Pittsburgh paper: HIAS remains defiant in wake of synagogue murders

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazettes headline is this:

Pittsburgh’s Jewish refugee resettlement agency, HIAS vow to continue work after threats, Squirrel Hill shooting

 

The story paints a picture of a ‘non-profit‘ group that is all about welcoming the poor and downtrodden to America, but never mentions the fact that it is more than 50% funded by US and state taxpayers many of whom do not share its open-borders views and would prefer their tax dollars be spent on America’s needy people.

HIAS received $186 million from taxpayers in the last ten years, here.  Its CEO is paid over $300,000 annually.

And, like virtually all mainstream media stories about the horrific attack on innocents, The Post-Gazette, mentions not one word about that fact that HIAS is paid to do its ‘good works’ by the US government.

As I said here.

It is fine and dandy if HIAS wants to hold anti-Trump political rallies, sue the President and organize for the Tuesday midterms, but doing those things while accepting millions of taxpayer dollars every year strikes most people as fundamentally unfair!

 

white house CWS and HIAS
This is from an anti-Trump protest in January of this year put on by Church World Service, HIAS and CAIR   https://refugeeresettlementwatch.org/2018/01/28/church-world-service-and-hias-join-cair-to-protest-at-white-house/

 

Here is a bit from the deficient Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story:

The Jewish refugee resettlement agency in Pittsburgh remains defiant in its work despite the connection Saturday’s mass shooting at a Squirrel Hill synagogue shared with its mission.

[….]

“These [sites] are echo chambers where people just get angrier and angrier and angrier about falsehoods,” said Mark Hetfield, CEO and president of HIAS — formerly the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society. “I mean, what harm was this congregation doing by welcoming refugees in a religious service?”

HIAS pie chart
Charity Navigator reports that in 2016, HIAS was 58.5% funded by government grants mostly to resettle refugees.    https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3820

Mr. Hetfield said that he’s aware of several “hate sites and hate sites masquerading as issue-oriented sites” that have attacked the work of HIAS and JFCS.

“But they’ve just been words so far, but as we see now, words lead to action.”

Mr. Hetfield said HIAS has in the past had a designated person monitor social media for threats but the organization will be “totally changing” its strategy.

“I mean we did not know about this murderer on Gab, we were not following Gab. We do not follow these hate-filled fora, but we need to,” he said. “And then we need to figure out what do we do when we see things. We see things every day against us.”

That is an example of how out of touch with most Americans these open borders leftwing groups are, they didn’t know about Gab?  This is a prime example of why the Dems were so shocked at the 2016 election of Donald Trump.

Mr. Hetfield said the physical security strategy has changed as well since Saturday. Armed guards now surround HIAS offices in New York City and Silver Spring, Md. He likened the change to how he felt after 9/11.

JFCS has begun closely monitoring social media and re-evaluating security since the attack happened; it had also not known about Mr. Bowers prior to Saturday.

Go here for more.

See if you can find one word about how HIAS is a US State Department contractor that is paid by the head to place refugees in towns and cities of their choosing (behind closed doors in conjunction with the US State Department).

If HIAS, the US State Department, and the mainstream media were transparent and honest about how refugee resettlement is carried out in America, citizen taxpayers wouldn’t get so frustrated.

So, why aren’t they more transparent?

I have a guess, but I would like to hear what they say for a change!

Endnote: I did see an AP story sometime in the last week that did mention (briefly!) that HIAS receives taxpayer dollars, but couldn’t find it again.

 

 

UN Migration pact: Austria out, Poland and Czech Republic to follow?

That UN Global Compact for Migration could crumble as more countries signal they won’t sign the document in Morocco in December.

We told you about it here recently.  President Trump took us out at the very beginning and then Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban also said no way.

Sounds warm and fuzzy, so what is the problem?  Those who have studied the draft say it would make migration a human right.  In other words everyone would have a right to move wherever they wish.  There would be no more legal migration process.

From the liberal Irish Times (so they don’t clearly mention the real crux of the problem):

Poles and Czechs follow Austria and Hungary in rejecting UN migration pact

Anti-immigration leaders in central Europe follow US lead in opposing global framework

Poland and the Czech Republic are set to join Hungary and Austria in pulling out of a United Nations pact on migration, as populist central European governments attack the deal before it is even signed.

Screenshot (1508)
Arbour: But we just want to control migration chaos via the United Nations!

The Global Compact For Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was agreed in July by all UN members except the United States, and sets out norms for protecting and integrating people who migrate and ways to help them return home.

The pact is non-binding and recognises each state’s right to its own migration policy, but a growing number of anti-immigration leaders in central Europe are now rejecting it ahead of next month’s signing ceremony in Morocco.

“It is very likely that, like Austria, the Czech Republic and the United States, we will not be part of the UN global compact,” Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Friday.

“We believe that here our regulations, our sovereign rules on border protection and migration control are our absolute priority.”

A day earlier, Czech prime minister Andrej Babis declared that he also opposed the pact.

“It’s not clearly interpreted and it could be abused. The United States has pulled out, Hungary too, now Austria, and Poland is debating it as well,” he said.

“I don’t like the fact that it blurs the distinction between legal and illegal migration. . . I will propose to partners in the government that we should do the same as Austria and Hungary,” he added ahead of cabinet talks on the pact next week.

I would like to know exactly what was left out of Babis’s statement in that previous quote!

More here.

See my ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive by clicking here.