“Networking, Propaganda and Culture Shaping - The first edition of the Red-Green Axis introduced you to the notion of "culture shaping," the Left's slimy term for manipulating public opinion. The idea is once again to use the mantle of "compassion" to arm twist the public into not merely supporting, but actually promoting the Red-Green Axis's immigration agenda. Weaponized Civil Rights The generally accepted definition of "refugee" was established at the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, since augmented by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. According to the official UN definition, a "refugee" is someone who is unwilling to return to his home country due to a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."[ 399] The U.S. was a signatory to both of these accords and its refugee definition is essentially the same. It sounds innocent enough, but what if membership in a particular social or religious group meant that one practiced cannibalism? What if one's politics, for example communism or enforcement of Islamic Law, advocated the overthrow of the United States? The law is silent on that. You are only ineligible as a refugee if you yourself, "ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion."[ 400] But even that exception is often overlooked. For example, the Cambodian refugee camps housed both refugees fleeing the murderous Khmer Rouge and actual Khmer Rouge members. We took both. Prior to the 1980 Refugee Act, refugees were granted entry to the U.S. by the attorney general through something called humanitarian parole. It was official U.S. policy to focus primarily on refugees fleeing communism.[ 401] The Refugee Act ended, and I would argue, reversed this focus. Now we get the communists. It is important to note here that under these definitions, "individuals who have crossed an international border fleeing generalized violence are not considered refugees."[ 402] If taken literally, this would exclude large numbers of people who are regularly resettled anyway, for example many of the Syrians fleeing that country's conflict, most, if not all, Somalis, and even the above-mentioned Khmer Rouge, who should have been excluded for being the murderous monsters they were. It is as absurd as allowing Islamic State fighters from Europe to return home, which many countries do! Similar language guides our anti-discrimination and "hate" crime laws, first articulated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. That definition has expanded over time by either new legislation or regulatory fiat. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) now prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, political affiliation, religion, national origin, age, disability, parental status, and genetic information.[ 403] In practice, this has resulted in hiring quotas and other preferences for the target group. It facilitates anti-discrimination lawsuits and other legal action, protests, boycotts, and so forth. Activists are seeking the same kind of legal protection now for Muslims to protect them against "Islamophobia," including the passage of blasphemy laws. This has already occurred in Europe. And whereas these protections legally only extend to U.S. citizens, the Left has constantly sought to expand these "rights" to cover practically anyone, including illegal aliens. The Left has multiple goals in pursuing this strategy: 1. to cultivate votes by finding ever more groups that can be singled out for preferential treatment by the government, 2. creating ever more divisions of competing groups, e.g., straight vs gay, black vs white, old vs young, citizen vs immigrant, etc., and most importantly, 3. isolating, marginalizing, and ultimately criminalizing those Americans who uphold the Constitution, the rule of law, traditions, and traditional morality. The sum total of this effort has been to tie our courts in knots and facilitate the Left's relentless war against the Trump administration. The latest insanity finds an Obama-appointed, San Francisco district court judge claiming that denying illegal aliens the right to request asylum violates their civil rights.[ 404] The Language of Hate The Left presents its immigration agenda as one of generous, even biblical "compassion." We are to "welcome the stranger," and open our doors to migrants "fleeing war and oppression," when frequently their goal is to simply circumvent immigration laws to enjoy the freedom, employment opportunities and generous welfare programs America provides. Should you point out this obvious ploy, question its dangerous challenge to the rule of law, criticize the heavy costs it imposes on the community, or raise any other red flags, you are immediately characterized as a "racist," a "bigot," a "xenophobe", or "Islamophobe." The Left forces you into a box. You either capitulate and accept its agenda or are symbolically (for now) exiled from the human race. Operators in the Red-Green Axis are aggressively seeking to weaponize "hate crime" laws to include any language that offends them. It has already occurred in Europe and Canada, where speaking truthfully about some of the very