Church World Service on the Sanctuary Bandwagon; Cut Their Federal Funding!

Recently I told you that Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, a federal refugee contractor, had become the first church group to declare that they are a sanctuary church that seeks to protect the “undocumented.”

We see that another federal contractor, Church World Service, which received $39 million from US taxpayers in 2018, is on the sanctuary bandwagon.

 

MOCO rapists
No pictures of crying kids!  By the way, these are two Salvadorans charged in the rape of an 11-year-old in Montgomery County, MD a sanctuary county.  I didn’t have the photos for my post on Saturday, so thought I would put them here.  Why not!  This is what you get with sanctuary policies!  https://fraudscrookscriminals.com/2019/08/17/maryland-salvadorans-arrested-for-repeatedly-raping-11-year-old/

 

Church World Service wants you to contribute to their sanctuary scheme. (Hat tip: Joanne)

From their website:

With the resurgence of the Sanctuary Movement, hundreds of congregations are standing in solidarity with immigrants and providing spaces of sanctuary for individuals facing deportation or targeted by hate. The Sanctuary Movement has been lifting up stories of immigrant leaders and people of faith working together to stop individual deportations and demonstrate against mass deportations and detention.

CWS fuck
Shirt with CWS logo. Did you pay for her T-shirt?

We are living in extraordinary times, which call for more resources and support from as many people as possible to help strengthen our capacity to create sanctuary spaces, outreach to new congregations and build new coalitions.

People of faith from all traditions are called to respond to the current political reality by joining the Sanctuary Movement and working together to lift up the prophetic voice of immigrant leaders.

Please donate to the Sanctuary Movement today.

 

Just so you know these are the Member congregations Church World Service claims as their own.  It is over 50 years since Cloward and Piven wrote about the strategy to transform America—to bring on the revolution—a strategy that required getting the churches on the side of the communists, see here.

Member Communions

Is your church on that list?

Checking their latest financials, you can see that CWS received 62 percent ($39 million) of its income from you via your tax dollars in this most recent Charity Navigator report.

Screenshot (1080)

 

Look at the bright side!

I guess they are making a big push for dollars for their sanctuary program because they are way down in government funding.  See here in January that in the previous year they got $68 million directly from the US Treasury (from you!).

For new readers, see the list of all nine UN/US State Department refugee resettlement “partners” here.

If you haven’t done it already, you must tell the Prez to cut all federal funding of these fake non-profits sucking off the federal teat while breaking the law and harboring illegal aliens!

 

Memory Lane: Overload the American Welfare System and Bring on the Revolution

It has been ten years since I wrote the post below at Refugee Resettlement Watch and it occurs to me that there may be some of you scratching your heads and wondering why anyone would want to open our borders and welcome in hordes of impoverished people and put them on taxpayer-funded welfare.

And, you might be wondering why the reaction to the Trump Administration’s very sensible plan to block welfare use for non-citizens announced this past week, see here, is causing Leftwingers heads to explode.

heads explode
Progressives react to Trump welfare restrictions.

The strategy was once well-known to hardcore Socialists/Communists (aka Progressives) as the Cloward-Piven strategy, but I suspect following generations of young do-gooders and average Americans who have simply been busy working and raising families have no idea that importing poverty is a political strategy.

If you know all about Cloward and Piven, you won’t find anything new here, but for those of you who have never heard those names, please continue reading!

Here is my post from November 2009,

Cloward-Piven: Use the poor to bring on the revolution

 

Screenshot (1078)
Piven lives on, but Cloward passed away in 2001.

If you are a regular reader, you know one of the themes we have been writing about is what I call “community destabilization,” we have a whole category for those posts.

And, you know we write about the Cloward-Piven strategy as part of that discussion.

Cloward and Piven, while professors at Columbia University (Obama’s alma mater), penned a 1966 treatise in Nation magazine in which they outlined a strategy to bring about a revolution in America. I wrote about it most recently, here [Sorry links are dead since the speech police took down RRW, but I am working on getting it restored—ed]

Simply stated the strategy involved flooding the welfare system with so many impoverished people that the system would collapse and that would pave the way for a new form of government—a government that would redistribute the wealth and provide a guaranteed income for everyone.

Below is another shocking segment from that article.  We are often lectured about what is the moral thing to do about refugees, but let me ask all of you, what is moral about this Far Left strategy?

Remember immigrants and refugees are today’s poor.  As unfashionable as the word is, frankly, I call this strategy to place as many people as possible on the welfare system and use them for promotion of a radical political ideology downright evil.*  (Emphasis below mine.)

From The Nation,

To generate an expressly political movement, cadres of aggressive organizers would have to come from the civil rights movement and the churches, from militant low-income organizations like those formed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (that is, by Saul Alinsky), and from other groups on the Left. These activists should be quick to see the difference between programs to redress individual grievances and a large-scale social-action campaign for national policy reform.

Movements that depend on involving masses of poor people have generally failed in America. Why would the proposed strategy to engage the poor succeed?

