US Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbying for Obamacare and Amnesty

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops(USCCB) is one of the largest of the Top Ten (now nine) federal refugee resettlement government contractors.   Most people are shocked when they first learn that US taxpayers give tens of million of dollars to the ‘religious’ organization each year to bring impoverished immigrants to their towns.  We have addressed the USCCB, its funding and its progressive politics on many occasions at RRW, see here here, here, here, and here just for starters.

Yesterday, Cliff Kincaid, writing at Accuracy in Media, has another hard charging article about the role of the Bishops in pushing Obamacare and Amnesty.

Calling health care a “right” to be guaranteed by the federal government, America’s Catholic Bishops are trying to save ObamaCare at a time when the legislation has been pronounced in limbo, dying or dead by most of the media.
The evidence of intensive Catholic Bishop lobbying activity suggests that liberal Congressional leaders are going to give the legislation a temporary respite so that liberal Catholics can be persuaded to pressure Congress to pass both national health care legislation and “comprehensive immigration reform” in the form of H.R. 4321, the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity” Act.

As AIM has documented, lobbying by the Catholic Bishops and their representatives, who worked closely with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, guaranteed passage of the health care bill in the House.

In a January 13 conference call and briefing, Kevin Appleby, a representative of the U.S. Catholic Bishops, explained in frank language why the Bishops are so desperate to pass the health care and immigration bills. He said that the Bishops want a federal health plan to absorb the costs being borne by the nation’s 600 Catholic hospitals to cover illegal aliens.

I continue to be amazed at refugee resettlement agencies that are lobbying for the legalization of immigrants who came here illegally because the millions of new legal immigrants that would be created overnight would be in direct competition with the tens of thousands of legal refugees desperately looking for work.  The only explanation, as I said yesterday in my report on a posting at New Zeal, is that it is all about politics and Democratic Leftwing voter rolls, not about the well-being of the immigrants themselves. 

Kincaid goes on:

In addition, the Bishops openly state in their letter that they want “undocumented persons”–illegal aliens–to be able to purchase insurance in the new health care exchange established by the federal government.

Gabino Zavala, an auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for the San Gabriel region, has written an article noting that the religious left, which he describes as “religious leaders and faith-based organizations,” have been pushing for a national health care system “for decades.” He adds, “Catholic bishops have been leading advocates for universal health care as a fundamental human right, not simply a luxury for the privileged few.”

The religious left, led by the Catholic Bishops, may represent the only way that liberals in Congress can ultimately succeed in passing ObamaCare. But that assumes that conservative Catholics will not resist the push to use church resources to give amnesty and federal benefits to illegal aliens as a way to take Catholic hospitals off the hook for many of their health care costs.

Left-wing Huffington Post blogger John Gehring notes with pride and pleasure that the Catholic bishops have “signaled they will play a leading role in pushing for comprehensive immigration reform this year by using the power of their pulpits and bipartisan political influence on Capitol Hill” and that the recent briefing was designed “to outline plans for persuading the public and wavering members of Congress that fixing a broken immigration system is a moral and practical priority.”

Look for postcards in your churches soon!  I wonder how much federal taxpayer money is going into a lobbying campaign to work against the taxpayers?

The Huffington Post’s Gehring said that Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City and Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, New York, who are respective chairmen of the U.S. bishops’ committees on migration and international policy, have announced that over a million postcards “touting the need for immigration reform have been ordered by dioceses and parishes across the country” and that the cards will be sent to congressional offices.

The campaign is being run by the Justice for Immigrants campaign, an official project of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The pre-written postcards say, “I am a concerned constituent and agree with the U.S. Catholic bishops that the U.S. immigration system is broken and is in need of repair. I ask that this year you support immigration reform legislation that keeps immigrant families together, adopts smart and humane enforcement policies, and ensures that immigrants without legal status register with the government and begin a path toward citizenship. Our families and communities cannot wait!”

