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 Left Wing 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.

Did Bill Ayers admit writing Obama’s “Dreams” book?

Much to my surprise this morning I see old posts I wrote (here and here) on whether Bill Ayers is really the author of Obama’s very well-written “Dreams from my Father” are being visited anew.   Why do we care at RRW?  First, I find the subject interesting as hell and think it’s very funny that some conservative faux intellectuals actually supported Obama because he was a good writer.  And, secondly (if it’s true) because I believe the subject adds more evidence to my theory that this President has followed assiduously the Alinsky theme of the ‘means justify the ends.’

So, how does that fit with the subject of this blog?  I think there are some ‘brains’ at the top echelons of the Far Left who practice Alinsky’s theory of creating chaos to bring “change” by fueling the war of the “have-nots” against the “haves.”   To them the poor and angry immigrants and refugees are just pawns—more have-nots.  It is really the only reasonable explanation for why we are bringing in tens of thousands of refugees (especially in the recession) then, in many cases, not caring for them properly.

I’m digressing, but just check out Detroit, a city that is at least one third Arab today with more immigrants arriving daily.  Yesterday, thousands lined up in that city to claim a piece of the redistribution of wealth coming from Obama’s stimulus bill (Cloward and Piven anyone?).

Okay, now back to what I wanted to direct you to—at American Thinker, James Simpson, posted this article this morning about a chance meeting a blogger had with Ayers in Washington.

Anne Leary of  Back Yard Conservative was passing through Washington, DC’s Reagan National Airport yesterday, and was surprised to come across Bill Ayers at Starbucks: “scruffy, thinning beard, dippy earring, and the wire rims, heading to order.”

She struck up a conversation with him and snapped the accompanying photo.

So, what did Ayers tell Ms. Leary?  Go to American Thinker and Back Yard Conservative and then decide for yourself whether Ayers was just having fun or whether he was coming clean.

This post is appropriately filed in our growing “community destabilization” category. My apologies to readers who think I’m off track posting on this topic—I just can’t help myself!

Comment worth noting: Mad in Maine!

Update October 5th:  Mad in Maine is back with a good comment and some questions, here.

I don’t know ‘Mad in Maine,’ but I’m glad she took time to write to us today.  We set up the category—comments worth noting— some time ago so that comments like this one wouldn’t get lost tacked onto the end of a post most readers wouldn’t see in a few days.  ‘Mad’ is commenting to my post this morning questioning why “immigrant concerns” are on a higher moral plane then concerns for our own people.  My contention is that the political Leftwing is using the immigrants/refugees as pawns for a larger political agenda and they have studied Alinsky well and know that their agenda (to destabilize communities and bring socialism) cannot succeed unless they wrap it in morally superior badgering of the rest of us to keep us silent.

“Mad’ tells us something about the growing sentiment in states with large and ever-expanding immigrant populations.   And, it isn’t just the immigrants, the government at all levels seems to have been taken over by Radicals!

This whole thing is making me crazy. I’ve been reading the posts on this site for months and my anger and frustration continues to grow.

I’m seeing more and more refugees coming into Maine, accessing state funded services, having more and more children and I’m paying for it all. I won’t even start on the home care fraud issue.

I like to think I’m educated. I’m a licensed professional and have first hand knowledge of how the refugees effect the financial stability of any community.

We have 25% of our income taken out for required deductions that help fund programs that I will NEVER GET TO ACCESS!!! I can’t afford medical insurance. My husband is a diabetic and it’s cheaper for me to pay out of pocket for his medical expenses than to pay for the insurance benefits; which, by the way, only seem to “benefit” the insurance company. I haven’t seen a doctor myself in 5 years. I can’t even begin to discuss dental needs.

We’re barely making ends meet, but I do have a house that I can say is mine (actually the bank still owns it for another 10 years, so I shouldn’t shake the cage). We have to use CASH to buy groceries and pay the utilities. We drive older cars because we can’t afford new ones, and do most of any necessary repairs ourselves. I won’t run the furnace until the very last minute because I have to pay CASH for heating fuel.

Our children are now all over 18, but because they’re not homeless, not pregnant, but are trying to find work or go to college, they can’t even access Mainecare as a Maine resident. I’m told that they are my responsibility until they’re at least 23 years old.

But the refugees keep coming. They have Mainecare, they get food stamps, they get subsidized housing and I’ve heard, only second hand information, don’t bite my head off, that many of them are getting full funding to attend college. They continue to have more and more children, although we stopped with 3 because that’s all we could support. Now our tax dollars are supporting their children, not ours. If you can’t find a job here, go to another state where you might find one. If you can’t find one there, move on. I’ll have to if the time comes.

I’m paying taxes on everything in this state. I’m sure they’re even going to find a way to tax the air that I breath.

Unfortunately, I’ll keep paying and paying and paying and when the time comes for me to “retire”, probably at age 104 the way the economy is going, there will be none of MY contributed money left and I’ll be living in a card board box under a bridge in Bangor.

I’m not racist. I don’t care what color you are or where you come from. I love that the world is made up of many different types of people. I don’t care what religion a person is, but when my own children can’t hang a Christmas decoration at school while some of the refugees are getting access to seperate boy/girl gyms and special prayer rooms and the school children are being asked to limit what they bring for lunch…enough. Assimilate. Have your religion in your home or church, not in the school my taxes pay for.

I’m tired. I’m frustrated. The government seems to be going to hell and there doesn’t seem to be anything that can make it right.