First, this plan promises immediate economic benefits. This is a point of some importance because, whereas America’s poor have not been moved in any number by radical political ideologies, they have sometimes been moved by their economic interests. Since radical movements in America have rarely been able to provide visible economic incentives, they have usually failed to secure mass participation of any kind. The conservative “business unionism” of organized labor is explained by this fact, for membership enlarged only as unionism paid off in material benefits. Union leaders have understood that their strength derives almost entirely from their capacity to provide economic rewards to members. Although leaders have increasingly acted in political spheres, their influence has been directed chiefly to matters of governmental policy affecting the well-being of organized workers. The same point is made by the experience of rent strikes in Northern cities. Their organizers were often motivated by radical ideologies, but tenants have been attracted by the promise that housing improvements would quickly be made if they withheld their rent.

(Remember these are Cloward and Piven’s words!)

Second, for this strategy to succeed, one need not ask more of most of the poor than that they claim lawful benefits. Thus the plan has the extraordinary capability of yielding mass influence without mass participation, at least as the term “participation” is ordinarily understood. Mass influence in this case stems from the consumption of benefits and does not require that large groups of people be involved in regular organizational roles.  [Of course not, the smart people, the elite radicals, would call all the shots!]

Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely. Other movements have failed precisely because they could not produce continuous and cumulative influence.

When you read the Nation article, note that Cloward and Piven were very conscious of the concept of the ‘presumption of good intentions.’  In other words, they knew that this political strategy would go undetected for a very long time because it would be hidden from their average do-gooder minions by the presumption that this was all about aiding the downtrodden.

Ann Coulter 2
Ann Coulter on the strategy: Speak loudly and carry a small victim!

I must say this ‘strategy’ is the only logical explanation for why we are still pouring refugees into the US right now [2009] when there is little or no work for them and they are being “warehoused” in decrepit apartment buildings, like those in Bowling Green, KY. [Again, sorry, links to RRW are now dead.—-ed]

Incidentally, even if refugees have chicken plant jobs they still receive various forms of public assistance because the meatpackers no longer pay a living wage.

I wonder did Cloward and Piven ever anticipate the involvement of big businesses as allies in the revolution?  See this post from August in which I list strange bedfellows on the open borders issue.

* I have to laugh, after I posted this, I see [link not found—ed] that Ann Coulter also suggested Far Left Liberal strategies were “evil” when she said their motto is:  Speak loudly and carry a small victim!

The End of the November 2009 post at RRW.

I think you got my message—the border invasion (the mass movement of extreme poverty into American towns and cities) is a Progressive (Communist) political strategy and the migrants are their pawns.  (And, their future voters!)

I hope you didn’t miss the part about how they need the churches to help them pull it off!

167 Jewish Groups Urge President to Admit “at least 95,000 refugees” in FY2020

Screenshot (97)

First they want the 30,000 they believe they were promised for this year (FY19).

See my post yesterday where I explain we are likely to reach that number by September 30th.

However, in a recent letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo they say they want 95,000 next year.

 

Here is the news at from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs:

167 Jewish Organizations Urge U.S. to Meet Refugee Goal

JCPA, a network of 125 local Jewish community relations councils and 17 national Jewish agencies, has joined with 166 national, state, and local Jewish organizations and institutions in urging the United States to meet the refugee resettlement admissions goal of 30,000 for fiscal year 2019 and to return to historic norms next year.

In a letter delivered to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo on Wednesday (August 7th), the group explained, “The United States has historically distinguished itself as a beacon of hope and as a safe haven for those who most need it. For nearly 40 years, the refugee admissions target averaged 95,000 per year, with actual admissions averaging 80,000 refugees per year. Despite this, the Administration set the admissions ceiling to a historic low of 30,000 refugees in FY19. Resettling zero refugees in the U.S. in FY2020 would effectively gut the refugee resettlement program, violate our values as Jews and Americans, and abdicate the American promise of freedom and opportunity.”

Not mentioned in the short news story is the request for the CEILING for 2020 to be set at 95,000.  See the letter with its 167 signatures.  This is a paragraph from near the end.

We urge the Department of State, in partnership with the other implementing agencies, to restore our country’s refugee admissions cap to at least 95,000 for FY2020. The values of our nation and the safety and well-being of tens of thousands of refugees and their families depend on it.

Don’t miss the list of those that signed the letter, here.

What do they mean by restore the cap to 95,000?

In the last ten years (mostly Obama years!) the cap was no where near 95,000 until Obama set it at 110,000 in September 2017 as he was getting ready to vacate the Oval Office.

Why didn’t he set it at 110,000 or even 95,000 in his previous opportunities to set the CEILING?

I didn’t see these same groups attacking the sainted Obama for his much lower caps in his previous 7 years in office!

They make it sound like we have been admitting that extreme number in the years prior to the arrival of Donald Trump. We have not!

See the last ten years of CEILING data at Wrapsnet and then the actual number of admissions.

And, remember this: in the early years of the refugee program which began in 1980, we were not being invaded by tens of thousands of asylum seekers (wannabe refugees) at our borders as we are today.

