In Heartland America, Allah’s gangsters are full speed ahead on massive building projects preparing the way for a world Caliphate, ruled by authoritarian, sexist sharia law. Following the example of Field of Dreams (“If you build it they will come”), Islamist strategists figure a deluxe mosque plus multi-use center will attract thousands of faithful Muslims to confront Christian crusaders.
CBN’s Erick Stakelbeck road-tripped to Murfreesboro to get the skinny on the big mosque upgrade project — and what it indicates about Islamist strategy. The growing number of mega-mosques planned for construction across the country portends increasing emphasis of jihadists on immigration as their best method for infiltrating America with their poisonous anti-western ideology.
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. – The proposed mega-mosque at Ground Zero has sparked outrage among many Americans. But far from the bright lights of Manhattan, there is another mosque firestorm brewing.
CBN News recently visited one Tennessee town where locals are voicing concerns about their new “neighbor” – a multi-million dollar Islamic center. It’s just one of several such projects planned nationwide.
Middle Tennessee is often referred to as the “buckle” of the Bible Belt. For cities and towns there like Murfreesboro — about 30 miles south of Nashville — it’s still about God and country.
But some residents of Murfreesboro believe that that all-American feel may soon disappear, thanks to plans to build a huge Islamic center in their backyard.
“Within 17 days they had approval to build this mosque, when there are other large congregations here in the community who, some took as much as a year and a half to get the approval to build onto their facilities,” said local activist Laurie Cardoza-Moore, who is president of the pro-Israel group, Proclaiming Justice to the Nations.
No Public Debate
Cardoza-Moore told CBN News that Rutherford County commissioners pushed through the mega-mosque with no public debate or input. She said residents were shocked when they learned about the project:
“We were asking our country commissioners, ‘Please, before we start and give the approval for a mega mosque, a 52,000-square foot facility for 200 people, can we please look into some of the people affiliated – the donors, who is going to fund this mosque?’”
Many asked why a small Islamic community of only about 250 families needs what would be one of the largest mosque complexes in America.
The imam of the Murfreesboro Islamic Center said the current location in too small, and that his congregation needs to move. Their preferred destination is located a few miles away – 15.2 acres of land that will include a mega-mosque, a swimming pool, a gymnasium, an Islamic school, and living quarters for the imam. […]
Locals also have other concerns–like where the millions of dollars are coming from to pay for the proposed complex
Mosque officials say the money was raised in the community. But local journalist Rebecca Bynum said she isn’t convinced.
“In other mosques, like in Boston and other areas where there’s been huge mosques built, the funding did come from overseas, principally from Saudi Arabia, rich individuals from countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE,” she said.
Murfreesboro is not alone. two more mega-mosques are now being planned for Tennessee–one in Memphis and another the town of Antioch, near Nashville.
“It does seem to be part of a larger strategy to build mosques in rural areas and create Islamic communities–large Islamic communities–in rural areas for some larger purpose,” said Bynum, a columnist for the New English Review.
Fighting Christian ‘Crusaders’
Cardoza-Moore believes the purpose is clear in middle Tennessee.
“You have Bible book publishers, you have Christian book publishers, you have Christian music headquartered here,” she said. “So this is where the Gospel message goes out. And the radical Islamic extremists have stated that they’re still fighting the Crusaders–and they see this as the capital of the Crusaders.”
Mega-mosques are now in the works from coast to coast. In addition to the three massive Islamic centers in Tennessee, the proposed Ground Zero mosque continues to stir fierce debate.
One mosque plan was recently shot down in nearby Staten Island, New York. But a large mosque is currently in the works in neighboring Brooklyn.
In Sheboygan, Wisc. and Portland, Ore., 2 multi-million mosque projects have been given the green light. Another opened last year outside Boston and a $10 million complex opened in Atlanta in 2008.
Meanwhile, neighbors are protesting planned mosques in Southern California and the Chicago suburbs. And there are now plans to build the first ever Islamic center in northern Kentucky.
“When a large mosque is built, it draws more Muslims to the area,” said Bynum.
