since Alinsky said in order to “change” America one needed to continually pit the “have-nots” against the “haves,”  as Americans generally rose out of poverty, the immigrants were needed to continually build the “have-not” armies.  Now with Obama’s policies and the far left activists he has spread throughout government we will see an acceleration of immigrants, refugees and Americans arriving at the poverty level.  That is the goal!  That is why it is so baffling to logical people who wonder how we can continue to bring in tens of thousands of refugees and other immigrants when there is no work for them.  Their strategy is to build the “have-not” armies.

By the way, as I write this Judy is at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend, so maybe we will get a report about this auspicious gathering of conservatives when she returns.

Endnote:  I was looking for something else and came upon this post from earlier this month to help illustrate what I’m saying about a strategy and a goal, here.

More from Accuracy in Media about the tangled immigration role of the USCCB

I guess the evidence is mounting that the USCCB, probably the largest refugee resettlement federal contractor, has gone to bed with far leftwing operatives on the immigration issue.  AIM is reporting now that George Soros is funding Catholic progressives and groups near and dear to the Bishops.  You might want to see my earlier post on this subject where a reader swears up and down that the Bishops are politically conservative! 

My contention is that any non-profit or church group that takes taxpayer funding is by definition not conservative and is in fact participating in the expansion of the role of the federal government.

The latest from AIM begins:

The critical role of the Catholic Church in passing national health care reform legislation is coming under serious media scrutiny. But the story has taken a strange turn. It has now been revealed that George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator and well-known atheist, has been pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into “progressive” Catholic groups that are significant players in the national debates over health care and immigration.　

[...]

An AIM investigation also finds, however, that Soros money has gone into the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), an organization established by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops back in 1988. It has received at least $530,000 from the Open Society Institute. [See my post on CLINIC, here]

The two issues merge in the fact that the Catholic Bishops are demanding that national health care legislation cover illegal aliens.

Read on, this article contains all the usual players we have been writing about this last year, including SEIU.  See our Community destabilization category for more, here.

Then at the same time I came across AIM’s latest, I also found this article listing all the Far Left grantees of the Archdiocese of Chicago, here.  More later on this, I’ve written about some groups listed here too, but gotta go for now.

USCCB lobbied hard for Pelosi Health Care bill

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media lines up some of the reasons why the US Conference of Catholic Bishops helped push the Pelosi/Obama so-called health reform bill over the finish line late Saturday night and wonders where is the separation of church and state.

Kincaid explains and suggests some reasons why the USCCB might be in Pelosi’s pocket, including their immigration advocacy.  After you read this, I’ll add one more reason he has missed.   Hat tip:  Janet Levy

The AARP and American Medical Association supported H.R. 3692, the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009, but a careful analysis of the media coverage demonstrates that it was the U.S. Catholic Church that provided the winning margin. Yet, the liberal media are failing to raise the issue of the alleged separation of church and state.

Contrary to some media reports, the U.S. Catholics Bishops never opposed a national health care scheme. In fact, their main objection was to a provision for federal funding of abortion. Once that provision was eliminated, the Catholic Bishops embraced the bill.

On Saturday, after Catholic lobbyists had finalized a deal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the most prominent Catholic in the U.S. Government, the Politico reported that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had “delivered a critical endorsement” to Pelosi “by signing off on late-night agreement to grant a vote on an amendment barring insurance companies that participate in the exchange from covering abortions.” The anti-abortion amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak, a Catholic Democrat, passed. Hence, the Bishops are now officially in favor of a bureaucratic plan that could spell the end to freedom of choice in health care and financially bankrupt the U.S.

“A half dozen lobbyists for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops joined negotiators in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office to come to terms,” reported the Christian Science Monitor.

[.....]

NBC’s Doug Adams reported that the Catholic Bishops were “lobbying hard.”

The shocking turn of events once again demonstrates the extreme left-wing drift of the Catholic Church, which is the nation’s largest religious denomination with 67 million members and run by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. But their role in passing Pelosicare is not the only evidence of such a turn. The Bishops poured more than $7.3 million of parishioners’ money into the corrupt left-wing organization ACORN over the last decade before publicity over the organization’s scandals forced suspension of the funding.

