Plain Ol?  How is it that you can obfuscate and totally ignore the fact
that the woman who you support for POTUS is an Open Borders/Open Trade" far
left liberal extremist, who has championed increasing Syrian
Rebels/Refugees by 550%?

Nevermind.  It's really quite clear when one thinks about it.



On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:52 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> *Hillary Clinton’s “Open Borders” Dream*
> *---*
> RELIGIOUS 'CHARITIES' PROFIT FROM OPEN BORDERS
>
> Thousands of Central American children crossing the border illegally could
> soon turn into asylum seekers armed with immigration lawyers provided by
> church groups and paid for by federal tax dollars.
>
> WND reported Friday
> <http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/church-raising-money-for-illegals/> that
> Catholic Charities USA and other religious groups were working behind the
> scenes with the federal government to temporarily house and resettle the
> children in dozens of communities across the United States.
>
> Catholic Charities is running a fundraising campaign to help finance the
> resettlement of the illegal aliens, WND reported. But the religious
> charities get the bulk of their funding not from private donors or church
> members putting checks into a basket. They get it from the federal
> government.
>
> Alexandria, Va.-based Catholic Charities USA reported receiving $1.7
> million in government grants in 2012, according to its IRS Form 990
> <http://catholiccharitiesusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/CCUSA-2013-990.pdf>
> .
>
> But one of the largest recipients of government funds to resettle
> immigrant children is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The USCCB
> helps resettle not only unaccompanied alien children, or UACs, who enter
> the country illegally but also refugees fleeing persecution overseas who
> enter through legal channels.
>
> The USCCB is one of nine agencies that receive hundreds of millions in tax
> dollars to resettle refugees and asylum seekers in the U.S. under contract
> with the federal government. Six of the nine contractors are religious
> groups, WND has learned, including the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee
> Service, Episcopal Migration Ministries, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society,
> the Church World Service and World Relief Corp., which includes a plethora
> of evangelical groups.
>
> The Catholic Bishops alone received $65.9 million in federal grants to
> care for unaccompanied alien children and refugees, according to its 2012
> annual report
> <http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-and-refugee-services/upload/Annual-Report-2012.pdf>
> .
>
> By contrast, the group raised $1.4 million from its own church members
> while federal loans and private-sector grants made up the remainder of the
> $71 million spent on the resettlements that year. That means 93 percent of
> the USCCB’s spending on charity work with UACs and refugees was covered by
> the American taxpayer.
>
> Kevin Appleby, director of USCC’s Migration and Refugee Services Office,
> did not respond to calls and emails from WND seeking comment.
>
> Similar funding ratios have been found to be the norm with the Lutheran
> effort.
>
> The Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service reported total income of
> $41.7 million in 2012, and government grants accounted for $40.4 million,
> or 96.8 percent of that amount, according to the nonprofit’s most recently
> reported Form 990
> <http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/132/574/2012-132574854-0989f698-9.pdf>,
> a disclosure that nonprofits must file with the Internal Revenue Service.
> The group raised only $1.3 million from private donors.
>
> Miji Bell, press spokeswoman for Lutheran Immigration, also did not return
> calls Tuesday.
>
> The money for refugees and asylum seekers may not even include the federal
> money funneled to Catholic Charities USA and other religious groups to
> resettle illegal border crossers coming into Texas, Arizona or New Mexico
> who arrive by themselves. The charities often subcontract with other
> charities, making it difficult to track the money.
>
> The numbers of UACs coming through the Southern border have increased
> dramatically since 2009, and so have the costs, according to the Office of
> Refugee Resettlement, which operates within the Department of Health and
> Human Services.
>
> Eight years ago, the program averaged 6,775 referrals a year. In fiscal
> 2013 the number reached 24,668. Now, the agency is expecting 60,000
> referrals in 2014 at a cost to the U.S. government of more than $750
> million, up from less than $500 million in 2013 and less than $250 million
> in 2009.
>
> The University of Texas at El Paso’s National Center for Border Security
> and Immigration conducted a study
> <http://ncbsi.utep.edu/documents/UAC%20Project%20Site%20Visits/UTEP%20NCBSI%20Final%20Report%20March%2020%202014.pdf>
>  published
> in March in which it laid bare the major cause of the problem –
> exploitation of weak border enforcement policies by the U.S.