It’s been estimated that as many as 80 percent of American mosques have received funds from Saudi Arabia, where the official state religion is radical Wahhabi Islam.
Intelligence sources tell CBN News that many American mosques have been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood–an Islamist movement that seeks to establish Islamic sharia law worldwide.
However, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer appeared in a video in late June which showed her in the desert 80 miles north of the border near a sign that warned the public about the danger from Mexican drug cartels.
Last week, the President signed the Southwest Border Security Bill, as Congress and the White House wanted to appear concerned as Election Day draws closer. The legislation puts a piddly $600 million into border enforcement, but at least it shows a move in the right direction, right?
Not so much, if recent developments are to be taken as significant.
Sheriff Larry Deaver has heard a less cheerful story, that some Border Patrol agents are being pulled back from areas that are considered too dangerous by their superiors. Doesn’t that mean that Mexican organized crime is taking over American territory as US border police essentially abandon it? Park land is being given up now; how long until ranchers are advised by Washington to vacate their property for safety considerations?
So it is useful to recalculate occasionally the costs of the continuing, decades-long tsunami of illegal aliens mooching off the state’s depleted financial resources. The numbers are brutal for battered taxpayers.
As the debate on illegal immigration rages in Washington and state capitals, it’s troubling to see both sides rely on emotional rhetoric to the detriment of facts. The impact of illegal immigration on public education is a case in point.
No one can deny that increasing numbers of children of illegal immigrants attend public schools in the United States and that U.S. taxpayers pay the costs. Those sympathetic to illegal immigration tend to remain silent about these costs, while illegal-immigration opponents often fall short on specifics. In the interest of more informed discourse, here are the numbers.
According to a study released last year by the Pew Hispanic Center, as of 2008, 11.9 million illegal immigrants lived in the United States, more than triple the 3.5 million who lived in the country in 1990.
Among the states, California has the largest number of illegal immigrants with 2.7 million, nearly double the 1.4 million in Texas. California’s illegal-immigrant population has swelled by 1.2 million since 1990, while Texas has added a million. A large proportion of illegal-immigrant households are families.
Nearly half, 47 percent, of illegal-immigrant households consist of parents with children. This proportion is more than double that of U.S.-born households, where just 21 percent are parents with children. Over the years, the number of children of illegal immigrants has increased significantly.
In 2003, there were 4.3 million children of illegal immigrants. By 2008 that number had climbed to 5.5 million, more than the entire population of Colorado. The large number of children of illegal immigrants greatly impacts public schools and education-funding costs.
The Pew study found that in 2008, “Children of unauthorized immigrants are 6.8 percent of students enrolled in kindergarten through grade 12,” an increase from the 5.4 percent in 2003. The proportion was double in California, where 13.5 percent of k-12 students in 2008 were the children of illegal immigrants.
Given these percentages, cost estimates of educating these children are staggering.
The U.S. Census Bureau just released 2008 figures showing the national average total per-pupil funding from all revenue sources was $12,028. Although estimates of the number of school-age children of illegal immigrants don’t separate those attending public vs. private schools, it’s reasonable to assume that nearly all attend public schools since most come from lower-income families. Therefore, if one multiplies $12,028 by the roughly 3.7 million students with illegal-immigrant parents, then one gets a national total funding cost of $44.5 billion.
In California, total funding per pupil from all state, federal and local revenue sources was $11,649. With roughly 923,000 students in the state with illegal-immigrant parents, these students represented a total cost of nearly $10.8 billion out of a total 2008 k-12 education budget of $72 billion. An important caveat is that these totals rely on average per-pupil funding numbers.
The actual cost of schooling these children could be higher because many education dollars are earmarked for special purposes. At the federal level, Title I funds are sent to schools to support disadvantaged children, which benefits many children of illegal immigrants. In California, the state’s Economic Impact Aid program provides tax dollars to fund English-language acquisition, which aids children of illegal immigrants. Capital costs for school construction may have increased at a higher rate because of the influx of children of illegal immigrants.