anti-Western beliefs and practices of Islam, pointing to rising Islamic terrorism in Europe, or identifying the growing gang rape and grooming gang phenomena as attributable to Middle Eastern men, can get you thrown in jail as a "hater." This "hate crimes" strategy is now being extended to any criticism of the open borders agenda. It has been codified in the UN migration compact, as described earlier. More and more frequently, the Red-Green Axis has been successfully silencing critics. CAIR's Nihad Awad and his allies scored a high-profile victory recently by getting Judge Jeannine Pirro suspended by Fox News for comments regarding Rep. Ilhan Omar. Her crime? Islamophobia. Pirro reasonably asked if Rep. Ilhan Omar would put Islamic law (sharia) above her duty to the U.S. Constitution: "Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine [wearing a hijab] indicative of her adherence to sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?” That is a perfectly valid question, borne out by Omar's behavior. She casually violated longstanding House rules against wearing religious headgear, unlike 170 Jewish representatives[ 405] who have respected the 181-year-old ban, and no one called her on it. Instead, the newly-elected Democrat House removed the ban.[ 406] That in itself was at once a bow to sharia supremacy and a demonstration of Democrats' antisemitic bias. And Omar's frequently outrageous statements and behavior already reveal a contempt for the Constitution. Today, we can see the "hate" tactic in operation every day when left-wing professors, journalists, performers, and politicians ridicule, misrepresent, threaten, or just suppress statements by anyone with an opposing view, or facts that might upset the leftist narrative. The Southern Poverty Law Center, Media Matters for America, and even the Anti-Defamation League, are assisting in this effort today. Social media does the same by "deplatforming," "shadow-banning," and other forms of censorship, while online payment processors discriminate against those with a politically incorrect mission or message, sometimes financially crippling them. It is an unscrupulous, mean-spirited, self-serving, and dangerous form of psychological manipulation that has reduced our political discourse to infantile, elementary school playground name-calling. It is a national disgrace, delivered to us entirely from the Islamic Movement and its willing partners on the left . But because it is so effective at marginalizing opponents, the targets can lose friends, jobs, access to major communications platforms, and standing in the community, permanently. It is a form of psychological warfare and political terrorism. Given its pedigree, this is not surprising. The strategy was conjured up by early big thinkers of the Left and was designed specifically to discredit its enemies and destroy our first and most important freedom: that of free speech. It is frequently misunderstood as a spontaneous, visceral reaction to beliefs the Left finds unacceptable. Those with more political savvy suggest it is an application of Saul Alinsky's Rule #13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.[ 407] But it is actually a very specific tactic formulated 100 years ago by the Soviet Communist Party. Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet Union's first leader, articulated this idea when he said, “We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth… We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”[ 408] In the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, individuals so vilified could face a death sentence.[ 409] But the tactic was urged on party members worldwide as suggested by this 1943 message from the Soviet Communist Party to the communist parties of the world: "Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic... constantly associate those who oppose us with those names that already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough repetition, become ` fact' in the public mind."[ 410] Lenin and his Bolsheviks believed that stifling speech was essential to their cause. He said: Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes is right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns.[ 411] Repressive Tolerance The German Communist Herbert Marcuse developed the idea of suppressing conservative speech in America in his 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance.” Marcuse was one of the better-known members of the so-called Frankfurt School. Founded in Frankfurt, Germany in 1923 as the Institute for Social Research, the school was disbanded when Hitler rose to power, and its professors—all Jewish Communists—fled. Most came to America. The Frankfurt School was reinstituted at Columbia University. Marcuse taught there before heading to Harvard, Brandeis, and finally the University of California, San Diego. He mentored Angela Davis, the black American Communist involved at the time with the Black Panthers, first at Brandeis, then at UC San Diego, which she attended specifically because he was there.