On Sunday I reported that Democrat writer Steven Roberts (of the DC/NYC bubble) had posted a syndicated column praising Republican governorsfor betraying the President’s first effort to reform the US Refugee Admissions Program and opening their welcoming arms to more refugees for their states that will ultimately cost state taxpayers millions to care for.
He especially focused on Utah’s Governor Herbert in his stunningly fluffy piece about how refugees are the most wonderful people, helped by benevolent Christian charity doled out by the likes Church World Service and World Relief, and that they also provide workers to companies looking for unskilled employees for low wage jobs.
But, nary a mention of any cultural upheaval or criminals that come along with welcoming certain ethnic groups from Africa, Asia and the Middle East—refugees like Esar Met.
Roberts’ implication of course is that our President is a nativist SOB for wanting to halt the “beautiful cycle of charity.”
This morning I see Roberts’ column is published in an Oregon newspaper—at Coos Bay’s The World.
If we don’t remember, it didn’t happen, right?
But, I remember (it is my job to remember) and likely you do too because I reminded readers at ‘Frauds and Crooks’recently:
Memory Lane: Somali Refugee Planned to Bomb Oregon Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony
Once again, I recommend that if you see Roberts’ fluffy, puffy piece in your paper that you write a response letter-to-the-editor praising the President for trying to keep us safe—for putting Americans FIRST!
Readers, please forgive me! This is the third post in three days about the US Catholic Bishops inability to report the truth that they are paid millions of taxpayer dollars to “welcome the stranger.”
As I have said in my two previous posts (here and here), I’ll keep reporting the truth as they continue to hide it. As a federal refugee resettlement contractor, the US Bishops ‘Christian charity’ runs on MONEY extracted involuntarily from you—taxpaying citizens. It does not come from generous parishioners as they want you to believe.
All I am asking is that they admit that the Refugee Act of 1980(Kennedy, Biden and Carter) set them up as the middlemen to pass along your money to ‘new Americans’ and then pretend they are benevolent Christians.
And, of course they keep a cut for their overhead and lobbying office! It’s been a sweet deal for four decades—until Donald Trump came along.
Here they are again this morning—high-fiving the judge and disparaging the President.
Ruling against Trump executive order helps people flee danger, bishops say
Washington D.C., Jan 21, 2020 / 02:01 pm (CNA).- A federal judge’s ruling has halted President Donald Trump’s executive order that allows states and localities to refuse permission for refugee resettlement. The ruling drew praise from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,which stressed the need to help refugees to safety and to maintain a uniform refugee policy.
“Today’s ruling is a welcome step in our ongoing ministry to provide refugees, who are fleeing religious persecution, war, and other dangers, with safe haven here in the United States,” said Bishop Mario Dorsonville, an auxiliary bishop of Washington who chairs the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Migration.
“Jesus Christ, who was part of a refugee family, calls us to welcome the stranger….
Dorsonville noted the Catholic bishops’ previous “deep concerns” about the executive order.
“We feared the negative consequences for refugees and their families as this Executive Order would have created a confusing patchwork across America of some jurisdictions where refugees are welcomed, and others where they are not,” he said.
Wouldn’t common sense tell them that knowing where refugees were welcome, or conversely not welcome, should benefit refugees they place. The most welcoming places would then be made clear to them. But, no, they want to decide, without you ‘deplorable’ citizens having any say, where they want them placed!
Next, praise for the consenting governors:
“Once more, we see the intention to act united as a nation in the effort to provide solidarity to those who need it most and are encouraged by the compassion that this nation has towards refugees,” Dorsonville said.
The U.S. bishops said that federal officials will “diligently engage” with state and local officials to ensure local concerns are taken into account, but federal officials will have the final decision over refugee resettlement.
Hypocrisy Alert! They want the feds to have the final say in this case, but it is an entirely different matter when it comes to sanctuary cities they support! In the case of sanctuary cities, the cities run US immigration policy!
And, just a reminder. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the President can decide to admit zero refugees—watch how loudly they will be wailing if that ever happens!
And, too funny that CNA’s editor makes that comment (above) about truth at the end of this story.
Just so you know, as we reported a couple of days ago, according to USA Spending, the Bishops have lost millions of federal dollars for their ‘migration fund’ during the Trump presidency (so far).
For readers who are wondering where is the ACLU and other groups working for the separation of church and state—they ignore the billions going out to the ‘religious’ charities bringing in refugees and working for amnesty for illegal aliens because they are all on the same team. They are all Leftwingers working toward a socialist America.
Good and faithful Catholics must speak up in your parishes!
Endnote: Let’s hope I don’t see another deceptive media report about the Bishops tomorrow!
Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Reviewhas gotten his teeth firmly sunk into the issue of the deceptive and dysfunctional Refugee Admissions Program and is sounding off much more articulately than I could ever do—he says many Republicans who claim to be conservatives aren’t really in the battle over the major issue of our time (or any time), immigration.