Please read the rest of Kincaid’s article.  There is more, although I took a lot above because it was so packed with information I could hardly figure out where to cut it!

The Catholic Church has every right to whip up its members on issues before Congress, but their needs to be a federal audit to try to discover if they are using tax dollars to influence Congress!  It has been our view at RRW, that churches resettling refugees should be funded by their own members and not the general public because frankly it is difficult to keep the pots of money separate.  We also know refugees have been neglected by their resettlement agencies so this lobbying activity makes us suspicious about whether there exists an appropriate firewall between funding sources.

Just a reminder it was only a few weeks ago that we learned that the Epicopal Church was balancing its books with refugee resettlement funding.

LOL!  Coincidentally I just saw this blogger, an Angry Catholic, disavowing the connections between the Bishops and Progressives and Far Left political activities, here.  In light of what we know now, that is a stretch.

Haitians not “refugees” but “evacuees” says NC refugee coordinator

The issue of what status the Haitians would have must have been brewing in an already overloaded North Carolina refugee program for the question to have come up. 

We’ve had extensive coverage of the turmoil in Greensboro recently with refugees living in substandard housing, church leaders angry with resettlement agencies and with refugees trying to figure out how to get out of Greensboro and North Carolina where the unemployment rate is one of the top ten highest in the nation.

This is from Star News:

North Carolina has been resettling increasing numbers of refugees, from about 1,200 in 2006 to nearly 2,300 in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

It’s the 10th-largest state for resettling refugees, accepting about four percent of the national total, according to Marlene Myers, the state refugee coordinator.

Someone must have been asking if NC was bringing more refugees—the Haitians.

Myers said that it was not yet determined how many Haitians might come to North Carolina, or where in the state they might go. But they would be classified as “evacuees,” not refugees, so a different agency in the N.C. Division of Social Services would be in charge of placing them. Since Interfaith Refugee Ministry deals with political refugees intending to settle permanently in the U.S., it will not be dealing with Haitian refugees.

Refugee or evacuee doesn’t really matter—either one is cared for by the taxpayers.  The only difference, as Myers makes clear, is it will just be different agencies spending your money.

Obama Administration to forge ahead on Amnesty

This is probably one of many stories that we will receive on the issue of Obama’s plans to move ahead with so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform (aka Amnesty for illegal aliens) this year.  From the Immigration Policy Center (hat tip: Ellen).

In the face of many studies to the contrary (Rubenstein here and Rector here), his theme will be that low-wage workers bring economic benefit to the US (maybe to the meatpackers, some of which are foreign-owned!). 

In the State of the Union Address this evening President Obama made clear his ongoing commitment to immigration reform noting “we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.” Some may continue to argue that immigration reform is too politically risky to move on this year and that we should focus instead on rebuilding our economy. However, comprehensive immigration reform is compatible with economic reform as it would generate needed economic growth, create jobs and increase tax contributions by ensuring that everyone working in the United States is doing so legally. In fact, immigration reform would allow us to take full advantage of the opportunities for economic growth that immigrants bring.

Read the whole article.

You go for it Obama—throw more red meat to the Tea Partiers!   I consider that devastating defeat for Progressives on the Kennedy/McCain Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill as the first organized action by the Tea Party forces.  Of course, there was no Tea Party label in 2007, but it was the seminal event that showed Conservative grassroots that they could join forces and win with all odds stacked against them—even President Bush was on the side of amnesty.

SEIU VP: Immigrants will create a governing coalition for the long term

In my previous post I told you about Progressive Eric Schwartz who heads up the US State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration.  I said that grateful* immigrants could be counted on as Democratic voters and that was one of the primary objectives driving the open borders movement (that and creating a borderless world).   Only moments later I saw that Trevor Loudon writing at his New Zeal blog said the same thing and backs it up with words right out of the mouth of an SEIU (Service Employee International Union) VP.