Although almost three-quarters of the children of illegal immigrants were born in the United States and are therefore citizens, had their parents not entered the U.S. illegally these children likely wouldn’t be in U.S. public schools and wouldn’t require taxpayer funding. Thus, it’s fair to say that their education cost stems from their parents’ illegal entry into this country.
The public-education establishment can’t have it both ways on this issue. The Los Angeles school board, for instance, harshly criticizes Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, but also complains about its own budget shortfalls. The numbers, however, confirm that illegal immigration imposes large costs on the public school system. Policymakers should acknowledge and wrestle with this expensive reality instead of satisfying themselves with cheap rhetoric.
Getting a first class K-12 education for free is not enough for entitlement-engorged illegal alien students. Many demand government-subsidized college via the DREAM Act, a Christmas tree of goodies, including amnesty for “students” of up to 35 years old.
In order to become a naturalized American citizen, a foreigner must demonstrate the ability to understand and use English. Nevertheless, liberals managed to poison the Voting Rights Act with a requirement to provide translations of ballots when the foreign language group in a jurisdiction reaches a certain level.
Most Americans don’t like language diversity, such as pressing One for English in their own country. The infiltration of Spanish is everywhere on signs from my local hardware store to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. It’s not a lot to ask that newbies learn the language of the country to which they moved voluntarily as the sine qua non of assimilation — unless you are a fervent member of the America-hating Raza tribe which demands “bilingualism” (i.e. Spanish everywhere) as part of their cultural and political invasion.
The U.S. Justice Department has told a major Ohio county to print bilingual ballots for the November election or it will be sued by the government. But most voters believe that election ballots in this country should be printed only in English.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely Voters favor English-only ballots. But this is down 10 points from June 2006. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree and say election ballots should be printed in both English and Spanish.
The Political Class is more emphatic. While 68% of Mainstream voters believe ballots should only be in English, 78% of those in the Political Class think they should be available in English and Spanish.
Still, 84% of all voters think English should be the nation’s official language. Just 13% disagree.
Three-out-of four voters (75%) also continue to believe that companies should be allowed to require their employees to speak English on the job. Only 16% oppose such a requirement.
Just 12% of voters believe that requiring employees to speak English is a form of racism or bigotry. Seventy-nine percent (79%) reject that notion and believe the requirement is not racist or bigoted.
Both these findings, too, are virtually unchanged from when the questions were first asked in November 2007.
Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 60% of voters not affiliated with either major party say election ballots should be printed only in English. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats believe they should be printed in English and Spanish.
But most Democrats agree with Republicans and unaffiliateds that English should be the official language of the United States. There is little disagreement on this question across all demographic categories.
There is also majority agreement across all groups about requiring English on the job and a common belief that such a requirement is not bigotry or racism.
In the mist of the 2008 campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama said it is more important for American children to learn to speak Spanish than it is for new immigrants into this country to learn to speak English. Voters strongly disagreed, with 83% saying a higher priority should be placed on encouraging immigrants to speak English as their primary language.
In a separate survey at the time, 42% of voters said most government officials encourage immigrants to retain the culture of their home country rather than to fully embrace American culture and society. Thirty-two percent (32%) disagreed. But 83% expressed more anger at the government for the way it handles immigration than anger at the immigrants themselves who are looking for jobs.
With midterm elections less than three months away, nearly two-out-of-three voters (65%) remain at least somewhat angry at the current policies of the federal government in all areas, including 40% who are Very Angry.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state. Most voters (53%) now say it’s better for individual states to act on their own to enforce immigration laws rather than relying on the federal government for enforcement.
In the New York borough of Staten Island, Mexicans residing there now complain about attacks by black assailants, who must not have received the memo that diversity is our strength.
Interestingly, the Associated Press story has a semi-explanatory headline, and the race of the accused perps doesn’t occur until the third paragraph.
A little further along, the reporter states, “the immigration debate plays out in suspicion of outsiders and sometimes escalates into violence” as if there were no real problems caused by the Mexican invasion, which has come rapidly to the area. Mere discussion is assumed to cause the dread xenophobia.
When Rodolfo Olmedo was dragged down by a group of men shouting anti-Mexican epithets and bashed over the head with a wooden stick on the street outside his home, he instinctively covered his face to keep from getting disfigured. Blood filled his mouth.