[ 412] Marcuse and his fellow Frankfurt School Marxists created Critical Theory, an intellectual tool to deconstruct the West through constant criticism. Echoing the Soviets, their teaching relentlessly accused Western societies of being “the world’s greatest repositories of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, fascism, and Nazism.”[ 413] In order to correct the oppressive imbalance Marcuse claimed exists in Western societies, he suggested that—again recalling Lenin—those oppressed by the society had a special right to conceal and suppress truth, engage in violence, law-breaking, and other civil disobedience to get their way: Under the conditions prevailing in this country, tolerance does not, and cannot, fulfill the civilizing function attributed to it by the liberal protagonists of democracy, namely, protection of dissent... I believe that there is a 'natural right' of resistance for oppressed and overpowered minorities to use extralegal means if the legal ones have proved to be inadequate... If they use violence, they do not start a new chain of violence but try to break an established one.[ 414] In the sphere of public debate this meant: Not "equal" but more representation of the Left would be equalization of the prevailing inequality... Given this situation, I suggested in "Repressive Tolerance" the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressors …[ 415] Marcuse further described the types of people who needed to have their freedom curtailed: [It] would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior--thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives.[ 416] In Marcuse's formulation, anyone who opposes, for example, programs like social security or Medicaid, is by definition a racist, sexist, etc. and should have his/ her voice and activities silenced. The Role of the Southern Poverty Law Center Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance was read widely and his tactics readily adopted by the Left, but Marcuse also had a direct connection to the Southern Poverty Law Center. SPLC co-founder Julian Bond and Herbert Marcuse were close associates. They got to know each other through their membership in the National Conference for New Politics, an organization Bond co-founded. Late Senator James Eastland described the NCNP as “working hand-in-glove with the Communist Party” to foment “revolution in the United States.” In 1976 Bond and Marcuse also helped found the radical journal In These Times.[ 417] In 1970, Bond joined the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee which ultimately became Democratic Socialists of America.[ 418] He co-founded the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee,[ 419] later led by black separatists Stokely Carmichael and H. Rap Brown, who advocated guerrilla warfare in the U.S. Though Bond was elected to the Georgia legislature, the body refused to seat Bond three times because of his agitation against the Vietnam War. Bond called on communist lawyer Leonard Boudin to represent him. Boudin’s other clients included the government of Fidel Castro, Soviet agent of influence Paul Robeson, and Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg. Boudin’s daughter, Kathie, was a Weather Underground terrorist, who served 25 years for her participation in the 1981 Brinks robbery that left two policemen and one Brinks guard dead.[ 420] Bond and Marcuse also shared an interest in Marcuse's protégé Angela Davis. When she was jailed for her alleged role in the Black Panther murder of a California Judge, she recruited attorney Howard Moore, Bond's brother-in-law, who had also helped represent Bond in his battle to be seated with the Georgia legislature.[ 421] Davis was also a member of Bond's SNCC.[ 422] Bond later wrote the foreword to Davis' book, If They Come in the Morning: Voices of Resistance.[ 423] The SPLC uses the "hate" tactic invented by Lenin and further developed by Marcuse and Saul Alinsky, to spear political opponents. It does so by lumping mainstream conservative organizations like the Family Research Council, ACT for America, and the Center for Security Policy in with Skinheads, Neo-Nazis, and other extremist groups. Having thus conflated all their political enemies, SPLC spokesman Mark Potok has said, "our aim in life is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them."[ 424] As Lenin predicted, when repeated enough publicly, the lie becomes the truth. It saves the Left from actually having to argue any issue on the basis of facts, because they would lose every time. Instead, their political and intellectual opponents are simply discredited. It is a shameless, unscrupulous tactic that has reduced the national dialogue to infantile, elementary school name-calling, all brought to us courtesy the radical Left, and now used by the radical Islamists. But they have been very successful. The SPLC is regularly cited by news outlets anytime they want to discredit someone as a "racist," "bigot," or "Islamophobe." The refugee resettlement industry now advocates publicly shaming anyone who questions the program and has recruited the SPLC in its efforts to identify and discredit critics. Amazon, Facebook, Google, and others follow SPLC guidance in identifying "haters." But recently, the SPLC has run into some problems of its own regarding widespread abuse alleged by employees, including charges of racism and sexual harassment. Co-founder Morris Dees has been fired and two other top SPLC executives have resigned. More good news followed with the 17 April 2019 report that Twitter had severed ties with the SPLC, which was no longer a member of Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council.