Case in point is the number of Republican governors, endorsed by Trump, who have now turned tail and “betrayed” him, says Horowitz
He also throws sharp barbs at so-called ‘conservative’ media that is mesmerized by impeachment and what the Democrat candidates are saying at their boring debates while a major civilizational issue goes unnoticed.
BTW, I noticed that other than Tucker, Fox News did not follow the Republican governors pandering to the Left and kissing-up to the refugee contractors. I’m not sure Texas Governor Abbott’s tough standwas even mentioned.
If you read nothing else over the weekend, please read this Breitbart story (and you can also access the audio of the interview):
(LOL! And, I am going to know if you click on the link to read the story because my blog stats tells me how many of you follow a link!)
Daniel Horowitz: Trump-Endorsed GOP Governors Betray President’s Immigration Agenda
Most Republican governors endorsed by President Donald Trump during their gubernatorial campaigns are “betraying” the president’s immigration agenda said Daniel Horowitz, host of the Conservative Review podcast, offering his remarks on Thursday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour and special guest host John Binder.
Binder invited Horowitz’s comment on a federal judge’s blocking of Trump’s executive order allowing communities and states to stop refugee resettlement.
“A judge can’t affirmatively grant a visa,” explained Horowitz. “Even if the judge would be correct on the merits, there is no standing. Refugees can’t get standing to come here. So what do they do? They have non-profit groups — and this is unbelievable, it’s as self-censored as it gets — the nine VOLAG (Volunteer Agency) groups, these are the contractors that get taxpayer funds — $3.5 billion over ten years to transform our neighborhoods and our communities — they get standing to say, ‘Wait a minute. Well, if states can reject refugees, then there will be fewer of them admitted and resettled, and guess what? We’re going to get less revenue, so we have an actionable grievance.’”
Horowitz went on, “It’s the most vivid illustration of what I call, ‘social transformation without representation.’ The key decisions in a republic have to flow directly from the people or through the people’s representatives, and there’s no greater decision that a society makes than the future orientation of that society, [who] become members, the future of their communities, their neighborhoods, and here, like you mentioned, you have all unaccountable, unelected players — the U.N., State Department bureaucrats, and private, self-centered, taxpayer-funded contractors whose executives get $400,000 salaries — [transforming] our neighborhoods with no questions about the prudence of their decisions.”
Horowitz said, “Trump gave us a gift where we could decide a national civilization issue at a local grassroots level and yet the left is on the field — our side didn’t even know this was happening — they’re winning in counties Trump carried by 40 points, Burleigh County, North Dakota, and that is because 90 percent of the Republicans that are elected are on the other side. Trump endorsed most of these governors, almost all of them, and yet we have this generic tweet — ‘Tough on crime. Good on immigration.’ — and incidentally, they’re all terrible on crime and immigration.”
“Someone needs to get to the president and say, ‘Look, these guys are betraying what you started doing,’” determined Horowitz.
I’ve only snipped a small segment of Horowitz brilliant analysis of where we are on the issue of refugee resettlement and immigration generally, but indeed much of what he says applies across the board on where the Republican elected officials stand today—mostly not in the fight at all.
See my post yesterday.I said that our side isn’t organized enough and that this episode with the governors demonstrated that.
The three major immigration restriction groups (headquartered in the Washington, DC area) are not doing any significant grassroots organizing on the issue of refugee resettlement and so we have to establish something new and I hope to be working on rectifying that soon.
But, first, as we start to build a network, be sure to find your place in the Presidential campaign. We need to buy another four years with Trump at the helm and he has to know that if he wins he is going to be beholden to immigration hawks!
I don’t know. I guess we wait for the Justice Department’s response to the decision that halted the President’s first effort to reform the US Refugee Admissions Program.
Here is a brief statement from the White House immediately after learning of the decision.
Another lawless district court has asserted its own preferred immigration policy in place of the laws of the United States – and, in so doing, robbed millions of American citizens of their voice and their say in a vital issue directly affecting their communities. President Trump rightly and justly recognized that your communities are unique, and while some cities have the resources to adequately support refugees and help them be successful, not all communities can sustain the substantial and costly burden. Knowing that, the Trump Administration fulfilled a key promise by giving States and localities a seat at the table in deciding whether or not refugees will be placed in your communities. In addition, under the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress explicitly afforded the President authority over the refugee resettlement process, including by taking local consultation into account. This is a preposterous ruling, one more example of nationwide district court injunctions run amok, and we are expeditiously reviewing all options to protect our communities and preserve the integrity of the refugee resettlement process.
So what happens to the Executive Order and the process it spawned to obtain consents, or non-consents, for the placement of refugees in states and counties? I’m assuming it all grinds to a halt for now.
Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Reviewsuggests that the President is a lame duck right now if he doesn’t challenge these rogue court decisions, see here.