>
> “Both Border Patrol and ICE ERO officers agreed that the lack of
> deterrence for crossing the U.S.-Mexican border has impacted the rate at
> which they apprehend UACs. Officers are certain that UACs are aware of the
> relative lack of consequences they will receive when apprehended at the
> U.S. border,” the authors wrote on page 3 of the UTEP study. “UTEP was
> informed that smugglers of family members of UACs understand that once a
> UAC is apprehended for illegal entry into the United States, the individual
> will be re-united with a U.S. based family member pending the disposition
> of the immigration hearing. This process appears to be exploited by illegal
> alien smugglers and family members in the United States who wish to reunite
> with separated children.”
>
> How many of the Central American children will seek asylum is not clear at
> this point. The United Nations is considering granting some type of legal
> status to children in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras who can show
> evidence of being persecuted. An asylum seeker differs from a refugee in
> that the person comes into the U.S. on his own, often crossing the border
> illegally, and then seeks to gain asylum through legal channels.
>
> Included in President Obama’s $3.7 billion emergency aid package for
> dealing with the border crisis is $1.1 million for immigration lawyers to
> represent the illegal alien children. Another $1.8 billion would go toward
> resettling the children as opposed to deporting them.
>
> Don Barnett, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, said he would
> like to see the feds rein in the grants and loans to charities that
> resettle refugees and UACs seeking asylum.
>
> The federal government gives out not only grants but loans, and the
> nonprofit charities are able to pocket 25 percent of whatever they collect
> on those loans, Barnett explained. He said many of the loans are made to
> refugees or UACs for travel purposes.
>
> “They actually hire collection agents to get the money back from the
> refugees,” he said. “It’s very profitable for the nonprofits, really quite
> profitable, and it has introduced perverse incentives into the whole
> process, into decision making and policy,” he said. “It totally
> disincentivizes rational thinking.”
>
> These same religious charities can also be found lobbying Congress and the
> Obama administration for amnesty legislation and other policies that
> immigration watchdogs see as encouraging more illegal immigrants to cross
> the border.
>
> On July 2 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a letter
> <http://www.usccb.org/news/2014/14-118.cfm>to Obama urging him not to
> send any of the unaccompanied children who had illegally crossed into the
> U.S. back to their home countries.
>
> “Current law permits children from non-contiguous countries to remain in
> the country until their request for asylum or immigration relief is
> considered by an immigration judge,” said Eusebio Elizondo, auxiliary
> bishop of Seattle and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’
> Committee on Migration. “This is a very vulnerable population which has
> been targeted by organized crime networks in Central America. To return
> them to these criminal elements without a proper adjudication of their
> cases is unconscionable.”
>
> And in 2011, the Catholic Bishops advocated for passage
> <http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15398> of
> the DREAM Act, which would provide permanent legal status, some call it
> amnesty, to young people under 35 brought into the U.S. illegally by their
> parents if they had been here in the country since the age of 16 or
> younger, provided they had completed two years of college or military
> service.
>
> *Conflicts of interest?*
>
> Dan Cadman, with the Center for Immigration Studies, says it’s a conflict
> of interest for a group that benefits financially from immigration – both
> legal and illegal – to try to influence immigration policy.
>
> “It bothers me that any private organization is using a government funding
> stream for that purpose, not only Catholic Charities but Lutheran World
> Service, the Episcopal Church, they’ve all got their hands in the pie,”
> Cadman said. “The thing is that everyone understands that, with a wink and
> a nod, this so-called emergency money (from Obama) is not going to result
> in any substantial number of individuals being deported. It’s just not. How
> ironic to see an emergency budget supplemental request and then when you
> look at the details you see it’s all going to be chewed up for things like
> brick and mortar buildings for resettlement and not used in any useful way
> to stop this tidal wave of human beings.”
>
> Cadman said there is “no doubt in my mind” that the religious NGOs or
> “non-governmental organizations” are working with the United Nations to get
> the children qualified as refugees or asylum seekers.