This is what Loudon said and he has a film and research to back it up! [Emphasis mine]:

Why, in a time of high U.S. unemployment, is the Obama Administration seriously considering Rep. Luis Gutierrez’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity” bill which would grant citizenship to up to 12 million illegal immigrants.

The answer has little to do with humanity, national security or prosperity.

It is all about power- raw socialist power. It is all about 8,000,000 more Democratic Party votes and the creation of a “governing coalition for the long term”.

At the “progressive” America’s Future Now! conference in Washington, DC on June 2, 2009, SEIU International Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina addressed attendees on the issue immigration reform.

Speaking of Latino voters, Medina said “when they voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up.”

So I think there’s two things that matter for the progressive community.
When you are in the middle of a fight for your life you will remember who was there with you. And immigrants count on progressives to be able to do that.

Number one, if we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants, that we’ll expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future…”

Number two.

We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three?

If we have eight million new voters who care about …… and will be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”

There you have the strategy. Fight for the illegal immigrants, grant them citizenship, then exploit their gratitude in the form of votes to create a “governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle..”

Read the rest of Mr. Loudon’s research on the issue.

I have joked on several previous occasions that if a majority of immigrants came to the US and voted Republican this open borders push from Progressive Democrats would end in a heartbeat.

* Regarding gratefulness, I don’t know if you’ve been noticing the increasing outspokenness of black Conservatives.  Many are beginning to realize that a considerable number of their problems have been created by leftwing policies primarily relating to welfare dependence.  Along those lines, I’ve been wondering lately, as we read one story after another of unhappy refugees feeling let down by their resettlement agencies, whether the Left would suffer a setback if refugees continue to feel pretty angry at their condition, afterall it is primarily Progressives who made unrealistic promises and brought them here.

Endnote:  Of course the flaw in my theory is exemplified by the case of Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, and some other inside-the-beltway Republicans who also are pushing for open borders.   Either they are Republican Progressives (Glenn Beck maintains that politicians like John McCain are also Progressives) who think they can bring immigrant voters to their side, or they are just flat out looking for cheap labor for businesses.   Or it could be something far more sinister, but we won’t go there.

Eric P. Schwartz and the One World Government gang (Part I)

We know that Mr. Schwartz is the Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration.  We most recently heard from him here the other day when he announced a doubling of the funds that will flow to refugee resettlement contractors.  But, what is his background?  After doing a little google search I realize I am going to have to tell you what I’ve learned in pieces because it’s way too much material for one post.

Regular readers know that my theory is that the refugee program and open borders immigration in general are about creating first a permanent leftwing voting base comprised of grateful immigrants, and then ultimately a one world government controlled by the United Nations—a goal of Progressives from their earliest days.   You can laugh, hoot and holler all you want, even call me tinfoil-hat as one commenter did,  but that is the only thing that makes any sense.  Otherwise why would sensible rational people be importing poverty and opening our borders to the third world?  Simple kindness?  Not a chance!

It isn’t kind or humane to bring in competition for poor Americans in the workplace.  It isn’t kind to disrupt longstanding American communities with insistence on that silly notion that  diversity is strength.  It isn’t humane to import thousands of refugees who will live in dangerous slums in US cities far from the culture they love and are comfortable with.  It isn’t kindness to encourage educated Iraqis to come here and scrub floors at night. It isn’t kindness to bring superior-acting Muslim Africans and drop them in poor black neighborhoods.  It isn’t kind to have special government loans for immigrants that are not available to low income Americans.  And, it isn’t right to take hard-earned money from taxpayers and give it to quasi-government groups to advance their political agendas.

This is political progressivism, plain and simple.  The Progressives hide behind a presumption of good intentions all the while creating crisis (Saul Alinsky) and bringing down our form of government (Cloward-Piven) to replace it with another one— a socialist global government.

So, here is one of the first pieces of evidence about Mr. Schwartz’s membership in the one-world government gang.  But, first you might want to review his profile on Who Runs Government, here.

Soros Flunky Runs Obama’s Pro-U.N. Policy, by Cliff Kincaid.