Please read Kincaid’s whole article.

Here is what Kincaid has missed—federal funding.   The USCCB is the largest federal contractor* for resettling refugees and running immigrant programs in the US.  That $7.3 million that went to ACORN is chump change and may not have even come from parishioners—it might have come from taxpayers.  

We recently learned that 100 Catholic Charities got a whopping $85,557,665 from the US Treasury to run their many immigrant and other welfare programs in 2009 alone!

Add to the $85 million dispersed around the US to Catholic Charities, note that the US State Department funded the DC office of the USCCB to the tune of $25 million (FY2009)!   I sure hope the USCCB is keeping their refugee money separate from their lobbying money.  Anyone doing any auditing?  What do you think, Pelosi had a little leverage here!

There is more.  We are funding with our tax dollars a multi-million dollar far left Catholic expansion of power throughout the government.   Take the case of Tennessee where Catholic Charities is now in charge of the millions of dollars that goes to Tennessee each year for refugee and immigrant federal programs.   The federal regulations mandate that a state agency manage the program for the many “church” and other non-profit groups operating to take care (LOL!) of immigrants within the state.  In Tennessee there is no state overseer, the fox essentially has the hen house.

So if one questions the issue of separation of church and state, think about the fact that Catholic Charities of Tennessee and the US State Department/Dept of Health and Human Services (the federal government!) make decisions for Tennessee regarding refugees and immigrants.  There is no decision-making role for the state or local government in deciding who is resettled in the state or how many.  The only role is that the state and local governments supply welfare assistance.  States should be guarding against this trend.

If amnesty is given to millions of  illegal aliens, as the USCCB is also lobbying for, you can be sure these Catholic offices roles will expand even further.  This is how the federal government with the help of its quasi-government agencies, like Catholic Charities, usurps the role of state governments.

We have already heard that Pelosi twisted many arms and offered loads of pork to legislators to secure their vote, certainly the USCCB had a lot of funding to lose if they didn’t go along with the program.  And, who knows what they were promised in the future.

* Here are the Top Ten federal contractors resettling refugees, running immigrant welfare programs AND lobbying!  They have 300 plus subcontractors.

Burmese refugee workers strike, claim discrimination and turn to AFL-CIO

I can’t resist saying, I told you so.   Here we have a case from Pennsylvania where recently resettled Burmese refugees have walked off the job with other American workers claiming wage discrimination and unsafe working conditions. 

Don’t get me wrong, I am not disputing their claim, I suspect they do have miserable jobs and miserable living conditions, but who placed them in that situation—some do-gooder far left refugee resettlement agency/employment service in conjunction with the Obama State Department—NOT some evil conservative right-winger!

The article doesn’t tell us who resettled them, but like so many articles of this sort, the reader is left to assume they magically came to be in the vicinity of Pittsburgh on their own!      Here is a list of resettlement agencies in Pennsylvania, one of them brought the Burmese to this place of employment.

This is the story from the AFL-CIO News (what else!):

Aung Oo fled his native Burma with his family to escape the brutality, ethnic violence and repression of that country’s military dictatorship.

After being allowed to legally migrate to the United States under the refugee resettlement program, he faces another kind of oppression―working for an employer that pays him half what he should make and that forces him and his co-workers, both native and foreign, to work in unsafe conditions.

So on Sept. 8, Aung Oo and a U.S.-born employee, Tim Hand, went on strike against W&K Steel on behalf of all the other 35 workers in the plant, located in Rankin, Pa., just outside Pittsburgh. They are still on strike.

[...]

Several W&K workers described their experiences to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and spoke to a group of international labor leaders at the AFL-CIO Convention in Pittsburgh. The workers also will testify Nov. 13 at a National Workers’ Rights Hearing sponsored by the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA). The hearing will be at the AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Talking with Trumka, one refugee told how he and his family of five live in a small two-bedroom apartment supplied by the company. He works an average of 50 hours a week and grosses approximately $25,000 annually, with overtime. Other workers say they are expected to run large presses and shears that cut steel beams, but have no guards to protect against severing fingers and hands.

The American-born workers at W&K don’t fare much better. They say they must endure unsafe working conditions, with workloads increasing and time to safely perform the tasks decreasing. They also say the company’s health plan is unaffordable and the pay is low.