 

Screenshot (99)_LI
I couldn’t manage to get the whole chart on the screen, but the part I want you to see is the column for the CEILING.  So what do they mean by claiming the CEILING must be RESTORED to 95,000!  Compare the CEILING column to the actual admissions and you will see that Obama’s numbers were high, but not as high as they are demanding that Trump’s should be!

Trump Administration on Target to Reach 30,000 Refugee Cap for the Year

There has been a lot of squawking from the refugee industry of late demanding admission of the full 30,000 refugees that the Trump Administration set as its ceiling for FY19, and it looks like they will get pretty close.

But, first a little housekeeping.  I am working on restoring Refugee Resettlement Watch but my helper has been very busy so it is taking longer than I had hoped.

In the meantime, I’ll bring you some refugee news here at Frauds and Crooks.  I have already been reporting some of the news about the refugee contractors*** demand for 95,000 refugees for the new fiscal year (FY2020 begins on October 1 of this year).

Today I’m updating numbers and nationalities of this year’s refugee crop.

Also, several readers at Facebook and some readers here tell me that yesterday’s post about those creeps who taunted an old white lady in a Chicago area nursing home, here, were unable to open the story or it was never sent out.  I hope too many of you didn’t have the same problem.

So how are refugee admissions going this year?

rpclogo

Here (below) is a map from Wrapsnet showing how many refugees have been admitted since October 1, 2018 to August 1, 2019 (10 months).  Texas continues to lead the nation as the number one most ‘welcoming’ state.  (They will turn Texas blue!)

You can see that as of August 1, 24,906 refugees have been admitted. And, with two months and a little over 5,000 more to go, they might very well make it to the CAP (aka ceiling).  Remember though that since that is a CEILING, there is nothing that says the State Department must hit the ceiling.

The Prez, when setting the 30,000 limit, might very well have finished the year with only a fraction of that number and been completely within the law.

 

Screenshot (1073)

Screenshot (1074)

 

I know the numbers are difficult to read, so here are the top ten welcoming states:

Texas, New York, Washington, California, Kentucky, Ohio, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, and Michigan.

The top three nationalities in this year’s flow are ‘refugees’ from the DR Congo by far with 11,047, followed by Burma with 4,175 (826 of those are Rohingya Muslims), and Ukraine 3,036.

The total number of Muslims admitted in the first ten months is just over 4,000, or about 16% of the total refugee arrivals of 24,906.

***For readers new to the whole Refugee Admissions Program, the UN lists the nine contractors here and then has a cool interactive site to find which refugee agencies are operating near you.

Resettlement Agencies

Church World Service (CWS)

Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC)

Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM)

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)

International Rescue Committee (IRC)

US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI)

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS)

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

World Relief Corporation (WR)

Click here for a list of resettlement agencies in your area.

 

 

Oklahoma Senator Lankford Leads Bipartisan Push to Increase Refugee Admissions

lankford-rubio
Senators Lankford and Rubio: Two of nine Republicans pressing Trump to “increase” number of refugees to be admitted to the US. 18 Senators in total signed the letter.

Responding to the fear that the Trump Administration might really cut the number of refugees to be admitted to the US in FY2020 (which begins on October 1, 2019) to zero, Senator James Lankford (R-OK) and Chris Coons (D-DE) spear-headed a letter to the Secretary of State saying they want the President to “increase” the number of refugees to be admitted.
However, they aren’t willing to say what that number should be! I suspect that is because once a number was discussed their ‘bipartisan’ effort threatened to fall apart.
We assume they want more than the 30,000, the number the President set as the ceiling for the present year.
The resettlement contractors want 95,000!
Note the usual Leftwing Open Borders Dems are joined by nine Republicans.
See if your Senator is among them.
This is Lankford’s press release yesterday:

Senators Lankford, Coons Lead Letter on Concerns to Eliminate Refugee Cap

 
 

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK – Senators James Lankford (R-OK) and Chris Coons (D-DE) led a bipartisan letter with Senators John Thune (R-SD), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Tina Smith (D-MN), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Thomas R. Carper (D-DE), Rob Portman (R-OH), Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Cory Gardner (R-CO), and Ed Markey (D-MA) to the administration to express concern about reports of a proposed elimination of refugee resettlements for FY2020.
The Senators wrote, “While some Members of Congress have already expressed their displeasure with the FY2019 resettlement cap, and the lower-than-normal admittance numbers for FY2017 and FY2018, eliminating refugee admittance altogether is even more alarming. At a time when we are facing the ‘highest levels of displacement on record,’ according to the United Nations Refugee Agency, we urge you to increase the refugee resettlement cap and to admit as many refugees as possible within that cap.
America has a responsibility to promote compassion and democracy around the world through assistance to vulnerable and displaced people.”

Continue reading here.  There is a link to the letter there as well.
See that the Catholic News Agency is on the story. Of course!
I don’t need to tell you what to do, right!  If your Senator is one of the Republicans in this gang of nine, let him or her know what you think!
Some of the Rs on this list might think this is a freebie for them, make sure they know you are watching!