“I wanted to scream, but I couldn’t because of the beating they were giving me,” said the 25-year-old baker. Nearly five months later, he is still taking pain medications for his head injuries.
Recorded by a store’s surveillance camera, the assault was the first of 11 suspected anti-Hispanic bias attacks in a Staten Island neighborhood, re-igniting years-old tensions between blacks and Hispanics in New York City’s most remote borough.
Residents of Port Richmond — where an influx of newcomers from Latin America over the past decade has transformed the community — alternately blame the attacks on the economy, unemployment and the debate over Arizona’s immigration law.
And although most of the suspects were described as young black men and investigated for bias crimes, a grand jury has indicted only one of seven people arrested on a hate-crime charge.
But Isaias Lozano, a day laborer, said he knows why he was attacked and robbed in December by “morenos” — the Spanish word he uses to describe his black neighbors.
“They hate us because we’re Mexicans,” he said while sitting at El Centro del Inmigrante, a center for immigrant day workers. “They aren’t robbing just anybody.”
Across the United States, the immigration debate plays out in suspicion of outsiders and sometimes escalates into violence. Port Richmond, tucked in a corner of New York City that most visitors never see, is wrestling with the perennial question of how people from different backgrounds can live together and get along.
Some community leaders here blame the attacks on hoodlums preying on day laborers, who are perceived as easy targets because they often carry cash home from work. Others say the Arizona law is stirring up a climate of intolerance, even these thousands of miles away.
“It’s a cascading effect,” said the Rev. Terry Troia, a board member of El Centro del Inmigrante. “There are negative impulses being put out there both nationally and locally. People on the fringe catch a piece of that, and they are acting on it.”
Some of Port Richmond’s black residents assert that newcomers’ presence touches a nerve. Mike Mason, 47, a teacher who works in New Jersey, said the arrival of Mexican immigrants had changed the texture of the community.
“America has got to do something as far as immigration goes,” he said. “In the morning you can see the streets lined with undocumented workers … That’s always in the back of people’s minds.”
Staten Island is a relatively isolated, suburban-like borough of New York City. It is home to nearly 500,000 people, most of whom live in detached homes instead of apartments, need cars to get around and a ferry to get across New York Harbor to Manhattan.
Between 2000 and 2008, the number of Hispanics living on the island grew roughly 40 percent, according to Census bureau statistics analyzed by City University of New York’s Latino Data Project, with much of that growth coming from the Mexican community.
Many of those began to coalesce around the Port Richmond neighborhood, which had long been predominantly black and low-income. The neighborhood’s main commercial thoroughfare, once marked by empty storefronts, suddenly came alive with Mexican businesses selling pinatas, bars playing Spanish-language heavy metal, and grocers stocking chilies and tomatillos. The neighborhood developed a new nickname: “LittleMexico.”
Later in the article, some black residents said that bias was not the main impulse for the attacks. Whatever the truth about motive, diversity as an uber-value has come in for a battering on Staten Island.
Justice is supposed to be swift, but it usually isn’t in the real world. These days, years normally pass between the commission of a crime and the trial of the accused. In the passing years, families have tried to return to some sort of normalcy after the loss of a loved one, only to have the scab ripped off when the events are cruelly recounted in the courtroom. That scenario is happening now in Los Angeles in the trial of a shocking murder.
Fourteen-year-old Cheryl Green (pictured) was shot and killed December 16, 2006, near her home in LA. The crime appears to be one of the many murders committed by hispanic gang members against random black citizens in a program of ethnic cleansing in the city. The trial of Cheryl Green’s accused killer has just begun.
One moment, it was an idyllic December afternoon with a group of young people hanging out in the driveway, one young man showing his 6-year-old cousin how to play Tetris on a cellphone.
In the next, a gunman walked up and began firing into the crowd, sending people screaming and running, leaving a 14-year-old girl dead and others injured.
What led to the 2006 death of Cheryl Green was not a calculated crime but an indiscriminate racial hatred that has long plagued a narrow strip of Los Angeles squeezed between Torrance and Carson, known as the Harbor Gateway area, a prosecutor said Wednesday.