[ 425] It remains to be seen whether SPLC will retain its current level of influence. SPLC has received much criticism from both the left and right over the years and has survived and prospered. This author believes it will continue to do so. The people who use SPLC's "hate" list are well-aware of its fraudulent, defamatory nature, but being from the Left, those clients are less interested in the truth than in having a pretext to conduct their own war on traditional America. It would not be surprising to see SPLC hire people even more radical than those who left. Shutting Down Free Speech They have worked for years to "culture shape" our society. But some of us just refuse to be reeducated like the commissars would have us. So. the Red-Green Axis is now aggressively pushing to both define and criminalize "hate" speech. It is the most sophisticated version of the Leninist tactic yet. CAIR has been at it for years and lobbies the government to amend hate crimes law to included hate speech—as defined by CAIR and the Left, of course. SPLC provides the ammunition. In 2017, this author and DHS Whistleblower Philip Haney were prevented from giving a presentation in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, following complaints by a former CAIR Minnesota attorney.[ 426] In 2018, author and talk show host Brannon Howse was forced to cancel four of five Midwest counter-jihad conferences at a very heavy cost due to threats from Antifa and similar groups that had heard of the events from a posting on the SPLC website.[ 427] Antifa and violent student protests against conservative speakers on college campuses and throughout the U.S. have become a regular feature on the news. Meanwhile, the Red-Green Axis continues its aggressive efforts to criminalize speech. They seek to achieve what has already happened in Europe, where it is now a crime to speak negatively about the problems created by an overwhelming influx of mostly young male Muslim migrants. Austrian native Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was prosecuted after giving a series of speeches articulating the dangers Islam poses to Western Civilization. Her crime? She reportedly said of the marriage between Mohammed and his six-year-old bride, Aisha "... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”[ 428] Now the Swamp has jumped in. A brand-new group bolstered by two related websites has announced itself. The group is called Change the Terms and calls on technology companies to shut down anyone saying things they define as "hateful." Its website states:[ 429] WE ARE A COALITION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS, TECHNOLOGY POLICY, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ORGANIZATIONS. WE BELIEVE THAT TECH COMPANIES NEED TO DO MORE TO COMBAT HATEFUL CONDUCT ON THEIR PLATFORMS. This is an agenda that has become all too familiar at this point. Who are the "haters?" Of course, according to Change the Terms, they are: For example, white supremacist and other organizations inciting hate are using online platforms to organize, fund, recruit supporters for, and normalize racism, sexism, xenophobia, religious bigotry, homophobia and transphobia, among others… This chills the online speech of the targeted groups, curbs democratic participation, and threatens people’s safety and freedom in real life… Change the Terms uses the term “hateful activities” to mean activities that incite or engage in violence, intimidation, harassment, threats, or defamation targeting an individual or group based on their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. According to the Left, conservatives are all white supremacists, even when they aren't white. Conservatives don't normally "engage in violence, intimidation, harassment, threats, or defamation" either. Unlike the Left, we believe in the rule of law. Those who actually do engage in these kinds of activities are this group and the people affiliated with it. In fact, the very creation of this group is a form of threat and harassment because it telegraphs their intentions to us. It is in essence a declaration of war. The Left controls most media and they know it. The few less regulated media sources still available to non-leftists are social media and internet news sites. So, their overt goal is to shut us out of those as well. The way they will succeed is to do what they always do: turn reality on its head. They will lie by calling the truth "defamation," and label any message that they don't like "harassment." Black is white, good is bad and you will comply. By their definition, this book is defamation. As we have already seen earlier, the UN has already been successful at declaring such literature as a crime. The list of founders and