>
> “The religious charities have had a hand in that,” he said. “There’s no
> doubt in my mind they are looking to afford people status in any way, shape
> or form because the end game is to not get them sent back to their country
> of origin.”
>
> *Children don’t qualify as refugees*
>
> Frank Head Jr., director of Immigration Services for Catholic Charities of
> Arkansas, said the Central American children would not qualify as refugees
> under the current United Nations definition, but it’s not out of the
> question that a special legal status could be created for the children.
>
> “There’s no easy pat answer to that,” he told WND. “They will not get
> refugee status. That’s never been the case. There is a special set of
> regulations for children not accompanied by parents, but no immediate
> status. They get put into a special adjudication system. They never get
> called ‘refugees’ but there is a category, a process where a juvenile who
> is basically an orphan with no family to claim them could get a certain
> status (as an asylum seeker) after a lengthy court battle.”
>
> That court battle could be fought with federally funded lawyers, a
> development even more likely if Obama’s $3.7 billion in emergency aid gets
> passed by Congress.
>
> “The actual answer, everyone wants to know (about the status), but the
> Obama administration has proposed a new set of regulations and $3.7 billion
> to fund it,” Head said. “A juvenile, aside from the fact that they get
> special treatment if caught, and only in recent years have they been
> afforded that special status – they used to get thrown into adult jails –
> they now get treated as a juvenile. But there isn’t any immediate status.
> Definitely there is intensive meetings going on to possibly create some new
> status because the current refugee law doesn’t apply. They couldn’t
> qualify.”
>
> That’s because a refuge by definition is someone who has been pre-screened
> by the U.N. and then allowed to legally enter a host country.
>
> “But these kids for the most part don’t qualify as refugees because you
> have to be part of a designated group facing political or religious
> persecution, but these are just kids fleeing from violence. They’re not
> running off all right-wing children or all left-wing children or
> government-inclined children,” Head said. “It’s not a religious sect, it’s
> not a political group, so they wouldn’t qualify for asylum status and so
> you would ultimately just ship them back and that’s what a lot of people
> want to do. You have a pretty good idea who that is.”
>
> Head said he doesn’t expect the Obama package to pass the
> Republican-dominated House.
>
> Pursuing the U.N.’s channels would be a totally separate approach.
>
> “That would have to be for people who hadn’t entered the country yet,”
> Head said. “The U.N. would have to setup an office in say Guatemala or El
> Salvador and you could come there, make a case and possibly get refugee
> status and get a safe place to come. Even if the U.N. approves you it
> doesn’t mean the U.S. will let you in. But if someone’s already here you
> have to apply for asylum status.”
>
> He said the U.S. lets in 75,000 to 85,000 foreign refugees a year. “And at
> any given time there’s several million in the world.”
>
> This is separate from the unaccompanied alien children who illegally cross
> the border and offer themselves up to be apprehended by Border Patrol
> agents then get turned over the Health and Human Services and given a piece
> of paper ordering them to appear at a deportation hearing two to three
> years down the road.
>
> Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/religious-charities-profit-
> from-open-borders/#S3JjHEIbWJ61tGx8.99
>
> On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 8:39:39 AM UTC-5, Travis wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thursday, 13 October 2016
>>
>> *Will Hillary Clinton’s “Open Borders” Dream End Up Deciding Election —
>> for Trump? *
>>
>> Written by  William F. Jasper
>> <http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/itemlist/user/53-williamfjasper>
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: Description: Will Hillary Clinton’s “Open Borders” Dream End Up
>> Deciding Election — for Trump?]
>> <http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/88753bd16644c0558ada2e5c88abfccd_XL.jpg>
>>
>> Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategists surely breathed a huge sigh of
>> relief when the 2nd Presidential Debate
>> <http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/24245-media-s-anti-trump-bias-obvious-in-second-presidential-debate>ended
>> without any mention of Clinton’s “open borders” comments, which had
>> recently been released by WikiLeaks. They know that, as with the Brexit
>> vote
>> <http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/23501-independence-day-historic-brexit-victory-uk-votes-to-leave-eu>
>> in the UK in June, the deadly reality of “open borders” could end up having
>> a much greater impact on Election Day than the pro-Hillary media polls are
>> showing. British voters revolted against the massive “Project Fear”
>> campaign
>> <http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/23488-brexit-crunch-time-cameron-co-ratchet-up-project-fear-before-vote>
>> waged by Prime Minister David Cameron, President Obama, and virtually all
>> of the British political, banking, academic, and media establishment.