In opening statements in the trial of two Latino gang members charged in the murders of Cheryl Green and a potential witness, prosecutors described the racially charged environment of the Harbor Gateway area that led to the girl’s death. The slaying sparked outrage and highlighted long-standing black-Latino tensions in the neighborhood.
It was a world in which intimidating and killing blacks was a “full-time enterprise” for powerful Latino gangs, and walls covered in graffiti with racial epithets made it abundantly clear that blacks were not welcome in the area, Deputy Dist. Atty. Gretchen Ford told jurors.
Jonathan Fajardo, now 22, faces the death penalty if convicted of Green’s murder. Fajardo and a second defendant, Daniel Aguilar, 23, are also accused in the stabbing death of a potential witness, a fellow gang member whom they suspected of talking to the police shortly after the shooting. Aguilar is not charged in Green’s killing.
Ford said the chain of events began with a black man driving up in an SUV to a market in the area that members of the 204th Street gang frequented. When Fajardo and others approached the car, the man flashed a gun, and the gang members, who were unarmed, fled. […]
Green’s mother, Charlene Lovett, sat in the audience with other family members and sobbed upon hearing the scene of her daughter’s death described.
“It’s something that a mother should never have to envision in their mind, their child getting killed,” she later said outside court. “It’s horrible.”
Family members of a teen gunned down last week railed against America’s immigration policy on Friday after learning one of the suspected gunmen was in the country illegally.
Melvin Alvarado, 22, and Jonathan Lopez-Torres, 18, have been charged with capital murder in the Aug. 7 shooting death of 14-year-old Shatavia Anderson.
Immigration officials have said Alvarado was deported in April 2008 and again in May 2009.
Shatavia’s uncle, Joe Lambert, said the country’s policy on immigration is “a big problem.”
“It’s really senseless, what happened to my niece, and I do not like it.” Lambert said. “They’re starting to come over here and they can do whatever they want. What you’re doing is giving them a green light telling them, ‘Hey, you can do whatever you want.’ ”
Lopez-Torres is a lawful permanent resident from Honduras.
The two men appeared Friday in court, where relatives of Anderson donned memorial T-shirts and called for tougher enforcement of immigration laws.
“I would like to see what they’re doing in Arizona done here,” Lambert said, referring to recent laws targeting illegal immigration in the Grand Canyon state.
President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully endorsed allowing a mosque near ground zero, saying the country’s founding principles demanded no less.
“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country,” Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York City and the nation.
“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”
Obama made the comments at an annual dinner in the White House State Dining Room celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
The White House had not previously taken a stand on the mosque, which would be part of a $100 million Islamic center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Press secretary Robert Gibbs had insisted it was a local matter.
It was already much more than that, sparking debate around the country as top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich announced their opposition. So did the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group.
Obama elevated it to a presidential issue Friday without equivocation.
While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed “hallowed ground,” Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values.
“Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us — and that way of life, that quintessentially American creed, stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today,” he said.
Obama harkened back to earlier times when the building of synagogues or Catholic churches also met with opposition. “But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values and emerge stronger for it,” he said. “So it must be and will be today.”
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who has been a strong supporter of the mosque, welcomed Obama’s words as a “clarion defense of the freedom of religion.”
But some Republicans were quick to pounce.
“President Obama is wrong,” said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. “It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero. While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much.”
Entering the highly charged election-year debate, Obama surely knew that his words would not only make headlines but be heard by Muslims worldwide. The president has made it a point to reach out to the global Muslim community, and the over 100 guests at Friday’s dinner included ambassadors and officials from numerous Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Seated around candlelit tables, they listened closely as Obama spoke, then stood and applauded when the president finished his remarks.
While his pronouncement concerning the mosque might find favor in the Muslim world, Obama’s stance runs counter to the opinions of the majority of Americans, according to polls. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released this week found that nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the mosque plan while just 29 percent approved. A number of Democratic politicians have shied away from the controversy.