Hand said he is on strike because the way workers, native and foreign, are treated is dangerous.

“… only to find themselves working in unjust conditions here!”   Who lined up the job for them?  Some refugee resettlement agency with the State Department’s help did!  And, they won’t be forced back to Burma—-it is maddening to see this type of distortion.  We don’t send refugees back when they don’t have jobs!  Heck, we hardly send them back if they have committed major crimes.

The Burmese refugees came to the United States to escape oppression, only to find themselves working in unjust conditions here, says Chad Rankin, an organizer with the Ironworkers and a member of the Three Rivers Coalition for Justice, which is assisting the workers.

“The refugees feared challenging the unsafe working environment, shoddy housing and substandard wages because they are afraid they will lose their jobs and be forced back to Burma,” Rankin says.

We are exploited!

Aung Oo says he is on strike because America is supposed to be a land of opportunity and equality.

I stood up and went on strike not only for myself but for all the refugee workers in the shop because our community is suffering. I know that we are exploited.

This is a strategy!  It has Alinsky (Rules for Radicals) written all over it!

I know for most of you its hard to comprehend, but I swear this is a strategy!   Far Leftwing progressives (or whatever you want to call them), bring in poor refugees and place them in horrible working conditions, then in a kind of ‘double-teaming’ the Far Left unions  (like the AFL-CIO and SEIU) ‘organize’ them, sign them up as members, and complain that evil capitalists are exploiting them!

Note to AFL-CIO:  In that upcoming hearing I hope you are honest and identify how these Burmese ‘came to be’ in that place of employment in the first place!  Name the resettlement agency!

Melanie Phillips: Labour plotted to transform Britain. Sound familiar?

Melanie Phillips, courageous chronicler of the rise of Islam and anti-Semitism in the UK and the author of Londonistan, has a stunning piece in the Daily Mail. She writes:

For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened.

Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?

The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate.

There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage.

Since 2001, Britain has gained some 2.3 million immigrants. The total population is about 61 million. The U.S. population is about 308 million, or five times as many. So this would be equivalent to the U.S.  gaining about 11.5 million immigrants during the last nine years. And Britain’s immigrants include far more Muslims than ours.

Why was this done?

But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The Government’s ‘driving political purpose’, wrote Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’. 

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.

It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another ‘multicultural’ identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.

Spitefully, one motivation by Labour ministers was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

This reminds me of the change in refugee policy during the Clinton years. Instead of bringing refugees into gateway cities like New York and Los Angeles, which are used to immigrants and usually have existing communities of those nationalities, the State Department decided to settle refugees in small cities all across America. They usually did this without the foreknowledge, agreement, or preparation of those cities and towns. I have no damning quote about their motivation, but when I heard this policy I immediately thought, “They want to rub ordinary Americans’ noses in multiculturalism and diversity, and show them up for the narrow-minded bigots they are.” And here’s another parallel:

But the most shattering revelation was that this policy of mass immigration was not introduced to produce nannies or cleaners for the likes of Neather. It was to destroy Britain’s identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country’s.

A measure of immigration is indeed good for a country. But this policy was not to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy its defining character altogether.

It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 per cent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour.

That is a parallel to the Democrats’ wish to grant amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens living here, and to open our borders to further immigration from third-world countries. I don’t know the motivation of Republicans — I guess they’re just suicidal.  Poor immigrants here vote overwhelmingly Democrat. That’s the party that takes money from the productive citizens and gives it to the unproductive. Not that all poor immigrants are unproductive, but they are vastly undereducated for decent jobs and often require government support of one kind or another (like food stamps and Medicaid) during their entire lives. But the left apparently believes that bringing them here is worth it if in the process our unique culture and qualities can be destroyed, and the evil conservatives can be vanquished forever.

Some fresh Saul Alinsky analysis

I’m posting this link to Kyle-Anne Shiver’s piece today at American Thinker because it’s a good analysis of some recent news about the Obama Administration’s political strategy.  Many of the Alinsky (Rules for Radicals) strategies she highlights are ones we discussed throughout our work late last fall and early this year in our Community Destabilization category, so this is a good summary for new readers and a refresher for longtime readers of RRW.