This current administration is acting like a teenage girl who got daddy’s credit card. Enough. Enough. Enough.
Let’s start helping ourselves before we reach out to help others.

Mad In Maine

I had just now finished watching Glenn Beck.  He had on “Moms” who are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore and I came to the computer to check out a new website Asamom.org when I saw ‘Mad’s’ comment.  If you are feeling like ‘Mad’ check it out and know that you are not alone.  These women are connecting on-line nationally and in their communities too—-that will be the first step in taking our towns and cities back from the Radicals.

Why is it a morally superior position to promote the welfare of immigrants to the detriment of Americans?

…while many of those are low income Americans?  That is a question that has been bugging me for a couple of years—ever since I first became aware of the refugee issue when the Virginia Council of Churches (with funding from the federal government) came to our county and dropped off a few hundred refugees.    Why do groups like VCC hold some moral high ground when they bring refugees to a town?  What about local people (many very low income!) and their jobs and their schools and their social comfort level and their taxes?  Don’t our own poor count for anything?  Don’t we all have rights worth respecting?

I’ve been giving this a lot of thought over the last week or so as I prepare to speak to a group in Washington DC this weekend.   And, certainly the ACORN scandal and what it revealed about a group ostensibly set up to help poor people has revealed Far Left political power players for what I believe they really are—power hungry people with politcal goals where working to ‘help the poor’ is really just a cover.   They (the elitist leaders anyway) don’t give a damn about the people—not the poor and middle class even.

Take the revelations over the last couple of days about Obama’s “brain,”  Valerie Jarrett. It seems under the cover of helping the less fortunate she has benefited financially with these real estate investments she held in Chicago and if reports are accurate she will benefit further as the “slums” she allegedly helped create become a glistening Olympic Park.  Power and personal financial goals are hidden under a patina of doing good for the poor.

So, last night as I reread Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,”  I came across a section which gives me an answer and confirms my theory that the poor immigrants are pawns.   I believe the push for open borders and more and more immigration is driven by a desire by the Far Left to accomplish its political agenda—in the short term, immigrants supply the votes for Far Left goals (Bill Clinton confirmed that the other day with his remark about changed demographics since the Republicans took over Congress in 1994).  I think they figure they already have the American poor in their political pockets, nevermind that study after study demonstrates that American minorities, especially blacks, are hurt by the immigrant tide. 

As for the longterm goal,  increasing “diversity” by moving people around the world will result in a borderless utopian world (or so they think).   Imagine just for a moment, if it were understood that the millions of immigrants pouring into America were going to be conservatives voting Republican, would these same people (the Obama/ACORN/SEIU crowd) be encouraging more immigration?  Not a chance!

This is getting too long, back to Alinsky (Obama’s community organizing role model).  You know Alinsky is all about strategy—how to bring about “change” and get political power.  As I have said before, it strikes me that the game was more important for Alinsky then the goal; so a crucial and cynical part of the Left’s strategy says in order to win one must cover whatever one does in a patina of morality.  Incidentally, I believe Obama was a good student, learned the strategy well, but doesn’t know how to follow-up the power he has achieved and govern.  Alinsky never taught governing!   Alinsky said this about a key element in achieving power:

“All effective actions require the passport of morality.”

This is at the end of a paragraph that begins with this:

Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.   Machiavelli’s blindness to the necessity for moral clothing to all acts and motives—he said “politics has no relation to morals”—was his major weakness.

What I am trying to say is that Leftwing political groups like the Virginia Council of Churches hide under a patina of morality as they push their political goals behind a facade of “caring” for the immigrants.  If they were truly Christians and truly cared, they would care about all people—-including those local less fortunate they step all over when willy-nilly dropping refugees into communities!

They do not hold a morally superior position at all!  They have just told us they do!  It is only a cover for their ‘ends justify the means’  political goals and they have learned to hide under their ‘helping the poor image’ to silence the rest of us.

This post is filed in our ‘community destabilization’ category where it belongs!

Endnote:  Big Government has an Alinsky article posted here, that is worth looking at.  It infuriated me on one point, the Alinsky biographer being interviewed said Alinsky wouldn’t approve of the O’Keefe/Giles ‘dirty trick’ of taping the ACORN workers (actually who cares if he would or wouldn’t!).  I think the biographer is flat-out wrong—Alinsky promoted the concept of the ‘ends justify the means’ ANY MEANS!  

I’ve read a lot of Alinsky and to make my point one story jumps to mind—he went to Rochester to “organize” and pulled a dirty trick.   He hired a bunch of blacks, fed them cans of beans and sent them to a theater (symphony or opera, I can’t remember) and they all passed gas to disrupt the other theater-goers simply to stir up a hornets nest in the city.

Alinsky did, however, disapprove of Bill Ayers and the WeatherUnderground tactics,  not because they were despicable tactics that involved bombing innocent people, but because they weren’t the correct tactics for the situation.  What Bill Ayers accomplished was driving many people who were really ambivalent into the camp of the political Rightwing.  That is what Alinsky objected to!

I doubt that O’Keefe and Giles have driven a single conservative into the arms of the political Leftwing.

Another great article on how SEIU/ACORN and Wade Rathke want to flood the welfare system

I don’t have time to write about it, but Matthew Vadum of the Capital Research Center has a very thorough updated article at Big Government on what we’ve been trying to explain for some time—how SEIU and ACORN are working to overload the American welfare system in order to redistribute wealth and ultimately bring down our form of government.

I contend that in order to make their plan fully operational they need to open the immigration flood gates as wide as they possibly can—the more poor and demanding people they have, the more likely they will succeed.