His Iftar speech treated Islam as if it had always been a part of America instead of a recent interloper [text]:
And tonight, we are reminded that Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity. And Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan —- making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago. (Applause.)
Like so many other immigrants, generations of Muslims came to forge their future here. They became farmers and merchants, worked in mills and factories. They helped lay the railroads. They helped to build America. They founded the first Islamic center in New York City in the 1890s. They built America’s first mosque on the prairie of North Dakota. And perhaps the oldest surviving mosque in America —- still in use today —- is in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson is better remembered for dispatching the Navy to battle the Islamic Barbary Pirates in the country’s first anti-terror campaign. But Obama prefers a fantasy history of Muslims in America.
We knew what was coming, that a minuscule pretense of border protection would prompt immediate demands from the Obamatrons for rewarding lawbreakers. The ink was barely dry on the new, rather sparse border spending legislation before Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano piped up for the big amnesty enchilada.
And the enforcement ducks aren’t in line by a long shot.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Friday said the administration has “enough” resources to secure the border now that President Obama signed into law a $600 million border security spending bill, and she said Congress must now act on the rest of immigration.
“This is what we asked for. And of course, what we asked for was what we thought would be enough,” Ms. Napolitano told reporters at the White House, hours after she joined Mr. Obama as he signed the bipartisan bill.
The law provides for 1,000 new U.S. Border Patrol agents, hundreds of border inspectors and interior enforcement personnel and two new aerial drones to patrol the remote Southwest.
Although it will take about eight months for the new agents to be hired and trained, Ms. Napolitano said the border is already secure enough that it should not be used by critics to “preclude discussions about immigration reform.”
“Sometimes I hear ’securing the border’ and the goalpost just keeps moving — well, we’ve done this,” Ms. Napolitano said, echoing statements by Mr. Obama that it’s now time for a comprehensive bill that would provide illegal immigrants a pathway to legalization.
But border state lawmakers, while welcoming the additional resources, said it’s not enough. On Thursday, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona Democrat, said Washington “still doesn’t truly understand the threats we face” in border states.
“I will keep saying it until they hear me – while this is a valuable first step towards protecting folks in the Southwest, it will take much more to make up for years of failed policies along the border,” she said.
Mr. Obama earlier this year endorsed a general framework for a bill and made a speech calling for action, but he is leaving the details to Capitol Hill. He and other Democrats have said the ball is in Republicans’ court, noting that several GOP lawmakers who were key to immigration reform in the past are now no longer supportive of a similar measure.
Below, the White House signing ceremony of the Southwest Border Security Bill was decidedly low key.
The article excerpted below shows the usual media sympathy for the cultural difficulties refugee kids face in adjusting to American schools. The subject is a sort of preview school set up in Brooklyn to help them with stress-free practice sessions (no loud sirens), called the Refugee Youth Summer Academy.
For their first fire drill, students at the Refugee Youth Summer Academy trooped out of the building behind their teachers. All that was missing were the sirens.
The blaring alarms had been muted, for fear they could trigger terror in children who recently arrived from war zones and other conflict areas. The silent fire drill was part of the balancing act for staff at the six-week program that helps youngsters who have survived wars and refugee camps prepare for a new experience — American public school.
For some of the kids, formal education has been haphazard or nonexistent, said Elizabeth Demchak, principal of the school, run by the International Rescue Committee, which works with refugees and asylum-seekers.
For others, school consisted of sitting and taking notes surrounded by dozens of others with a teacher reciting a lecture. Preparing them means helping them learn how to go to school along with what they learn there.
Not much out of the same-old do-gooder tapdance so far. However, my BS detector popped up when I saw the photo below with the cut line explaining the subject being taught to quite young children: social justice.
Aren’t the Marxists trolling a bit young these days? And what do eight-year-olds (I’m guessing from the picture) learn about social justice anyway? When to phone the ACLU about suing your teacher? Why the American people who generously welcomed you are actually slavering racists? How to major in the ever-useful ethnic studies in college?
I would love to be a fly on the wall.