supporters tells you everything you need to know: Center for American Progress—Leftist think tank founded by Clinton insider John Podesta Color of Change—Activist organization co-founded by self-described communist, Van Jones Free Press—A "progressive" news outlet founded by hardcore Socialist Robert McChesney Southern Poverty Law Center—Communist inspired institutional hate group Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law—Extreme Left legal organization. Council on American-Islamic Relations—Muslim Brotherhood front Church World Service—Yes, that CWS And the following: 18 Million Rising Advocates for Youth African American Ministers in Action Arab American Association of NY Arkansas United Athlete Ally Benton Foundation CASA de Maryland Center for Community Change Center for Media Justice Center for Victims of Torture Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) Consumer Action Define American Deplatform Hate Emgage Action Equality California Faith in Public Life Franciscan Action Network (FAN) Hollaback Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA) Media Mobilizing Project MPower Change Muslim Advocates National Hispanic Media Coalition National Immigrant Justice Center National Immigration Law Center (NILC) National Urban League OneAmerica Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN) The Revolutionary Love Project Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN) South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) The Arc of the United States United Church of Christ, Office of Communication, Inc. United We Dream Western States Center Yemeni Student Association Another recently created website with the same goal is Reject White Nationalism, (https:// rejectwhitenationalism.org.) Many of the same actors listed above are affiliates, along with some new ones. But the objective is the same: to use Leninist tactics to discredit anyone who cares about our nation as "racists," "bigots," etc. It is so tiresome. The site provides Facebook and Twitter links to every member of the U.S. Congress, a very handy tool that they will no doubt use to demand the criminalization of free speech and shut us down as Herbert Marcuse advocated. CAP receives millions from Soros and other well-heeled leftists. Welcoming America: An Influence Operation There are thousands of organizations working the propaganda angle. Only with immigration they have added a "religious" twist. The most prominent of these is Welcoming America, a nationwide organization that has grown substantially since the first edition of this book. The Welcoming network includes over 93 local government "partners" and 117 non-profits, including numerous VOLAG affiliates, 10 YMCA branches and even some governmental entities, like the Atlanta Regional Commission.[ 430] Amazing whom you can bring to the table when enough money is involved. But many of these organizations have been infiltrated by the Left. Welcoming America now includes the Southern Poverty Law Center and other similarly extremist organizations in its membership as well.[ 431] Welcoming America exploits a Bible theme, "welcoming the stranger", which appears in a few places in the Old and New Testaments. Probably the most useful for the open borders crowd is Matthew 25: 35, which states, "for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in." First, when he says "I was a stranger and you took ME in," Christ is talking about himself, not just any run-of-the-mill stranger off the street, and certainly not teeming crowds of immigrants, legal or otherwise. That is why Me is capitalized. But those who have bothered to actually read the Bible, unfortunately including many members of liberal churches involved in the "welcoming" agenda, who misrepresent Biblical teachings every day, will protest, quoting some of the following verses: "Then the righteous will answer Him saying… When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You?" (25: 37-38). Jesus explains, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me." (35: 40) Further along Jesus says, "Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me. And these will go into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (35: 45-46). In each case Jesus is referring to his BRETHREN, that is, his Christian followers. Of course, newcomers to a community are always welcomed. That is a matter of traditional American courtesy. We don't need to be taught to be "welcoming.” In no part of the Bible does "Welcoming the stranger" refer to welcoming masses of illegal aliens flooding the border, or teeming hordes brought to the U.S. by financially motivated federal contractors working with politically motivated organizations looking to exploit these people either for low wages, votes or both. We are not required to take them in, nor are we required to clothe, feed or support them! In fact, the opposite is true. Another good one is Hebrews 13: 2: "Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels." So, denying access to millions of people exploiting our borders in one way or another may be rejecting angels? You have to hand it to them for their chutzpah. There are more, but in every