News reports are coming in about how county elected officials are sighing with relief that they don’t have to go on record as for or against refugee arrivals for their towns and cities because of the court ruling.
Why did my Republican governor cave and consent to taking on an extra burden for taxpayers and more social/cultural unrest by telling the Dept. of State to send more refugees?
That is a question I got from a reader this morning.
Many reasons (pick one, or more!):
~Fear of being called an unwelcoming racist.
~He/she was getting pressure from groups on the religious Left (including the contractors) many of which financially benefit from refugee arrivals, or will benefit because they are Leftists who see a new voting block. Many are one-worlders working to destroy national sovereignty.
In some states CAIR was active (Minnesota and Maryland for sure) with their usual hammer—any gov who said no would surely be called an Islamophobe.
~Pressure from the Chamber of Commerce and their ilk which wants more refugees because refugees need housing and buy cars.
~Lobbying (and likely campaign donations) from large corporations including, global corporations that need the steady supply of cheap subservient labor—BIG MEAT and BIG POULTRY, for example.
And, I’m sure there are other less obvious reasons.
But, most importantly the governor knew that there were more in his/her state on the side of inviting refugees than there are of you who want to see the program constrained or flat out abolished.
Now that isn’t so everywhere. Here is a story from Tennessee yesterday about how one county commission struggled with the decision and ultimately did nothing on the same day that the Maryland judge slapped the President down.
It is an opinion piece (for more refugees) critical of the non-action taken at a county meeting this week. One line jumped out at me, from the Chattanooga Times Free Press as the reason the meeting ended with no action:
Their reticence to vote for the resolution, like Coppinger’s, was likely born because, as the mayor said, “you cannot overcome social media.”
Clearly the opposition to more refugees being placed in Hamilton County was of sufficient magnitude to at least stop the consent train.
The opposition to more resettlement in Tennessee may be the strongest and best organized in the nation. The problem is every state doesn’t have the grassroots network that Tennessee has developed over the years.
We have to change that, if we expect to do battle with the juggernaut of Leftwing/Dems working with big business interests and RINO governors that are changing America by changing the people.
Previously, I reported that Appomattox County, Virginia had gone on record in response to the President’s refugee resettlement reform plan and said no thanks to refugee resettlement.
Every county in America is up for grabsas the US State Department hires its contractors for later in Fiscal Year 2020 to place the Africans, Asians and Middle Easterners (largely chosen by the UN) destined for Anytown, USA.
Now check this out, Beltrami County, Minnesota voted Tuesday to tell the State Department to count them out.
Even if Beltrami has not been a target site in the past, they want to make it clear that at least for FY2020 they don’t want to be like some other of the refugee hotbeds in the state.
Speaking of hotbeds, Stearns County (St. Cloud) voted to table the issue until the end of the month as did several other refugee resettlement locations in the state.
From theBemidji Pioneer where reporter Matthew Liedke did an excellent job of explaining the complex issue. H/T Ron
UPDATED: Beltrami County votes no to accepting refugees
Tuesday’s no vote in Bemidji was the first for any county in Minnesota.
BEMIDJI — With applause from a loud, passionate crowd Beltrami County on Tuesday, Jan. 7, became the first local government unit in Minnesota to refuse refugee resettlements.
In a 3-2 vote, the county’s Board of Commissioners chose to opt out of accepting refugee resettlements.The decision comes months after President Donald Trump signed an executive order enhancing state and local involvement in refugee resettlements. The order says the federal government “should resettle refugees only in those jurisdictions in which both the State and local governments have consented to receive refugees.”
While the order doesn’t take effect until June, though, resettlement affiliates and nonprofits are required to submit their placement strategies to the State Department by Jan. 31. Because of the short timeline, District 1 Commissioner Craig Gaasvig said organizing a public hearing wouldn’t be feasible, and as a result, the crowd of at least 200 people weren’t able to comment Tuesday at the meeting in Bemidji.
While no official comment period was held, the standing room only crowd extending out into the lobby of the County Administration Building did make itself heard at various times in the meeting.Additionally, when asked by Gaasvig for a show of hands on how many were opposed to accepting refugee resettlements, a clear majority of the crowd raised their hands. More than 200 people attended the meeting.
The refugee subject has been the talk of the area for the past few days.While it wasn’t on the agenda Monday for Bemidji’s City Council meeting, City Hall was still packed with individuals expressing concern over the matter.
Earlier Tuesday, the St. Louis County Board voted 4-3 to delay its response to refugee resettlement until May after two-and-a-half hours of testimony in Duluth.
Counties to have approved accepting refugees after the executive order takes effect include Blue Earth, Kandiyohi and Nicollet. According to the Associated Press, the nation’s first county to ban refugee resettlement was Appomattox County, Va., where commissioners voted 4-1 on Dec. 17 to deny consent to resettlement.
Since 1980, more than 100,000 individuals have come to Minnesota through the United States Refugee Admissions Program.