[ORIGINAL CAPTION] In this Aug. 3, 2010 photo, Hector Estrada, top center, who teaches social justice in a theater setting at the Refugee Youth Academy, address a group of immigrant students at the academy in the Brooklyn borough of New York. The Refugee Youth Academy is a six-week program run by the International Rescue Committee that tries to help refugee parents and children get familiar with what American school is all about.
Thanks to Ray Tranchant for speaking out as the father of teenager killed in a crash caused by an illegal alien. The public hears too little about the crime victims of unlawful foreigners; the liberal press prefers to swoon over foreign perps and their sufferings in pursuit of a “better life” rather than consider the human tragedies caused by open borders.
The accused killer, Bolivian Carlos Montano, had earlier been handed over to ICE for deportation (twice!) but instead was released onto American streets. He had spent 20 days in jail for two drunk-driving convictions, so was clearly a bad crash waiting to happen. An obviously dangerous illegal alien was released with deadly consequences.
My 16-year-old daughter, Tessa, was killed by an illegal immigrant in Virginia Beach three years ago while sitting at a stop light. Her friend Ali Kunhardt, 17, also perished instantly. […]
Alfredo Ramos, a previous DUI offender and alcoholic, seemed invisible in a system that was good at looking the other way. Virginia Beach and Chesapeake were being accused of being “sanctuary cities” as Bill O’Reilly and Geraldo Rivera screamed at each other during the national news hour. O’Reilly was right.
I know what sanctuary means more than most ever will.
Ramos was actually smug at the trial and took his lumps: 40 years in prison. There was nothing I could do but forgive him; forgiveness cleanses the soul. He was an uneducated foreigner patronized by local merchants who needed cheap labor.
Hundreds of thousands of illegals in Virginia do the same. We don’t share a border with Mexico, so the awareness here isn’t as great as Arizona or California.
But the dilemma in Arizona is more important to Virginians than it seems. Last Monday, Sister Denise Mosier was killed in Prince William County. An illegal immigrant from Bolivia with two previous drunken-driving convictions is charged with killing her and critically injuring two other nuns while driving drunk.
As with me, her friends say they have forgiven him and hold no grudges.
Later in the week, in response to this tragedy, the Secretary of Homeland Security said she would get to the bottom of why the illegals are not deported when they are repeat offenders.
Here’s what I would like to tell the Secretary: Ms. Napolitano, ICE was not there in 2007 when my daughter and her friend died. And, though ICE picked up the man who hit Sister Mosier, he wasn’t kept in custody and was sent back out the streets.
This problem is not new.
We know it’s not the people but the system that fails Americans again and again. There have been hundreds of similar stories in America since Tess and Ali died.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez from Illinois reminded me personally in a Congressional hearing that the solution lies with a comprehensive plan that includes amnesty. After all, he said, “they pick your grapes, clean your hotels and are then victimized.” Luis should worry about protecting U.S. Hispanics and instead of counting on prospective Hispanic votes.
But waving a magic wand over 12 million people will not solve this immigration problem. It worries me that we would even consider giving foreigners legal rights to Social Security, health care and school in a time of $14 trillion dollar deficits.
Consider that when 12 million get citizenship, 10 million of their relatives will migrate legally. Of course citizenship will make them pay into the system, but the amount won’t be realized for many years.
I don’t believe the current system can process this many people and verify that some are not criminals or terrorists, let alone pay benefits to new Americans.
Young Muslims continue their violent behavior across Europe. However the media appear shy about saying directly that significant numbers of Muslim immigrants are barbaric thugs, pursuing sharia through rioting and anarchy.
Vlad Tepes blog posted a TV news report from Berlin, where police are struggling to maintain order in certain areas with high levels of diversity. The talking head burbled through a disconnected introduction comparing American ghetto crime to current civil unrest in Germany where police cannot easily enter some immigrant neighborhoods. Interestingly, “no-go area” is the phrase used in German.
“There were always major problems with Arab youth,” reported one officer.
Another described miscreants who declared, “This is mine, this is our area. German police have nothing at all to decide here. Go away already, we’ll deal with things between us.” (Muslims don’t recognize German law because they want a worldwide caliphate ruled by sharia.)
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.