Mr. Kincaid heads the Washington, DC media watchdog group, Accuracy in Media.  Judy and I attended a conference they held in Washington, DC last fall.   We especially wanted to hear world famous blogger Trevor Loudon (New Zeal) that October day among other great speakers.

Kincaid on Schwartz from last January during the Obama transition:

In violation of Barack Obama’s promise to run an open and transparent transition to the next administration, an associate of convicted document thief Sandy Berger has been secretly meeting with far-left groups under the auspices of the Obama-Biden Transition Project to develop a range of pro-U.N. policies. These include placing “more [U.N.] blue helmets on U.S. troops” and forcing the U.S. to join the U.N.’s International Criminal Court (ICC).

The ICC is an international entity that could prosecute American citizens and soldiers for “war crimes” and other offenses, in violation of U.S. Constitutional protections.

The ICC treaty was signed by President Clinton, who expressed concern about some of its provisions, but under President Bush it was “unsigned” by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton in what he called his “happiest moment” at the State Department.

In response to the possibility of the ICC prosecuting American soldiers, the Congress in 2002 passed the American Service members Protection Act, in order to protect U.S. soldiers from the jurisdiction of the court.

While Obama comes across in the media as a “moderate” or “centrist” in foreign policy, his Transition Project is developing an extreme pro-U.N. policy that is supposed to be implemented by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice.

The Berger associate, Eric. P. Schwartz, is the executive director of the U.S. Connect Fund and represents several liberal and leftist foundations, including and most notably the Open Society Institute of financial hedge-fund operator George Soros. Soros is considered by some the virtual owner of the Democratic Party, having contributed lavishly to the party, its causes and candidates, including Obama. He personally contributed $50,000, the maximum allowed, to the Obama inauguration.

While Obama did not publicly endorse the International Criminal Court during the campaign, because “many questions remain unanswered about the ultimate scope of its activities,” Schwartz and his associates are clearly laying the groundwork for the Obama Administration’s acceptance of and membership in the ICC. Schwartz is perfectly suited for the task, having “initiated and managed the White House review that resulted in U.S. signature of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court” under Clinton, according to his own bio.

Other members of the secretive Obama group include Samantha Power, the Harvard academic and one of Obama’s closest foreign policy advisers who left the Obama presidential campaign temporarily after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.” A self-described “humanitarian hawk,” Power believes in using the United Nations to confront “genocide” in the world, despite the corruption scandals involving U.N. peacekeepers in human rights violations and sexual child abuse.

Soros, who backed Obama during the presidential campaign, is a well-known advocate of a “New World Order” in which the U.S. refuses to act unilaterally in its own interests but works through international organizations such as the U.N. on foreign policy matters. Critics note that such an approach gives the U.N. and other nations a veto over what the U.S. can do militarily.

A convicted inside trader whose currency manipulations have been known to threaten national governments and currencies, he testified on November 13, 2008, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about the risks posed by the hedge funds that he and other billionaires operate. In addition to the Democratic Party, his financial fingerprints are all over leftist, “progressive” and news media organizations.

The Connect U.S. Fund is funded by Soros’s Open Society Institute and other liberal foundations and provides grants to pro-U.N. groups around the country. These groups, which provide the appearance of public support for more U.S. involvement in the U.N., were involved in a January 10 national conference call to promote a “Responsible U. S. Global Engagement” agenda for the Obama Administration. They are releasing a letter to Obama this week urging close cooperation with the U.N. on such issues as human rights, climate change, arms control and foreign aid.

This is bound to find a favorable response, since the co-chair of the Obama-Biden Transition Project, John Podesta, a former Clinton chief of staff, comes from another Soros-funded group, the Center for American Progress. [Remember I told readers about CAP here and especially its proposal to airlift 100,000 Iraqis to the US ASAP.]

There is much more, read the whole article.

Come back tomorrow for Schwartz and the Tides Foundation.

Part II is here.