Remember, immigrants are Alinsky’s “have-nots” in the battle with the “haves.”  The more angry, unhappy, and needy people, the more “chaos” will occur and demand for “change” will follow.

Far Left has taken over major church groups

I told you about the National Association of Evangelicals coming out in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens the other day, so there isn’t much new in this story from the Washington Times on Friday entitled “Evangelicals rally behind immigrants” except for one telling line.   This is  how the article begins:

“Jesus was a refugee,” said Leith Anderson, director of the National Association of Evangelicals, who, along with other evangelical leaders, advocated a pro-immigration stance at an Oct. 8 Capitol Hill press conference. They issued a resolution formulated from a faith-based perspective.

Mr. Anderson also presented the organization’s support of comprehensive immigration reform later that day at a hearing held by the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, border security and citizenship.

U.S. immigration policies are antiquated, laden with red tape and in need of a human rights approach to reform, the evangelicals said.

Their amnesty approach drew detractors.

“By the grace of God, each American benefits from membership in one of the most just, merciful and righteous bodies politic that has ever existed,” said James R. Edwards Jr., a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. “But just because the United States stands in the world as a beacon of liberty and justice doesn’t mean anybody who wants to come live in this nation can do so by their own will. Yet some 12 million or so people whose civic membership belongs to some other nation have forced themselves upon this nation.”

Thanks to the Center for Immigration Studies fellow for adding some sense to this.  But, as you read the article notice that the Evangelical leaders never concern themselves with the rights of poor Americans (for jobs and government help), it is all about the immigrant.   That’s because in my opinion, this isn’t about helping the poor, it’s about politics and the goals of the Radical leftists and Marxists whose influence has taken over the leadership of not just the Evangelicals who make up the NAE, but major Catholic and Jewish denominational groups as well.

This is the telling line in this story:

The recent evangelical involvement marks the growing interfaith voice in the immigration debate, which the Center for American Progress has called “a sweeping grass-roots movement.”

So, the Center for American Progress (CAP) is involved in helping this “sweeping grass-roots movement.”   We’ve told you about the ‘think-tank’ before.  It is run by John Podesta, the radical leftwinger who ran the Clinton White House and Obama’s transition team.  Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress advocated bringing 100,000 Iraqis to the US in an airlift, here.   If you’ve followed the rise and fall (not really a fall) of Obama’s green jobs czar, Van Jones, CAP is where Jones came from and where he returned to.  You get my drift.

An aside:

Years ago, in the early ’90’s, I had an occasion to do some research on an initiative that came out of Leftwing foundations, specifically that time Pew Charitable Trusts, to “green the churches.”  These organizers were not religious people, in fact some were virtual atheists, but they understood that to get to large numbers of Americans they needed to ‘change’ the churches and they set out to create programs to reach churches with an environmental message knowing that people of faith would be concerned for protecting the Earth that God had created.   They succeeded as we see today in “greening the churches” and that is why you see so much “environmental” political rhetoric spewing forth from religious leaders today.  Just google “greening of the churches” and you’ll see what I mean.  This is just one recent article in Sojourners magazine, a magazine for the progressive social justice movement, to make my point.

If you think about it, most “environmental” concern is directed at reducing private property rights, THE cornerstone of capitalism.  You will see what I mean, here,* in this article Janet sent this morning about the United Nations using biodiversity claims to begin controlling land and resources.

Back to immigration.  So, just as there was a concerted effort by Radicals and Marxists to reach churches on environmental issues, I suspect there was a plan to reach them on immigration as well.

I’ve told you my theory before.  This is about a one world government and people like Podesta are in it up to their eyeballs.   You can tell me I’m a tinfoil hat wearer, it doesn’t matter.    They need immigrants, they need to literally mix up the people of the world, to break down borders, and that is why they don’t give a damn about Americans who are hurt by the immigrant tide.  Those poor (lower class!) people are expendable, just as Mao mowed down millions to bring revolution to China, so too do they effectively mow down Americans by flooding America with demanding poor and angry immigrants.

Remember Saul Alinsky, the granddaddy of community organizing, says you need to create “chaos” to bring “change,” and in order to bring “chaos” you need a war of “have-nots” against “haves.”     But, also for you in the “religious left,” don’t forget who Alinsky dedicated his book, ‘Rules for Radicals,’ to—Lucifer.

