Monday, January 18, 2010

Turning Haiti's disaster into America's


The earthquake was a horror for Haitians, but for the Left in the United States it's almost all silver lining.

What an opportunity for moral exhibitionism!
Former president Bill Clinton will travel Monday to Haiti to deliver emergency relief supplies and meet with the country's leaders, his foundation's office said Sunday.

Clinton will meet with President Rene Preval and other members of the Haitian government, as well as visit with those assisting in the earthquake relief effort, the foundation said.

Clinton must believe that he has the power to heal, not by touch (as kings of old were said to have), but merely by his presence.

But at least he is so far performing his magic act in situ. The next stage will be an answered prayer for the Left in its desire to remake the United States as an oligarchy of transnational progressives ruling a society of poor, dysfunctional, easily manipulated peasants. We will bring Haiti here.
In preparation for a possible mass migration of Haitians, local Red Cross officials are dusting off old disaster plans used when the U.S. allowed mass migration of refugees from Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s.

"It's something that we as a country have done before, so it's not new," said Becky Sebren, director of emergency services for the Mid- Florida regional chapter of the Red Cross. ...

At the Hope CommUnity Center in Apopka, whose founders have long worked with the immigrant community, Sister Ann Kendrick said, "We'll do whatever we need to do. If they send children, we'll find families."

She witnessed the community open its doors and hearts to desperate people before — notably, in 1980 during the Mariel boatlift from Cuba, when 125,000 people came to Florida.

"My experience was that it was the poor, immigrant families who made room," Kendrick said. "They have nothing — but they have a generosity of spirit. … And if we need to, we'll put up cots here at the community center. We have a kitchen here. I mean, we'll do anything."
Since when is immigration policy decided by the Red Cross and the Catholic Church? It is supposed to be determined by Congress -- not that I expect any of that bunch would have the courage to stand up to a humanitarian invasion.

The pretext is "the federal government's plan to repatriate the 45,000 American citizens who were living in Haiti at the time of the earthquake." It is hard to believe that 45,000 Americans have chosen to live in dirt-poor, crime-ridden Haiti, but depend on it that no one in the leftist mainstream media will question the number. In any case, those 45,000 supposed citizens will be the thin end of the wedge.

Since Haiti has for generations been a failed state, our latest venture in nation building will inevitably bog down in corruption and incompetence. Voices will be raised to insist that the only way to "save" Haiti is to hand its inhabitants a get-out-of-Hell-free card.

Chris Roach, at Mansizedtarget, observes:
... Our desire to help must be tempered by our responsibility to our countrymen to maintain an orderly, safe, and prosperous country. It also must be tempered by some recognition that Haiti’s bad circumstances are not caused by the earthquake, but rather are exacerbated by the earthquake; the conditions that made the earthquake so bad stem from the characteristics of the Haitian people and the unique characteristics of Haitian society.
It is not simply people we will be offering a place to, but their cultural characteristics: lack of skills and self-reliance, superstitions (think voodoo), and what will undoubtedly be for many a permanent need for welfare assistance. The Social Work Establishment must be salivating at the thought of a whole new "underserved" clientele. The Liberal Establishment is surely licking its chops at the thought of another servile population for their plantation.

Roach adds:
We no more have to take these forlorn Haitians into our homeland to show our compassion than we have to take real life, often self-destructive, homeless people into our real life homes. But that’s what Obama and company want Florida to do for Haiti: a gesture stemming from a perfect storm of liberal compassion, the opportunity to show a “lack of racism,” indifference to America’s working class, and the cultivation of a political constituency through specialized immigration policy. This is going to be bad and especially bad for Florida.
But Obama and his fellow graduates of the Alinsky School of Marxist Infiltration think we deserve it because we are such a bad nation. Like Jesus with the Gadarene swine, he wants to drive the national evil into middle- and working-class Americans and send them over the cliff. As his handler said, never let a crisis go to waste.



Stephen Scalf said...

Great Post. We are a Christian based organization with one goal: Enlightenment of the entire world to one simple fact. Christ Only Loves One Race…The human race.

Anonymous said...

It has been obvious for some time now, that failed states such as Haiti, and many if not all African states, have failed because their people do not have the culture to be functioning nation states. Such states will continue to require financial, and other aid. Even then they will be one short step from famine or disaster.

The course till now

To give them aid to develop. But as there is no culture for self-help, the aid is wasted or goes into the coffers of dictators or corrupt officials. Besides AID has always been a loan, and should be paid back, so we have the drama every ten years or so, of the West having to write-off this aid.