>> British voters demanded a return of their independence and sovereignty.
>> Especially, they demanded control over their own borders, defying the
>> European Union’s claim of the right to decide who (and how many) may
>> migrate to Britain.
>>
>> So, Team Hillary’s strategists were undoubtedly relieved when CNN’s
>> Anderson Cooper and ABC’s Martha Raddatz did them a big favor in the second
>> presidential debate last Sunday by saving their candidate from having to
>> face her record and policies on open borders, immigration, refugees,
>> illegal alien amnesty, and trade treaties. Specifically, Cooper and Raddatz
>> made sure nobody brought up the matter of Hillary Clinton’s speech to
>> Brazilian bankers in which she told of her “dream” of an EU-style
>> hemispheric union of “open trade and open borders.”
>>
>> The “open borders” speech was one of many Clinton bombshells to be
>> dropped by the WikiLeaks organization, in a dump of thousands of hacked
>> e-mails, two days before the debate. It goes to the heart of a timely and
>> vital issue that millions of American voters consider very important.
>> However, Cooper and Raddatz were intent on avoiding the open borders issue
>> and insisted on obsessing instead on the conveniently leaked video of
>> Donald Trump’s vulgar comments from more than a decade ago.
>>
>> Specifically, in a speech to the Brazilian megabank, Banco Itau, Mrs.
>> Clinton said: "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and
>> open borders, sometime in the future with energy that's as green and
>> sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every
>> person in the hemisphere."
>>
>> The social chaos, terrorism, debt, banking crisis, currency crisis, and
>> other crises under which the European common market is disintegrating,
>> offer little to commend the European Union as a hemispheric model for
>> Americans. The ongoing migration tsunami that is wracking and ruining the
>> EU gives us a pretty good picture of what “open borders” look like.
>> Europeans are finding out that the ugly reality is far different from the
>> rosy pictures painted for decades by their politicians — politicians of the
>> same internationalist mold as Hillary Clinton. Borders matter; if you don’t
>> have them you can’t enforce them, and you don’t really even have a country.
>>
>> Hillary Clinton is extremely vulnerable on this issue, even if we do not
>> experience another terror attack by Islamic extremists in this country
>> before the November election.
>>
>> Clinton has leapfrogged over her former boss, President Obama, and called
>> for an even more radical Syrian refugee policy than his very unpopular
>> program. In fact, she called for more than six times the number of refugees
>> proposed by Obama. In a 2015 interview, she said the United States should
>> accept 65,000 refugees from Syria; President Obama’s Syrian refugee plan,
>> at the time, was for 10,000.
>>
>> "We're facing the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II and
>> I think the United States has to do more," the former secretary of state said
>> on CBS's *Face the Nation*.
>> <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-u-s-should-take-65000-syrian-refugees/>
>>  "I
>> would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000
>> and begin immediately to put into place the mechanisms for vetting the
>> people that we would take in."
>>
>> Of course, the “mechanisms for vetting people” comment was an obligatory
>> throwaway line meant to placate voters’ national security concerns. But it
>> was totally devoid of content, since our top security officials have
>> repeatedly pointed out
>> <http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/21638-no-vetting-of-syrian-refugees-in-obama-s-resettlement-invasion>
>> there is no way for us to properly vet these “refugees.” However, the
>> refugee issue is only one part of Hillary’s “open borders” equation; she
>> has also spent a political lifetime — as first lady, senator, secretary of
>> state, Clinton Foundation chieftess — promoting and supporting
>> <http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-and-immigration/>illegal alien
>> amnesty, increased immigration, entitlements of every kind for immigrants
>> (legal and illegal) and fast-track citizenship, and fast-track voting.