* Notice in this article the role the Natural Resources Defense Council plays in stopping resource use, like the California water issue.  The President of NRDC is a member of the board of the Apollo Alliance, here.  It is a tangled web, LOL, an understatement indeed!

Social Justice Movement: Drumming up support for immigrants’ rights through claims of “racial profiling”

Yesterday I told you that law enforcement authorities were questioning more friends of Najibullah Zazi the Pakistani immigrant who has been indicted on planning a terrorist attack on New York City, here. 

Also yesterday a demonstration was held in the city to protest supposed “racial profiling” in the case.  Read the full story at Jihad Watch, before continuing to read this post.

As always I am most interested in the ‘community organizing’ groups that were responsible for bringing Obama to power, especially those that are groups working for “immigrant rights,” like this group leading the protest in NYC yesterday. 

The mission of the group DRUM-Desis Rising Up and Moving is as follows:

DRUM – Desis Rising Up and Moving is a multigenerational, membership organization of South Asian immigrants in New York City. Desi is a common term used by people of South Asian descent to identify as people from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and parts of the diaspora including Africa, England, Fiji, Guyana, and Trinidad.

DRUM was founded in early 2000 to build power of South Asian low wage immigrant workers, families fighting deportation, and youth in New York City. We organize through political education and membership led action for immigrant rights, racial, economic, and social justice.

DRUM builds the power of our members, particularly youth and women, to win full civil and economic rights for immigrants, including legalization and an end to deportation policies.

Our long-term vision is to build the power of immigrant workers in the U.S in unity with all low-wage workers and communities of color to win rights and dignity. We see our movements for justice in the U.S. rooted in working in solidarity with people of the Global South for just global trade, economic, and foreign policies.

Their ostensible leader and one of the organizers of yesterday’s demonstration is Monami Maulik who signed their one and only Form 990 with the IRS for 2007.  You will notice that DRUM took in just over $200,000 from ‘direct public support’ which I have learned is a catchall phrase that really means ‘we aren’t going to reveal where our funds come from.’   When you check out the mission statement link above, note the flashy website.  Then consider that Maulik makes $39,000 a year and there are another $110,000 in salaries (I’ve rounded the numbers).  Their rent is $25,000 a year and they own a printer, a couple of computers, some recording equipment and $634 worth of furniture. 

The point I am making is that these little organizations which aren’t much more than one man operations then drum up a lot of publicity, like yesterday, and the reporters all flock to them as if they are big and powerful.   This is a prime example of the Soros strategy of creating zillions of organizations to promote social justice causes.

But there is more.

DRUM says it was formed in 2000, but that isn’t true.   The organization was incorporated in the State of New York after 9/11.  In fact, the date was June 2, 2002 and the person incorporating DRUM was:

C/O KARL FRANKLIN
26 COURT STREET, STE. 2205
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, 11242

So who is Karl Franklin (aka Kamau Karl Franklin)?  If you are familiar with the bio of Van Jones, this will sound familiar.  According to Leftforum 2008:

Kamau Karl Franklin is an activist, attorney, and the new Racial Justice Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights,* the co-chair of the National Conference of Black Lawyers and he is on the Executive Committee of the National Lawyers Guild. In addition to his work as a lawyer, Franklin is a member of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement (MXGM), a human rights organization committed to fighting ìBy Any Means Necessaryî for the rights of ìNew Afrikansî (Afrikans in the Americas). Franklin holds a MA in Political Science from Brooklyn College and his JD from Fordham University School of Law.

Here is a 2007 interview with Democracy Now that gives you a little more information about Franklin.  And, here are more Karl Franklin groups.

I’m sure there is a lot more information to be learned about Franklin, but the point I’m making is that radical American Leftists and Marxists are “community organizing” immigrants using the Alinsky model—keep the chaos going by fueling the war between the “have-nots” and the “haves” all under the mantle of “social justice.”   “Racial profiling” is the boogeyman, people like Franklin know well how to exploit.  Having run out of angry American blacks, now they use immigrants as their pawns.

* See more on the Center for Constitutional Rights at the Capital Research Center here.