New Method
The AGW scam was a method that allowed vast sums of money (.7% of GDP) to be gifted to island states such as Haiti, and African states, because of our past sins of scientific and technological innovation. Unfortunately for the Left, this AGW scam was torpedoed by China.

New proposals for Africa and island states

1. Re-colonise Africa and the failed island states. But this must be done with the explicit understanding that we are doing it as a sacrifice on our behalf, rather then as compensation for our guilty past.

2. As the above is never going to be acceptable, therefore our Leftist/liberals are left with no other policy but to allow unlimited immigration from Africa.

I think the Euro-Med agreement, and also the EU policy of importing tens of millions of uneducated and unskilled Africans to Europe, is the above policy in operation. It is of course hidden under subterfuge that we need skilled doctors and scientists, which we do not have, or jobs we cannot be bothered to do.

Rick Darby said...


Why would anyone want to re-colonize Africa or Haiti? And of course option 2 is cultural suicide.

What about option 3 — tell these countries we have expiated through decades of aid whatever guilt we earned, send them a get-well card, and henceforward ignore them?

yih said...

''or jobs we cannot be bothered to do.'' LIKE WHAT?!?!?!?
Even McDonald's IS NOT HIRING you idiot!!! UNEMPLOYMENT (the number of people that get 'unemployment' checks) is 12% here! And you want MORE people competing for those scarce jobs? How 'bout some of that 'Christian Compassion™' for US?

Anonymous said...


Option 3 is what I would choose. But it is not my options but the ones that the EU, and probably the US have in mind, that matter.

Unless there is a change in attitudes of the liberal elite in the Europe/EU and the rest of the West, we are likely to see a huge people wave coming from Africa.

Anonymous said...

Everyone fastens where there is gain.........................................

Anonymous said...

Every why has a wherefore.........................................

Anonymous said...

Lets look at the options again

1. Give aid but in the understanding that it will never get re-paid. This means that every ten years or so, there has to be debt forgiveness by major donors. If the debt is not forgiven, then NGOs, liberals, church groups etc will protest that interest repayments on the aid, is leading to lack of development and even widespread hunger. Worse, we would be accused of profiting from the misery we helped create by giving aid (low interest).
There is the additional complication factor that the public in the West will get fed up with giving aid. We’ll come back to this last factor.

2. Think of a way to give the same amount of money (0.7% of GDP) as outright gifts, and make it out so, that it appears as compensation for the great harm that Western science and technology has done to the environment. The AGW scam was primarily about global governance, huge amounts of money lifted out of the pockets of middle-income westerners, and handing some of it to the failed nations states. This option sounded fine, and politicians in the West almost got away with it but for China. They almost got away with it, because for a time in 2009, the political planets were in alignment for Leftists – the Democrats controlled all branches of government in the US, and the EU is socialist by construct. Of course the failed nation states were all for AGW.
3. Re-colonise failed nation states - these are mainly in Africa and many of the island states. But this is politically unacceptable.

The problem still remains – how to deal with problem of failed nations? If the Western public gets tired of giving aid, there will be major catastrophe in these nations. This will lead to massive movement of people to the West –hungry, starving, and desperate for shelter. Given such a situation, and the pictures of malnourished families and children on TV, being refused entry to the rich West, will give rise to a situation where the very people who refused to give aid, would clamour that we let these people in. That means uncontrolled immigration, and end of the West.

4. One way out of this mess, given the failure of the AGW scam, is to indicate that will accept mass immigration in the future (far future), while at the same time gifting money, and hope that something will turn up in the interim. The Euro-Med and immigration from Africa, is this policy in action.

Realistically, option 1 is the best choice. We give aid, do our best to see that it is used properly, and every ten years or so, forgive the debt. The other options lead to the end of the West.

Anonymous said...

Primarily, we need to accept or acknowledge, that some cultures and people can stand on their own legs i.e., form functioning nation states, and there some cultures and people, who will always be reliant on the charity and goodwill of others.

Fortunately for the last group, there are nations that are not just well functioning nations, but are Christian or post-Christian but still enveloped in Christian mores, with all that entails on how we behave, when confronted by a humanitarian crisis - short or long term.

I will threfore re-phrase the first sentence.

Primarily, we need to accept or acknowledge, that there some cultures and people, who will always be reliant on the charity and goodwill of others, and there are some cultures and people who will form well functioning nation states, but are reliant on the first group to be a recipient for the second group’s psychological and spiritual needs.

Rick Darby said...


Yes, we may as well accept that there are certain countries that don't have the human potential for adequate self-management.

Morally, we don't owe them support, and I'm fed up with failed states that act like we do, as well as compassionistas who encourage that attitude.

But paying off the world's national misfits is worth it if the alternative is a Camp of the Saints scenario.