>>
>> Beyond the refugee/migrant/immigrant matters that are big-ticket items
>> for the large pool of voters Donald Trump is aiming at, there is the “open
>> trade” and “hemispheric common market” component that crosses party and
>> ideological lines, energizing huge numbers of conservative Republicans, Ron
>> Paul Libertarians, and Bernie Sanders Democrats and Independents. To this
>> broad swath of Americans, the WikiLeaks “open borders” leak confirms
>> Hillary’s firm commitment to the deadly trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific
>> Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
>> <http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21010-10-reasons-why-you-should-oppose-obamatrade>
>> .
>>
>> For the past year and a half, Hillary has been trying to convince voters
>> that despite her role in helping craft the TPP and TTIP (as secretary of
>> state), publicly praising it more than 45 times (as even the pro-Clinton
>> CNN notes
>> <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/>),
>>  and
>> having described the TPP as the “gold standard” of trade agreements. Much
>> of the opposition to the TPP, the TTIP, and other multilateral "trade"
>> agreements of this type has focused on the enormous economic harm that
>> NAFTA has done, especially in terms of millions of lost jobs and the loss
>> of America's once world-dominant manufacturing and technology base. Equally
>> important, though less understood, however, are the numerous attacks on
>> national sovereignty woven into the fabrics of NAFTA, TPP, and TTIP. Like
>> the various treaties that have incrementally transformed the EU into the
>> centralized and increasingly tyrannical behemoth it has become, these
>> regional "trade" treaties actually establish bodies with legislative,
>> executive, and judicial functions that are designed to gradually transform
>> into a regional government that will override our own constitutionally
>> limited government. Hillary Clinton is well aware of these dangers that she
>> has helped build into the TPP and TTIP. The believability of her convenient
>> flip-flop on this crucial issue is about zero; she can be counted on to
>> flip again, if she gets to the Oval Office. Her current anti-TPP stance is
>> most certainly her “public position,” at the moment, but what does she
>> really intend to do on the matter? One of the other inconvenient (for
>> Clinton) WikiLeaks revelations concerned her admission of duplicity, in one
>> of her high-paid speeches to high-end investors, asserting that politicians
>> need to be two-faced, having "both a public and a private position."
>>
>> *Project Fear/Project Smear*
>>
>> The political/business/media/academic elites that targeted the Brexit
>> vote for defeat with “Project Fear” are the same combined forces that
>> have targeted Donald Trump with Project Smear
>> <http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/23440-bilderberg-elites-stop-trump-boost-hillary-stop-brexit-boost-migration>.
>>  Following
>> the Brexit victory, an obviously chastened Richard Haass, president of the
>> world government-promoting, pro-EU, pro-open borders Council on Foreign
>> Relations
>> <http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/1213-council-on-foreign-relations>
>>  (CFR),
>> commented
>> <http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-brexit-warning-trump-2016-6>:
>>  "For
>> Hillary Clinton's campaign, this is something of a warning not to
>> underestimate this disaffection, not to underestimate political and
>> economic nationalism."
>>
>> Hillary Clinton, who, while secretary of state, famously said (in the
>> presence of her “good friend” Richard Haass) that she depended upon the CFR
>> to tell her what to do and what to think (see video of her confession
>> here
>> <http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/15288-cfr-brookings-celebrate-obama-lovefest-for-international-criminal-court>),
>> is obviously listening to the advice of Haass. She has flip-flopped on TPP
>> and has sort of flip-flopped on migration-refugees. She is trying to appeal
>> to all sides; appealing for the Hispanic/immigrant vote by supporting
>> “comprehensive immigration reform” — the longtime code phrase for amnesty
>> and open borders — while at the same time attempting to appeal to Middle
>> America by insisting she intends to implement stringent vetting of
>> refugees/immigrants. The open question is how many American voters will
>> believe her new “public position” on open borders — and how many will
>> believe — or be influenced by/distracted by — Project Smear.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>
>> __._,_.___
>> ------------------------------
>> Posted by: "Beowulf" <beo...@westerndefense.net>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Visit Your Group
>> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMzgwdTJwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NzY0MDIzNzE->
>>
>>
>> [image: Yahoo! Groups]
>> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN2sxc2c4BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ3NjQwMjM3Mg-->
>> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html>
>> • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
>> <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>
>>
>> __,_._,___
>>
>>
>> --
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PoliticalForum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to