case, it is a deliberate perversion of biblical doctrine to serve the Left's radical agenda. Most of the people pushing this narrative are virulently anti-Christian atheists—for example the communist sympathizers of the Southern Poverty Law Center, or the stridently anti-Christian ACLU. Those who claim to be Christians and push this narrative are committing gross apostasy, and demonstrate their utter unbelief, because true Christians know that to mislead believers justifies a punishment worse than death. As Matthew 18: 6 says, "it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned at the bottom of the sea." Prominent evangelical Christian leader Kelly Kullberg says that the open borders, leftwing activists, "demand that Americans ‘welcome the stranger,’ but rarely do they teach, or likely even know, the whole counsel of biblical teaching on migration and citizenship."[ 432] You’ll likely never hear them talking about the story of Nehemiah and Ezra, helping Israel rebuild its faith, culture and walls—with both weapons of protection and tools of construction. They won’t quote Isaiah 1: 7, in which aggressive migration is seen as a curse, ‘Your country is desolate, your cities burned with fire; your fields are being stripped by foreigners right before you, laid waste as when overthrown by strangers,’[ 433] That's a pretty apt description of what is happening in Europe and here as well. Kelly goes on: In the Bible, we do not find the teaching of open borders, sanctuary cities as currently defined and illegal migration. In the Bible, we find respect of borders, nations, laws and customs—we find wise welcome… In cities where foreign law and customs are valued over American laws, we naturally see escalating crime, overwhelmed healthcare and welfare systems, domestic abuse and political chaos.[ 434] Here's another apropos biblical analogy. At the house of Lazarus, Mary anointed Jesus with expensive oil, rubbing it on his feet with her hair. But one of his disciples objected saying, "Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" John 12: 5. (Note: three hundred denarii equated to a worker's annual wage at that time.) The disciple was Judas Iscariot, who, as explained in John 12: 6, could care less about the poor, but was intent on stealing the money. Is that not exactly what is happening here? The Left wails about compassion, then waits, hands out, to take government money to "help" illegal aliens, refugees and other assorted "poor and downtrodden," while engorging themselves on taxpayer dollars and building capacity for a reliable voter base. At the same time resettlement organizations capitalize on well-meaning but gullible, ignorant Christian groups that provide volunteers, clothing, food, transportation and whatever else is needed to show they are "welcoming." Welcoming America, the preeminent culture shaping organization, is a major leftist influence operation. Here's the con: you must be welcoming, it is your Christian duty, and if you really step up, there might even be money in it for you too. If you are not welcoming, then you can't possibly be Christian, much less a good Christian. You must be a "hater," "bigot," "racist," "Islamophobe," etc.; "greedy," and "selfish;" or the latest, a "white nationalist," even if you aren't white. David Lubell, the founder of Welcoming America, created it in 2009, probably not coincidentally, following the election of Barack Obama as president. His goal was to "build a robust good receiving communities movement and create an enabling environment for more people and institutions to recognize the role everyone must play in furthering the integration of recent immigrants in the fabric of the U.S. (Emphasis added).[ 435] Welcoming America’s goal is to force Americans to accept mass immigration. Instead of addressing the problems created by immigrant populations that have no concept of our constitutional republic and no interest in assimilating, it engages organizations with a vested interest in immigration to improve messaging: David has identified a number of critical levers that, with low activation energy, can spark deep, scalable change. He is drawing in natural allies such as other organizations working on immigrant integration across the country and building a network of “welcoming” affiliates as implementing partners… In addition, he is working with municipal officials and influencing several federal government bodies to require that grantees working with immigrants engage receiving communities as part of their strategies. Understanding that media and advertising play a critical role in informing public opinion, he is also targeting these industries. Among other critical actors, David is beginning to work with corporations who have a vested business interest in making their communities more welcoming.[ 436] Much of the Welcoming America agenda can be traced back to the Building New American Communities (BNAC) initiative, a three-year project funded by the Office of Refugee Resettlement around the turn of the 21st century.[ 437] ORR drove the effort to accommodate refugees and other immigrants and get them involved in the political process as soon as possible. Four principles guided this agenda: New Americans should be involved significantly in decision-making processes; Integration is a two-way process that implicates and benefits both new Americans and receiving community members; Coalitions are among the vehicles that can foster effective and meaningful collaborations in order to tackle the numerous challenges and opportunities associated with socio-economic, cultural, and demographic change. These involve public-private partnerships that reach across levels of government and include a broad array of non-governmental organizations, as well as institutions and individuals from many different segments of society; and Resources should be devoted to integration-focused interventions, as well as coalition building and training opportunities, which lead to systemic change.[ 438] Note that this was all initiated with our tax dollars. ORR has long been the home of embedded leftists. Unfortunately, the same can be said for much of the federal government. Lubell uses the Delphi technique, a very manipulative method of putting people on two sides of an issue into the room and encourage "dialogue", with the end already predetermined. The bad guys, us, can express all our concerns over mass immigration, and they will listen patiently, with the expectation that you will listen patiently to their side. Having done that, the game is over, and they've won. This is made perfectly plain in their explanation: David and his team engage members from both groups to participate in and lead good welcoming events: Spaces where they can openly discuss their fears and build trust-based relationships with foreign-born U.S. residents. These carefully crafted interventions lead to significant shifts in the attitudes and actions of these two population groups. (Emphasis added).[ 439] Of course, the only change in attitude that matters is ours. The "foreign-born U.S. residents," are handpicked and know exactly how to behave. If you object, everyone in the room frowns on you, for after all, you aren't being "fair." So, you sit still and fume, while everyone else seeks to be more "open-minded" to avoid the group's cold shoulder. In the end, we're all friends, and see, swamping your community with needy, unassimilable hordes really isn't so bad after all. Their side hasn’t budged an inch, but your objections have been effectively defanged. But Lubell and the "Welcoming" team haven't stopped there. They recruit media to push their message, and seek support from corporations that may benefit from low wage immigrant labor: Understanding that media and advertising play a critical role in informing public opinion, he is also targeting these industries. Among other critical actors, David is beginning to work with corporations who have a vested business interest in making their communities more welcoming.[ 440] Welcoming America has been very successful in its efforts. Many politicians support the refugee program specifically so they can be considered "welcoming," because to be "unwelcoming" is just another code word for "racist, bigot, xenophobe, etc." Public officials have been lambasted as "bigots" simply for questioning the program's cost. In one case, an effort was launched to recall a city commissioner in Fargo, North Dakota for merely posing this question.[ 441] The effort failed, but how do responsible government leaders function in such an environment? Weaker politicians abdicate their responsibilities to their electorate to avoid negative press attacks. In February 2018, the author testified at a South Dakota state senate hearing on a proposed bill to limit refugee resettlement in the state. One state senator raised objections to the bill that she had supported, saying she didn't want the state to appear "unwelcoming." Meanwhile, the state was facing substantial fiscal burdens from a large and growing refugee community in Sioux Falls and other cities. She was clearly reacting to Welcoming America's narrative. But it is not a legislator's job to base decisions on whether her state appears "welcoming" or not, just so she can preserve her cherished "welcoming" image. It is her job to serve the citizens who elected her, citizens who will be on the hook for the myriad state and local costs associated with refugee resettlement. According to Table 22, Welcoming America has received $ 1.2 million from the federal government, all during the Obama years. The Trump administration zeroed out its federal support—a welcome change—but Welcoming America gets much more from private donors. Between 2011 and 2016, Welcoming America received almost $ 10 million from open borders foundations like Open Society ($ 450,000), Unbound Philanthropy ($ 984,450), Kellogg ($ 200,000), Kaplan, ($ 595,000), the Einhorn Family Trust ($ 1.5 million), Carnegie, ($ 325,000), and others.[ 442] Welcoming America and other similarly oriented propaganda shops are diabolical, corrupt, conspicuously disingenuous and self-serving—a malevolent cog in the agenda to erase America.”
— The Red-Green Axis 2.0: An Existential Threat to America and the World by James Simpson
https://a.co/33y7BEN
No comments:
Post a Comment